Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Gun Control Fanatics Continue Biggest Gun Nanny Contest

February 15, 2013 by  

Gun Control Fanatics Continue Biggest Gun Nanny Contest
PHOTOS.COM

The State lawmaker one-upmanship with regard to gun control continues with a proposal from Missouri House Democrats to confiscate firearms from law-abiding residents.

Missouri House Bill 545 would make a felon of any owners of so-called assault weapons in the State who refused to destroy their firearms, move them across State lines or turn them over to law enforcement officials within 90 days of the bill’s passage.

From the proposed legislation:

Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.

The bill borrows from State and Federal proposals for assault weapon bans proposed by other lawmakers throughout the Nation in the wake of recent shooting tragedies in that its descriptions focus on magazines and the aesthetic characteristics of firearms.

The bill, proposed by Democratic Representative Rory Ellinger, has been largely dismissed by Republican lawmakers in the State who hold a majority in both the House and Senate.

Despite no action being taken on the bill, the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action issued a statement about the measure, reading in part: “Compelling law-abiding citizens to surrender their firearms and magazines is unconstitutional, wrong and another failed attempt to reduce crime.  Criminals—by definition—violate laws, especially gun control laws. They will never surrender their firearms, or comply with any gun control scheme. HB 545 would only affect the lawful, while ignoring the actual problem of violent criminals who misuse firearms.”

Meanwhile, U.S. Senate Democrat Dianne Feinstein has announced that on Feb. 28 she will hold another hearing on her Federal assault weapons ban bill. The Senator claims she was not satisfied with the testimony of witnesses called for the first full Judiciary Committee hearing last month.

Below is a clip of one of the more fact-filled moments that Feinstein may have disliked from the previous hearing:

 

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 “Gun Control Fanatics Continue Biggest Gun Nanny Contest”

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

  • b

    I noticed there was no provision for monetary compensation for the banned firearms. Even if Mr Rolley missed the provision for compensation said compensation would be for a fraction of the value of the firearm.

    • Vicki

      I notice that the bill is unconstitutional and should be thrown out promptly to avoid wasting taxpayer money even bothering to debate it.

      See the SCOTUS ruling in 2010 (McDonald vs Chicago)

      Feinstein should read the ruling in 2009 as well.

      • eddie47d

        High capacity magazines potentially Infringes on the rights of each and every American. There capabilities spread fear and even lessens the rights of those being shot at. (The innocent are always the victims because of the way the weapon works). The Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right to slaughter anyone or give anyone the right to do so. To take away or regulate these weapons of mass killings is upholding the law and hardly infringing on gun owners rights. There will be plenty of weapons that can be used to defend one self,home or property so enough of these excuses or need for high capacity magazines. If you absolutely need a high capacity weapon then be willing to have that weapon regulated. No more excuses about knifes,baseball bats and bombs either for that is a separate issues and can be delt with on its own.

      • rendarsmith

        Eddie, a knife could “potentially infringe on the rights of every American” so could a wrench, a baseball bat, and ipod (yes it has happened). Shall we ban those too? SOCIALISM infringes on the rights of every American, let’s ban that! Bye bye Obama!

      • eddie47d

        Looks like you didn’t get the memo Rendarsmith no surprise there! I could die falling down the stairs or hit with a flying rock so lets not be ridiculous in bringing up I-Pods or knifes.

      • rendarsmith

        Well it’s a totally valid point. Let’s ban cars, how many people die from those? Far more than from guns. You try to quickly dismiss it because you know it is a good point and you don’t want to have to face the hole in your logic. Face it, no matter how hard it tries, the government cannot protect you, you have to protect yourself.

      • eddie47d

        There’s no logic in bringing up cars. I didn’t know they were related to guns and are a totally separate issue. Do cars kill? Well sort of but there are plenty of rules to keep people from doing so and almost none are deliberate so your point is falsely motivated. Few cars “kill” anyone either but strict rules of the road are generally enforced to keep it that way. No one goes into a car dealership and says they want a high capacity car because someday they may need to hurt someone. That is why car injuries/deaths are called accidents and gun injuries/deaths are called attempted murder or murder itself. Very distinct in definition so your logic is illogical. Especially in saying you don’t have the right to protect yourself because you do.

        • BR549

          Eddie47d wrote: “Do cars kill? Well sort of but there are plenty of rules to keep people from doing so and almost none are deliberate so your point is falsely motivated.”

          Jeez, Eddie, when are you going to get with the freakin’ program? Cars don’t kill people like guns do because the issue is in the “intent” and the “retaliatory response” of the angry individuals against a corrupt government. Not surprisingly, the news reports of someone being intentionally struck by a car are just not nearly as gory and attractive to the media and the libtard left as someone getting killed with an AR15. It just isn’t PC to discuss the intentional disenfranchisement of citizens by government officials, while they continue to lie, steal, and cheat their way back into office to impose a dysfunctional foreign policy that besmirches the reputation of every hard working and patriotic American with a conscience.

          Now, if we had a sudden spate of cases where people were steering their cars into crowded pedestrian sidewalks and mashing bloody carcasses up against the buildings, we could always count on the libtards and the media to now have steel guard rails built around every sidewalk in America …. never once ever looking at why people were just plain flipping out and taking their aggression out onto the more visible innocent bystanders instead of the corrupt and invisible government which was what they were REALLY mad at, but no one up there was listening.

          You’ve also written about people getting all geared up to overthrown the government. Eddie, no one wants to overthrow the government; they just want to overthrow the corruption and anyone supporting it. Of course, the politicians with their tainted voting records will all drape themselves in the American flag and defiantly stand up for “their version” of freedom and democracy, and if the libtards haven’t figured that out yet, they don’t deserve to vote …… or even have children.

      • Andy

        The thing we need to pay attention to here is the push now on “legally” owned guns–which interprets into “licensed and registered” which means THEY know where the guns are; the next sound you hear will be when THEY are breaking down your door and demanding your gun(s). We have all taken comfort in our “right to bear arms” but it won’t mean diddly squat as soon as THEY know where these guns are, get it?

      • Dennis48e

        Some years ago I saw a study that said as many as 50% of car accidents were in fact not accidents at all but rather suicide or murder/suicide and many of those involved other vehicles that resulted in innocent people being killed, maimed, injured.

      • eddie47d

        You really drank the bath water on that one Dennis. LOL!

      • eddie47d

        [comment has been edited] So what if a driver is behind the wheel or a gun owner is behind the handgun. Its man who made those items and its man who uses those items for good and for bad. Cars and guns do kill with the help of man. Now you get it? Some of us are sick and tired of lame excuses no matter who or what caused the deaths!

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “High capacity magazines potentially Infringes on the rights of each and every American.”

        And exacxtly how does an inanimate object do that?

        - eddie47d: ” The Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right to slaughter anyone or give anyone the right to do so.”

        Let’s see if captain obvious is correct. “….the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed”

        Why yes, eddie47d bought a clue.

        - eddie47d: “To take away or regulate these weapons of mass killings is upholding the law and hardly infringing on gun owners rights.”

        The law says “…shall NOT be INFRINGED” so infringing on the law is by definition NOT upholding the law.

        - eddie47d: “There will be plenty of weapons that can be used to defend one self,home or property so enough of these excuses or need for high capacity magazines.”

        So now eddie chooses to ignore the first half of the 2nd amendment now that it doesn’t support eddie’s desire to disarm the

        ~300 MILLION Americans who DIDN’T SHOOT ANYONE?

        Stop punishing the innocent for the acts of a few.

        Stop it
        Stop it NOW.

      • JeffH

        Vicki, eddie ignore the fact that he’s stupid too!

        I finally recieved my response from Feinstein after sending her a 2nd letter challenging her to do so.

        Let me know if you though she would say something other than what she said…which is pretty much what was expected from her anyway.
        _______________________________________________

        Dear Mr. JeffH:

        Thank you for contacting me to share your opposition to assault weapons legislation. I respect your opinion on this important issue and welcome the opportunity to provide my point of view.

        Mass shootings are a serious problem in our country, and I have watched this problem get worse and worse over the 40 years I have been in public life. From the 1966 shooting rampage at the University of Texas that killed 14 people and wounded 32 others, to the Newtown massacre that killed 20 children and 6 school teachers and faculty, I have seen more and more of these killings. I have had families tell me that they no longer feel safe in a mall, in a movie theater, in their business, and in other public places, because these deadly weapons are so readily available. These assault weapons too often fall into the hands of grievance killers, juveniles, gangs, and the deranged.

        I recognize that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to bear arms, but I do not believe that right is unlimited or that it precludes taking action to prevent mass shootings. Indeed, in the same Supreme Court decision that recognized the individual right to bear arms, District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court also held that this right, like other constitutional rights, is not unlimited. That is why assault weapons bans have consistently been upheld in the courts, both before and after the Heller decision. I believe regulation of these weapons is appropriate.

        Once again, thank you for your letter. Although we may disagree, I appreciate hearing from you and will be mindful of your thoughts as the debate on this issue continues. If you have any additional comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841.

        Sincerely yours,

        Dianne Feinstein
        United States Senator
        ___________________________________________

        What I do know is that ~300 MILLION AMERICANS DID NOT ASSAULT ANYONE USING ANY FIREARM.

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

        Join us in telling them to STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT

        STOP IT

        STOP IT NOW

      • Average Joe

        Vicki ,

        I applaud you for the comment that you always add,”~300 MILLION Americans who DIDN’T SHOOT ANYONE?

        Stop punishing the innocent for the acts of a few.

        Stop it
        Stop it NOW.”

        However, with eddie being the half-witted /nit-wit that he is, I think it needs to be ammended to say…”Well over ~300 MILLION Americans who DIDN’T SHOOT ANYONE

        Stop punishing the innocent for the acts of a few.

        Stop it
        Stop it NOW.”

        Otherwise, edwierdo will argue that acorrding to the census there are 313 million peeps here…therefore, 13 million peeps did shoot somone…you you how his twisted little mind works…little… to… not at all.

        AJ

      • Vicki

        Average Joe says:
        “Vicki ,I applaud you for the comment that you always add,”~300 MILLION Americans who DIDN’T SHOOT ANYONE…

        However, with eddie being the half-witted /nit-wit that he is, I think it needs to be ammended to say…”Well over ~300 MILLION Americans who DIDN’T SHOOT ANYONE…..

        Otherwise, edwierdo will argue that acorrding to the census there are 313 million peeps here…therefore, 13 million peeps did shoot somone…you you how his twisted little mind works…little… to… not at all.”

        I welcome his attempt (Dave67 or some other posters have already tried). then I can point to this little symbol “~” that appears before the 3 and remind them that it means approximately. So 315 million is a closer approximation but approximately 300 million is more than close enough to make our point. It is also easy to verify. just look up the current population then look up the fbi shooting stats.

        Of course to be more accurate you would have to match the stats (the most current will not be for 2013) to the population of the year the stats were gathered.

        However the beauty of a self evident truth is that you do not need to go to count to the last person to get the point.

        In the last day alone for instance

        ~300 MILLION AMERICANS DID NOT SHOOT ANYONE.

        STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT for the acts of a few. (how many shot someone yesterday?)

        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW

        Oh and please feel free to use directly and re-quote. I released the statement to public domain a while ago.

      • Vicki

        JeffH says to me:
        “Let me know if you though she would say something other than what she said…which is pretty much what was expected from her anyway.”

        That’s pretty much what she has said to me. Did you mention to her about the ~300 million innocents she plans on punishing?

      • JeffH

        Vicki, no I didn’t but I assure you that she will be recieving more letters from me and in each one I will be sure to stress that very point.

  • Jim

    Let’s assume these clowns simply ignore the law and pass this bill anyway. Do they seriously believe that “law abiding citizens” who are concerned about the direction these Marxists are taking this nation will simply roll over like trained puppies? Do they seriously believe that they will impose enforcement and that by the time law suits are heard, “the damage will already have been done and confiscation will have take place? Do they seriously believe that people are so intimidated by this obvious attempt to overthrow this government that no one will resist? Do they believe no LE will get hurt in the process? Do they seriously believe they are safely entrenched so as to not feel the wrath of certain individuals? If so, the I would suggest a trip to a mental ward. They will start something that most likely they will not be able to finish.

    • eddie47d

      That’s one of the big problems in all this talk about overthrowing the government. You all treat it as a game and an absolute necessity when it is not. You poke and prod your extremism’s onto those around you and society (the other citizens) and they know the violence you are willing to advocate for. They also see the dangers in what you are capable of doing or unleashing onto the public. “To feel the wrath of certain individuals” and your “obvious attempt to overthrow the government” kind of says it all in what you really want to do. The Sovereign Citizens Nation group has already taken the law into their own hands so who says we should trust your motives? You’re hardly champions of Freedom in what you desire or in how you plan on accomplishing that mission.

      • sheep dog on patrol

        Trying, attempting to disarm the American public and leave them defenseless, THAT is the extremism you Bozo. You always twist theings around. What has happened in every country right after the citizens were disarmed? You know as well as I do that those governments rounded up every person who did not believe as they did and the genocide began. How much do they pay you to come on this site and spew your crap? Semiautomatic weapons and high capacity magazines have never hurt anyone. ONLY sick, evil people have. THAT’S where the problem lies and you know it. Laws do NOT affect evil, mean, dishonest people because THEY do not care what the laws are and they DON’T play by the rules. That’s why honest, law abiding citizens need and have a GOD given right to have these kinds of guns and magazines. We need and have a God given right to be able to defend ourselves and our families against these predators and the kinds of politicians that would take these rights away from us. YOU and people like you are a huge part of that problem in so far as you always take the truth and twist it out of any kind of recognizable condition.

      • eddie47d

        Sheepy: You won’t be disarmed and yes there are plenty of wackos out there on the right willing to use those weapons and don’t care who they kill. Read up on the various groups such as the Alaskan Peacekeepers Militia and get a dose of reality in what they were threatening. Other states have these same type groups so don’t be so naive yourself because they are also loaded for bear.

      • WillytheGeek

        Eddie, It’s NOT the magazines, firearms that you say infringe on peoples right. It’s the PERSON that use inanimate objects to commit crimes. No matter if it is a firearm, knife, fork, spear made out of a tree limb, baseball bat, automobile, prescribed medication used to poison, etc. Don’t forget the government of England traveled several thousand miles to America ( which btw didn’t belong to them) to usurp thier authority over people that left thier lousy country’s government.

      • eddie47d

        England? Now were getting into world history instead of taking care of our own history. England was the government for awhile if you wants to change the topic. France controlled parts of our land too. Russia controlled parts of Europe and Asia but it wasn’t an armed people that won their freedom but a bankrupt mother country. Guns didn’t win the day but worldwide pressure,condemnation and a weak Russian government. Guns of any caliber won’t win freedom for Tibetans and it really wouldn’t be much different here for all you glory seekers. We have a darn good system that doesn’t need overthrowing and certainly not by the violent means which so many of you advocate for. How’d that French Revolution work out for them? Nice for the dreamers but all it did was replace a king with a dictator who wasted France’s wealth on conquests and carnage. I see too many misplaced motives of wishful revolution coming from the right in America. They seem to be more harmful to Americas future than any of Obama’s agenda. All the high capacity magazines in the world won’t save the day as you all believe and nothing more than a feel good agenda of your own.

      • Hedgehog

        Eddie47d, read your constitution! I am a Canadian. I have no dog in this fight, until Obama’s armies cross our mutual border. You and many like you are making a fundamental error. The government of the US is not the supreme law of the land! The CONSTITUTION is the supreme law of the land, backed by the armed might of “YOU THE PEOPLE”. The government is your servant, not your master. If you the people don’t like the way the government is serving you, change the government. If the ballot box is not working and your SERVANTS in their arrogance want to disarm you so that you cannot exercise your armed might to defend the Constitution, then rise up and remove them by force as is your right and duty under the Constitution. If the U.N. sends in troops to aid your government, kill them as the foreign invaders they are. I say again THE CONSTITUTION IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, BACKED BY THE ARMED MIGHT OF THE PEOPLE, DEFEND IT!

      • Gary L

        When government no longer answers to the people but makes the people subject to the government it is time for that government to be overthrown. It is the 2nd amendment that makes that possible. The citizenry without guns is like a bulldog with no teeth.

      • http://exodus-consulting.com Thomas

        I just downloaded the plans to 3D print a fully functional 30-round magazine for an AR-15. It’s called the “Cuomo”. Watch eddie have kittens in 3…2…1…

      • JeffH

        eddie the HYPOCRITE speaks stupid over and over.

        He says “That’s one of the big problems in all this talk about overthrowing the government. You all treat it as a game and an absolute necessity when it is not.”

        No where in the comment you responded to was there mention of “overthrowing the government”.

        That is the very “CONJECTURE” that you ignorantly like to accuse others of…HYPOCRITE!

        Stupid is as stupid does!

      • Vicki

        Eddie has made a big deal about not needing (scary looking) guns. I found this image that shows each type of gun (in very general terms) and what it is used for.

        http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/gun-guide.jpg

      • JeffH

        Vicki, nice. I prefer my shotguns with traditional stocks but the pistol grip “make them look evil”. :)

  • Darrell Parker

    They can have have my weapons after they kill me first. This guy is an idiot and whoever voted him in, needs to vote him out and let him get a real job. I think his school district could use him cleaning up the parking lot.

  • http://Hudson John Hudson

    Lets send this Politition a one way ticket to Cuba or Mexico where he will feel safer.I mean at least he won’t have to worry about law abiding citzens using a weapon againt him ( they can’t own a gun ) only the criminals and the corrupt Government will take aim.

  • Peter

    You know when our founding fathers said that we have the right too bear arms it does not say what kind of arms you can have so the way I see it you have the right too any kind of small arms that you would like to have. And the other reason we have theright too bear arms is so we have a way too over throw our own goverment if they get out of hand I hope it does not get too that point though. And we the people should be able to have the same kind of firearms as our goverment because when our founding fathers went to war with the British it was musket against musket. So since our goverment has M-16s we the people should have M-16s keep the playing field even.

    • sheep dog on patrol

      Peter,
      You’re petty much spot on. All they had in those days was muskets. Later on, the metallic cartrige was invented and allowed a whole new breed of firearms to evolve. Bolt actions and lever guns were invented and now, the people of the world had guns that could fire anywhere from three to eight rounds in rapid succession. The revolver was invented and now man had a sidearm for up and close protection. Interestingly, all through history, it was the private sector that had access to these firearms and it was usually the military that adopted them after they saw how they worked with the private sector. It wasn’t until much later in history that the military bodies of countries began research into creating more deadly weapons. IE, the Gatlin gun and most every semi-automatic weapon since. Even the famous Browning semi-automatic rifle that sportsmen use today evolved from the military version called the BAR. Then came the atomic age and we know how that went with Japan. Now, today, the military has the most formidable weapons imaginable to include these airborne drones that have been used extensively in the middle east. And, now this government has begun using them here in America to watch us and even control us. How does that make you feel? Our founding fathers gave us the second amendment so that we could deter a government that is doing exactly what this government IS doing. Am I the only one who can see this?

      • Hedgehog

        No Sheepdog on patrol, you’re not the only one who sees it! The problem is I’m a Canadian and am on this website through the courtesy of Mr. Livingston. I don’t have a congressman, or a senator or a president for that matter.The best I can do is voice my opinions on this website. The biggest mistake I see you Americans making is the belief that you live in a democracy, you don’t! You live in a Constitutional Republic! You have the constitutional right and duty to overthrow any tyrannical government such as the one you have now. Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy! You have an elected president, we have a Queen. Part of your problem is that Obama is not satisfied to be your president. He wants to become your Queen and absolute monarch! Our Queen in Canada is not an absolute monarch, she is head of state in name only. I’ll shut up now, I feel a lecture on comparative government coming on!

      • sheep dog on patrol

        Hedgehog,
        Your comments are welcome. In fact, we need more outsider’s thoughts and I’d like to see some from the people of Australia about how that gun control thing has been working out for them. I believe we all know exactly how that’s working out for them. But, you are absolutely correct. Our founding fathers established a Constitutional Republic. It is through the constant use of the word “Democracy” that we have been duped into believing that we live in a democracy. A democracy is nothing more than three wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch……and that’s is exactly what we now have. Believe me, there are over 90 million well armed citizens in this country that have no intent on becoming subjects or lunch for these wolves..

    • http://Old Mark

      Actually, the original right was to bear all arms, not just small arms. Infringement on the 2nd amendment has been occurring for over 100 years. The scary prospect is that if the military follows the orders of a treasonous president, ignoring their own oath to fight all that violate the Constitution, we’re all screwed. It doesn’t matter how many rounds our handguns and rifles hold when there are drones and gunships with mounted 50 caliber machine guns.

  • sheep dog on patrol

    This is a very simple to understand explanation of how it works. In Mexico, nobody is allowed to have a semi-automatic weapon except the Federal Police and…….the drug cartels. All of the everyday good Mexican people can’t have one and they are the ones being slaughtered by the drug dealers who have been supplied more semi-automatic weapons by Eric Holder’s BATF. Criminals do not obey and will not obey any gun control laws that these moronic politicians come up with and these moronic law makers know this to be true. So, why do they persist in coming up with these moronic pieces of legislation? It’s because their REAL agenda is not to make us and our children safer. It’s to disarm the American public so that we can not come after them. These politicians like this Democratic Representative Rory Ellinger are the domestic enemy that every military person has sworn an oath to defend our nation and our Constitution against. His act, in proposing such legislation, is treasonous as it attacks our second amendment and our liberties. HE IS GUILTY OF TREASON! He must be removed from office and tried as a traitor to our Republic. THAT is the appropriate action………period.

    • Poor tax payer

      Right. The government does NOT care about twenty childeren killed by a sicko. If they did, they would have done something about Roe V Wade. We have killed 50,000,000 childeren since Roe v Wade for convenience. Life does not appear to mean much to the government (unless it’s a cop in LA). Next will be terminating the elderly to cut medical costs (for convenience).

  • Patriot charles

    There is only one way to stop this runaway evil government
    every elected official — that enters a bill that violates the Constitution of these United States of America should upon its being officially filed, be arrested and held without bail until tried in court. every elected official and government employee that refuses to The enforce the laws of these United States of America should immediately arrested and held without bail until tried in court. This should also include all those that are no longer in office. Appropriate charges, all that apply, should be made and those that are convicted of Treason (most of them) should be immediately and publicly executed. Its time to enforce the laws of the land.
    Local sheriffs— get to work on this you are the last hope.
    or- are there any federal marshalls with the intestinal fortitude to do the jod

    • BR549

      Chuck, …. Nice!
      Only, just to drive the point home, rather than use a firing squad, which would only make the bastards more indignant and sanctimonious, my old favorite was a cinder block and chain off the back of the ferry.

      Hey, they took an oath. They abused it. They can contemplate that on their way to the bottom.

      • Andy

        Right on! I second that motion.

    • Chris

      I like your way of thinking, Patriot Charles.

  • csaaphill

    I’m truly beginging to see what the war on the mind is. It’s those lame remarks like this eddie saying how were so much in the wrong. Our rights don’t end with his starting ours stay and if he can’t get what they want without infringing then he/they need to find a different way. Enough said.

    • eddie47d

      You and others say the same thing from a far right point of view so how are you any different CSAAPHILL? I would never dream of taking away someones right to defend themselves but those high capacity weapons are not needed except for extreme rare situations. Your more hooked on rights instead of the wrongs that occur with these weapons. You need to wrap your mind around a better solution because what is going on now isn’t working. If someone absolutely needs a high capacity weapon then special permits can be authorized for that. Beyond that its more about ego than self defense.

      • meteorlady

        I’d have to say that my brother, who is border patrol and has a ranch on the border, would argue with you on why high capacity is a need here. His neighbor is dead – shot with an automatic weapon when he stubbled on drug smugglers on his property.

        You don’t see that on the nightly news because they don’t want you to know how bad and dangerous the borders are along Texas, Arizona, New Mexico. They just want you to feel sorry for the illegals that come here and work, while sucking up our welfare money because they seem to fathom not having children you can’t support.

      • Frank Kahn

        The point of reference is the problem here eddie, not the side you are on. Common sense is what is needed, and is missing in both your and the rest of the anti-gun people’s. Extreme views for control based on small isolated tragedies is not common sense.

        Saying that you need to remove high capacity magazines, because they increase the number of people you can kill, makes no logical sense.

        My owning an AR-15 with several 30 round magazines does not infringe on any of your rights or liberties.

        If I go crazy, and kill people with my guns, then I have infringed on others rights but, I have also broken the law and will have my legal ability to keep and bear arms removed. This law is not just if I use a high capacity magazine or a “scary looking” semi-automatic weapon.

        If I shoot you in the head with a single shot 12 gauge shotgun you will be just as dead as if it was an AR-15. Actually, considering the ballistic characteristics of .223 caliber ammunition compared with the power of the 12 gauge, you are more likely to die with the first shot from the shotgun. Since that is the case, a 12 gauge shotgun with a 10 round magazine is more deadly than an AR-15 with a 30 round one. Hell, with the shotgun I dont even have to do head shots, a shot to the inner thigh will do enough damage to make you bleed out.

        On your last idea, I know that it is a waste of time to use logic with you but, lets look at your statement and see if it makes logical sense.

        You said, if you have a need for a high capacity magazine you can get a special permit.

        First of all this is kinda like a “Catch-22″ statement.

        Consider your personal opinion here, you keep saying “nobody needs a high capacity magazine”, since this is an opinion it is invalid but, lets say we allow your opinion to be the rule.

        Since the rule of eddie says nobody needs a high capacity magazine, how do I prove I need one? Well, according to eddie, there needs to be an attack on my person and/or property where my life is threatened by a large number of people. Since eddie claims that this possibility is virtually non-existent, I can not use a hypothetical situation, it must actually happen.

        So, to qualify for the special permit and be allowed to have what I need to protect myself, I must first hope that I survive the first attack.

        In reality, I will probably be killed in the first attack so “to get the permit to have the tools to defend myself”, I have to die in the attack that proves I need the tools in the first place.

        But, wait, it gets worse. Now, assuming I survive the first attack, we go back to eddie for permission to get high capacity magazines.

        Here is the logic for eddie to deny the request.

        Yes, I see you were, indeed, attacked by 40 heavily armed assailants, however you survived that attack without the high capacity magazines so you obviously dont need them for defense. Also, I am sure that this was such an isolated incident that it will never happen to you again.

        And besides, I pee myself when I find out someone has high capacity magazines and scary looking semi-automatic weapons.

        So, we know that “scary looking” semi-automatic weapons does not increase their capacity to kill. It can, and has been proven, that a person can swap out 10 round capacity magazines in less than 2 seconds. So, thirty rounds takes 2 – 4 seconds longer with 10 round as opposed to 30 round magazines. Logic states that, if you wait till you need the ability, it is already too late. I remember a saying we had in the military, it goes like this, Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance. Even the boy scouts have preparedness in their motto. Why do you think that being prepared is bad or paranoid?

      • eddie47d

        Yes Frank your paranoia is talking out loud but not a bad analogy.

      • JeffH

        eddie, although it’s your right to do so, quit making a fool of yourself and quit acting stupid. Why don’t you just come out and say what you think and believe…that you don’t want anyone but the government to have guns, assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

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

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

        Join us in telling them to STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT

        STOP IT

        STOP IT NOW

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        ” I would never dream of taking away someones right to defend themselves but those high capacity weapons are not needed except for extreme rare situations.”

        Good. So for those rare situations (LA Rodney King Riots) we will keep our HiCap firearms thanks.

        - eddie47d: “Your more hooked on rights instead of the wrongs that occur with these weapons.”

        Not even close. I have even pointed out that the number of wrongs that occur where firearm=scary looking gun is way way way less than 0.01% of the population. And just to be conservative the 0.01% comes from comparing the

        ~300 MILLION Americans who did not shoot anyone.

        with the number of people who were killed where tool=gun (any type any reason)

        That number, given to us by a poster was about 30,000. Now we further presumed only one shooter and one gun per incident. 30,000 is 0.01 percent of the population.

        Thus

        ~300 MILLION Americans did not shoot anyone last year.

        STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT.

        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW

        - eddie47d: “You need to wrap your mind around a better solution because what is going on now isn’t working.”

        We know. GUN FREE Zones get people killed. That is why we want them gone.

        - eddie47d: “If someone absolutely needs a high capacity weapon then special permits can be authorized for that.”

        Tell that to the people who wanted to exercise their GOD given right to defend themselves during the Rodney King Riots. They went to buy a gun. Even a little low cap hand gun came with a waiting period.

        Thus demonstrating that a right delayed is a right denied.

      • Vicki

        Frank Kahn says:
        “Extreme views for control based on small isolated tragedies is not common sense.”

        Which is why I came up with my point about not punishing the
        ~300 MILLION Americans who didn’t shoot anyone for the acts of a (VERY) few.

        - Frank Kahn: “My owning an AR-15 with several 30 round magazines does not infringe on any of your rights or liberties.”

        No they do not. Eddie and flashy in particular have both claimed that they do. But when asked to say which ones they are mysteriously silent.

  • csaaphill

    eddies a liear. what do you call confication then if we don’t comply? I call that diarmament. Don’t believe for one moment either that the 06 will be left alone either, once something else happens they will be after those as well.
    Molon Labe people.
    Besides were the ones putting our lives on the line when and if this happens not him.

    • eddie47d

      That depends on whether you want a violent America or not. Where problems are solved with high capacity magazines or not. If the means are readily handy then they will be used and that could be any capacity weapon. The difference is how many are needlessly killed with a handgun vs a semi-automatic? We certainly don’t want the means to stop a robber or rapist to be taken away but in almost all cases those multiple magazine weapons are not needed for that. Rare exceptions don’t make the rules.

      • Brad n TX

        No Eddie the high capacity magazines are needed for when government comes to take your away by point theirs at you dumb ass!

      • sheep dog on patrol

        Let’s assume that all s__t has hit the fan. The economy has completely collapsed, thousands upon thousands of people are out of work and a flash mob of approximately 40 of them are coming up your driveway to get every bit of food and water you have. Are you telling me all you need is a Taurus Judge with 5 rounds of ammo? And are you telling me you can reload fast enough not to have your Taurus Judge taken away from you and your own brains blown out by one of the mob members? Why is it that the Department of Homeland Security has just ordered 7,000 AR-15 rifles and over 500 million rounds of ammunition and an equal amount of 30 round high capacity magazines?

      • Brad in TX

        Eddie theprbl;em is theft is theft, being a thug on the street or a thug from DC. we need high compacity magazines to protect us from allthugs. Because when DC comes for your’s, they will have theirs. You have blinders onas most liberals do. You are the ones that will suffer the most when it happens dumb ass!

      • http://Arkybill.cominprogress Bill Henry

        Eddy forgets that most of these inner city murders are caused by well organized and well heeled gangs. They are rampant in every town and city in this country. The have the funds to buy anything they want, and when you disarm the citizenry you are giving them what they want which is to rob, pillage, rape and kill the honest law abiding citizens of this country. If you don’t believe it, I will give you a map of the city across the river that only includes the streets where only gang members dare to walk after dark to the law abiding neighborhoods where they wreak their havoc. The police do no help, and the sheriff does not help and there is a city marshal who does not help. The guys range around the whole area oing their crimes mostly against unarmed citizens, because the do not want to mess with anyone they know who has a firearm. I know this. I was recently tipped off that there was going to be an attempted robbery at my house by my granddaughter’s boy friend. I told him to inform whoever told him that I was armed and would use my gun to kill anyone trying to break into my house or my outdoor tool shed. These people will not pay any attention to a pair of scissors, or hiding under a bed, or any other reason espoused by so called progressive, they belong to the aggressive party. You see Eddy, I value my life, the lives of my family, my neighbors, and any citizen being attack by these scum.

      • eddie47d

        Who you fooling Bill. You won’t be out there no matter how much bravado you spew out! The same with Brad!

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “The difference is how many are needlessly killed with a handgun vs a semi-automatic?”

        That you don’t know the difference between an handgun and a semi-auto says much about your nearly zero credibility.

        - eddie47d: “We certainly don’t want the means to stop a robber or rapist to be taken away but in almost all cases those multiple magazine weapons are not needed for that.”

        And your point captain obvious?

        - eddie47d: “Rare exceptions don’t make the rules.”

        Interesting that you should just happen to say that. So explain again why

        ~300 MILLION Americans who did NOT shoot up any school EVER should be punished because of the RARE exception?

        STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT.

        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW

    • FreedomFighter

      Like most tyrants the rules dont apply to them, they will have armed guards, police and other security – armed to the teeth with the most firepower they can carry, they will protect themselves while they denie your right to self-defense:

      Anti-Gun Senator Shoots Intruder
      http://tpo.net/anti_gun_senator/

      Make no mistake, this gangster government run by socialist/communist caba of the democrate party wants nothing less that complete control – confiscation, social slavery, it is NAZI germany 1937 right here, right now and conservatives, christians, vets, preppers are the new JEWS.

      Fight now politically, or face submission to a totalitarian state that wants nothing more than to institute a eugenics based utopian society where 90% of the population is gone, the other 10 or so percent enslaved to a system of social control never seen on earth – dark days for mankind.

      Laus Deo
      Semper FI

      • eddie47d

        You need to differentiate between being anti-gun and anti-self defense. The Senator was not against self protection and the weapon he used would not be banned if ever that would occur. Then you go into the usual cesspool of eugenics and anything else you can throw out there. Nothing more than a shell game for you instead of sticking to the topic of high capacity weapons. Your article only proves that even those who want sensible gun laws understand the right of self defense.

      • meteorlady

        The main question you need to answer Eddie is WHY A honest everyday citizen can’t own any gun they want? What would I do with a machine gun? Now sure, but It sticks in my craw that I an legally not able to have one if I wanted. Less freedom, more control.

        Here’s something to think about…. why isn’t the government banning bad drugs?

        How about we open a dialogue on psychotropic drugs. Aurora movie theater shooter James Holmes, Columbine killer Eric Harris, and a host of other mass murdering young killers were on some type of psychotropic drugs when they committed their crimes.

        According to a study published in the journal PLoS One and based on the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System, the following mind-altering drugs are most frequently linked to violence:

        10. Desvenlafaxine (Pristiq) is an antidepressant associated with 7.9 times more violence than many other drugs.

        9. Venlafaxine (Effexor) is related to Pristiq and is an antidepressant also used in treating those with anxiety disorders. Effexor is 8.3 times more associated with violent behavior than other drugs.

        8. Fluvoxamine (Luvox) is an antidepressant that affects serotonin (SSRI), and is 8.4 times more likely to be linked to violence than other medications

        7. Triazolam (Halcion) can be addictive and is a benzodiazepine that supposedly treats insomnia. It’s 8.7 times more likely to be associated with violence than other medications.

        6. Atomoxetine (Strattera) is often prescribed to tread ADHD and is 9 times more likely to be associated with violence.

        5. Mefoquine (Lariam) treats malaria and sometimes products bizarre behavior, and is 9.5 times more likely to be linked to violence.

        4. Amphetamines come in many forms and are often used to treat ADHD (even to children not diagnosed with ADHD). They are 9.6 times more likely to be linked to violence.

        3. Paroxetine (Paxil) is an SSRI (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor) antidepressant. Many users experience severe withdrawal symptoms and are more likely to produce children with birth defects as well as 10.3 times more likely to be linked to violence than other medications.

        2. Fluoxetine (Prozac) is a household name for a powerful SSRI antidepressant linked with 10.9 times more violence than other drugs.

        1. Varenicline (Chantix) is administered to smokers to supposedly help curb cigarette cravings, but it’s a whopping 18 times more likely to be linked to violent behavior than other drugs.

        Oh wait I answered my own question – because it’s a lucrative source of money for the media and our politicians. So big PHARMA is able to produce numerous toxic crap in the name of what?

      • Howard C

        Why do we even entertain the likes of eddieBS, Really Brainwashed Troll, Karolyn, mark, or nc?? If you ignore their BS then they are talking to thin air.

      • eddie47d

        Sure drugs are part of the problem Meteorlady but so are weapons in the wrong hands. There’s a few posters here I wouldn’t trust with a kitchen knife!

      • Dennis48e

        Howard C we have to respond at least occasionaly to alert any newcomers to the site to just what ________s (insert the adjetive of your choice here) they are.

      • JeffH

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

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

        Join us in telling them to STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT

        STOP IT

        STOP IT NOW

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “You need to differentiate between being anti-gun and anti-self defense.”

        The gun is the best tool (to date) for self defense so being anti the best tool for self defense IS being anti self defense

        http://jpfo.org/articles-assd02/marko.htm

  • csaaphill

    Progressive Socialists know fully well too that thier agenda for Utopia and all won’t mix if the populace still owns gun’s or access is still infettered; which is as it should be. If successfull we should anull all gun ctrl right away and allow machine guns again. Take out all these laws that make for rebelion and loads of crime then hits our gun rights. They pretty much took over the country, but lets show them how its really done.

    • eddie47d

      Still yearning for the good old days of Al Capone and legalized machine guns there CSAAPHILL? You’re more morbid than I originally thought!

      • ranger09

        Back in the 30s machine guns were legal, All it ment was the Crooks could kill the other Crooks Better, Same as the crooks are doing to ea other today, Might even be better for the honest citizens, But keep in mind these are FULL AUTO weapons, But even in those days the 12 Ga shotgun was the weapon of choice.

      • sheep dog on patrol

        Ranger pretty much said it. History will bear me out on this one. Back in the ” good old Al Capone days” only the gangsters and the Feds had the Thompsons. I don’t recall a single incident where some farmer wooped out his Thompson and killed a bunch of kids anywhere. Yet it happens today and what is amzing is how the left liberal media neglets to tell us that EVERY one of thes mass murderers were either children of liberals or registered Liberal Democrats themselves and under observation for some mental disorder. Perhaps something similar to what afflicts Eddie47.

        • BR549

          Sheep Dog wrote: “Yet it happens today and what is amazing is how the left liberal media neglects to tell us that EVERY one of these mass murderers were either children of liberals or registered Liberal Democrats themselves and under observation for some mental disorder.”

          Good point. My ex and I argued frequently about guns; she didn’t want any guns in the house; me, I had a Browning 9mm. She didn’t like the boys playing with toy guns and I finally told her that she couldn’t keep the kids away from TV, the neighbors kids, or the movies, and that if the kids couldn’t grow up with even some modicum of childhood fantasy of being able to take care of themselves, even while playing, she could be sure that the kids would pursue that residual insecurity into their adult lives.

          Occasionally, I would bring the 9mm out, dismantle it, have the kids feel it, heft it, show them the bullets and the barrel so there was no mistake what a real one looked or felt like. I told them there was a huge difference between TOOLS and TOYS, and I never once had any issues, regrets, or consequences for having done so.

          Today, they are both intelligent, clean cut, and hard working young men. They both own multiple firearms and know how to handle weapons. Salt of the Earth, both of them, if I do say so myself, and they both understand about Agenda21.

          My ex, on the other hand, couldn’t ram her nose far enough up Hillary’s a$$. She dressed like her and even changed her hairstyle to constantly match Hillary’s. This woman LOVED pharmaceuticals, while I despised aspirin.

          So, Sheepdog, I can relate.

      • meteorlady

        Poor poor Eddie – tell me how the public used these machine guns?

      • Average Joe

        eddiot says:

        “Still yearning for the good old days of Al Capone and legalized machine guns there CSAAPHILL? ”

        No, but I am considering adding a “bump fire” stock to my WASR…..(for those who don’t know what a bump fire stock is…please watch these videos:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1WhhKH3QVU&feature=pyv&ad=6832211627&kw=%2Bfire%20%2Bstock

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNG7tGjyfm4

        It doesn’t get much better than this….[comment has been edited]

        AJ

      • eddie47d

        Conjecture Sheepy dog! The Wisconsin shooter was very right wing so was the shooter in the NY immigration office.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Conjecture Sheepy dog! The Wisconsin shooter was very right wing so was the shooter in the NY immigration office.”

        Evidence dear, evidence.

      • JeffH

        Average Joe, nice! :)

        Hey, my buddy and I took a trip to the indoor Range to keep our eyes sharp and here’s how my target looked after 100 rounds thru my Sig P226 9mm.
        http://s1162.beta.photobucket.com/user/Hattles1/media/goodguncontrol_zps1c2aeaa3.jpg.html#/user/Hattles1/media/goodguncontrol_zps1c2aeaa3.jpg.html?&_suid=1360975727320010811938669127774

        I’m gonna hang it in my front window so any “would be intruder” understands they’ed be making a fatal mstake.

        • BR549

          JeffH,
          My girlfriend and I (we’re both in our 60s) were at the range a few months ago. She tried out my Rem 700 5R and did nothing but put the rounds inside of a dime. I knew there was a reason I loved that woman.

      • Vicki

        JeffH. Nice patterns. A few too many outliers but that is the point of practice :)

        Btw I really like your silver AR-15?

      • JeffH

        Vicki, I had 5 fliers off of the main body and 2 that could have been non-lethal…I’ll settle for 93% lethal any day but you’re right, that is why we practice.

        I traded the AR in August for a very nice 20 gauge over/under shorgun that I really liked. Of course I now regret trading it and have just put in an order for a new lower and upper kit
        so I can build another one…this time with all of the perks I didn’t have when I built the one in the picture.

        The new one will have an RGUNS anodized lower reciever – desert tan.
        The upper is reciever is a flat top RGUNS 5.56NATO in desert tan with a 20″ fluted bull barrel, a quad railed gas block and aluminum free float hand guard – desert tan

        The sights will be MagPul GenII flip-up front and rear and at some point I’ll put a scope on it, probably another BSA Sweet 223 3-12 like I had on the AR in the picture.

      • JeffH

        BR549, :) nice rifle too…built to Mil-Spec in .308…easily one of the best bolt action rifles made.

        Keep your woman close, sounds like she’s a keeper, especially when she can shoot like that.

        • BR549

          JeffH wrote: “BR549, :) nice rifle too…built to Mil-Spec in .308…easily one of the best bolt action rifles made. Keep your woman close, sounds like she’s a keeper, especially when she can shoot like that”

          The PLR16 on a bipod put 8 out of 10 in a dollar bill at 200 yds. She posed nice with that one.

          We should grab a brew sometime. :o) …… if you ever get to Maine

      • Average Joe

        JeffH,
        Nice pattern for sure! (the comment that was edited above….had something to do with eddie wetting his pants ( after watching the vid…lol)
        Keep your eyes open,your powder dry, your moral compass properly adjusted and your aim true my friend!

        AJ

      • JeffH

        BR549, I’d like that. If I ever get to Maine it would be to hunt for sea ducks, eat some of that great Maine lobster and definately have a brew or two with ya. I’ve looked into buying some of the Maine lobster but they’re just too expensive to get to the west coast where I live.

  • Bill

    This is probably the best issue to unite the conservatives. Take names and remember them at the next election

  • csaaphill

    Eddie omfg read history will you? banning anything that the people have the right to own and possess is a infringement period. When people would give up liberty for a little bit of temporary peace and safety shall deserve and get neither. Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth

    yes quotes from dead slave owners but still true.

    • eddie47d

      Your love affair with high capacity weapons is taking away the liberties of too many innocent lives CSAAPHILL. If no one is safe with an over abundance of these weapons then our Liberties are meaningless. Time for you to try a different tact in supporting that liberty (2nd ) because those dead people have lost their liberties.

      • sheep dog on patrol

        Eddie47,
        What about the many thousands of American men and women who have sacrificed their lives to keep and honor those liberties. Your stupidity is amazing. Nothing that the government has done with all of their gun control crap has done a single thing to save a single life yet they allow thousands of lives to be terminated in abortion clinics every year without ever having a chance to see the light of day. You have that opportunity. Why don’t you use it?

      • Dennis48e

        eddie you really should watch the video. It tears your position to shreds.

      • meteorlady

        Homicides in the us in 2011 – only 3.5% were rifles and high capacity guns are a subset of that. So is the AR15….

        How many unregistered guns cross our porous borders each day? How many guns involved in homicides were unlicensed? How many people were actually killed as a result of Fast & Furious yet none of you have cried out over the facts getting buried.

        Since I’m Sioux I have a little history for you about my ancestors and relatives.

        December 29, 2012 marks the 122nd Anniversary of the murder of 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. These 297 people, in their winter camp, were murdered by federal agents and members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms “for their own safety and protection”. The slaughter began AFTER the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms. When the final round had flown, of the 297 dead or dying, two thirds (200) were women and children.

        Around 40 members of the 7th Cavalry were killed, over half cut down by friendly fire from the Hotchkiss guns of their overzealous comrades-in-arms. Twenty members of the 7th Cavalry were deemed “National Heros” and awarded the Medal of Honor for their acts of cowardice.

        We do not hear of Wounded Knee today. It is not mentioned in our history classes or books. What little does exist about Wounded Knee is normally the sanitized “Official Government Explanation” or the historically and factually inaccurate depictions of the events leading up to the massacre on the movie screen.

        My parents raised me to never trust the government to help or protect me because there was always a motive and that was usually enslavement and control. You should look to history and rethink what you believe – there are a number of countries where millions of the unarmed population were killed AFTER the public was unarmed.

        Not one single criminal, gangbanger, or drug cartel member is going to register a gun but they will most certainly take advantage of an unarmed public.

      • Howard C

        Silly eddieBS, we all know that more laws do not equal more safety. They equal more criminal and more of OUR money wasted to enforce them. You are so silly eddieBS!

      • eddie47d

        Immaterial gibberish from all of you. Your right to defend yourself has not been infringed upon. Only in your minds or is that self loathing dangerous minds.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Your love affair with high capacity weapons is taking away the liberties of too many innocent lives CSAAPHILL.”

        Name just one liberty that has been taken by CSAAPHILL’s (supposed) love affair with the best tool for self defense? You won’t answer because you can’t answer.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Immaterial gibberish from all of you.”

        Ad hominem.

        - eddie47d: “Your right to defend yourself has not been infringed upon.”

        Just our right to keep and carry the best tool(s) for the job. What a nice person you are.

        - eddie47d: “Only in your minds or is that self loathing dangerous minds.”

        Ad hominem.

      • Average Joe

        Vicki,

        “Name just one liberty that has been taken by CSAAPHILL’s (supposed) love affair with the best tool for self defense? ”

        For normal folks, it isn’t even a “supposed” love affair…just common sense…be prepared for the worst and hope for the best.
        This is an eddie thing…”imagined”….to go along with his… “imaginary friends”…..
        eddie is quite simply, a Hoplophobe.

        hoplophobe :

        1.

        A person who is afflicted with an irrational fear of firearms.

        Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer are classic examples of hoplophobes, whose blatant disregard for the U.S. Constitution would make our Founding Fathers roll in their collective graves.

        2.
        An irrational fear of weapons, generally guns, usually occuring as a result of a liberal upbringing or the fact that the person is just a wimp in general. Rather than deal with the fear said hoplophobe will assign human characteristics to a weapon ie “guns are evil” or “guns kill” to justify the fear rather than deal with the core problem of being a sissy.

        Due to his aversion to weapons, all the the police could do for young Seth the hoplophobe was chalk his cold dead body out on the floor as he had no defense for the thug that broke into his one bedroom apartment in San Fran, the policed noted the irony in the fact that the killer had scored three hits in the “O” portion of Seth’s OBAMA 08 T-shirt.
        ;)

        AJ

      • Dennis48e

        Dianne Feinstein does not have a fear of guns. She just believes only the “privileged” should have them. She considers herself to be one of the privileged.

    • Don 2

      It appears as though eddie47d has made a serious accusation against you, relative to you having taken away the liberties of too many innocent lives.

      A clear example of a creepy little left-wing kook thinking that he is your judge, jury, and executioner.

  • Chester

    The way this bill reads, there is to be NO compensation for surrendering illegal weapons, merely the avoidance of a minimum of five years in prison if you are found to have one in your possession 91 days after the bill would be signed by the governor. The IDIOT who wrote that up placed an emergency enactment clause in it so he could toss a BUNCH of people in prison as fast as possible. Actually, doubt he even thought about how many would REFUSE to turn in a five hundred dollar gun for zero compensation just because what they had bought legally was all of a sudden declared illegal.

  • csaaphill

    Eddie I know this won’t matter but oh well
    A well regulated militis being neccessary for the security of a free state. The rights of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed.
    A well regulated militia had nothing to do with being regulated by Gov sorry nope it doesn’t mean that. That’s why I say will you people read some history.
    It means a well armed well drilled well readyed militia. basically well oiled.
    If the fore father meant us to be gov regulated they would not have said shall not be infringed period. It’s an oxy moron to say a well gov regulated militia for hunting and self defence being neccessary to the security of a free state. The rights of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be made an inroad, which is taxed, banned, registered or any other type of GOV. infringement period.
    So basically your saying a well infringed militia being neccassary to the security of a free state. The right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not
    be infringed.
    your guy’s thoughts on that make no sense at all.
    One can not come to anyother conclusion when you read the quotes of our Forefathers. Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth. That one was by no other than George Washington himself.
    I think the problem is they’ve been foind out and are now scrambling for ways to throw us off thier tracks. They’ve already duped us into thinking were a democracy when in fact were a Republic.
    Lol it’s always funny too how they say the 2nd amendment is out of date, but try to take the 1st away and oh no can’t do that. Better yet bring back god into the schools and restart the pledge of allegence I bet they will fight tooth and nail.

    • eddie47d

      Isn’t it great that you also have a right to your opinion and yes I do read history. We also don’t line up thousands of troops facing each other and hoping for a pleasant outcome. History changes and the foolishness of all those wars still doesn’t make much sense. Somewhere out there there will be a better way of solving problems on the home front and in the world. Some changes in gun laws are a must yet the rights of ownership also have to be protected. I made my case about historical facts in my response to RENDARSMITH earlier.

      • meteorlady

        Oh well – here’s a try again….

        A person steals guns, (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW),
        shoots and kills his own mother (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW),
        transports these guns loaded (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW),
        brings guns onto school property (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW),
        breaks into the school (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW),
        discharges the weapons within city limits (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW),
        murders 26 people (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW),
        and commits suicide (WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW).

        So in this country there are thousands of gun laws and this all still keeps happening. According to the FBI violent crime and murder (by any means) is down 54% in this country from 1992 to 2011. Why aren’t you liberals crowing about that?

        According to
        http://www.debate.org/opinions/would-a-ban-on-guns-reduce-crime-in-the-u-s

        75% of the people believe that a gun ban would not reduce violence in this country.

        Here’s some supporting evidence:

        Our violent crime rate is 386 per 100,000. England and Whales have a violent crime rate of 1,361 per 100,000.

        So I can take any of my hunting rifles and do more damage than at scary looking AR15. I can do more damage with a shotgun than an AR15. I can drop a spent clip and load in another one in seconds. See…. it’s about criminals versus ordinary citizens that have rights like me.

      • eddie47d

        Murder rate in US is 58 times higher than in England. Murder with firearms is 668 times higher in US. Crime overall is 82% higher in US. Sweet dreams!

      • BR549

        Eddie wrote: “Somewhere out there there will be a better way of solving problems on the home front and in the world.”

        You have GOT to be kidding me, dude. Let me tell you something. It was said decades ago that if 2% of any given population were actively engaged in meditation on a regular basis, that they could assuage the negativity of the unconscious 98%, and I believe that can happen. I really do. And I really believe that, eventually, the spirit of mankind can collectively overcome millions of years of fear-laden genetics in order to achieve a higher realization of God ……. and I’m not even a religious person.

        But you are living in a fantasy world, my friend; a part of the unconscious component of the world’s population that has no freakin’ clue about how the Universe works. For them, ignorance is bliss. This pie-in-the-sky viewpoint of yours is obviously shared by many in the liberal camp because they either naively believe that taking the guns away will miraculously solve the problem; thinking that if the guns are gone, the problem will be gone, or that the people touting their restriction, removal, or confiscation have nothing but good intentions in doing so.

        That Universe has a big surprise for you, Eddie, because Obama, the Bushes, the Clintons, and all their corrupt and dutiful warriors representing the globalist agenda going back over 100 years, don’t seem to share your world view. All they see is a small part of it that allows their egos to labor under the belief that they have the right to suppress the growth of the human spirit and hope that no one figures out their motives.

        If you can’t see that; that they have all been a voluntary and integral part of that plan, or that the globalists have nothing but good intentions for you, you are, quite frankly, a rube.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d writes:
        “Some changes in gun laws are a must yet the rights of ownership also have to be protected.”

        Indeed they do. And it is really easy. Repeal ALL gun ownership and carry restrictions on the

        ~300 MILLION Americans who didn’t shoot anyone.

        Stop punishing the innocent for the acts of a few

        STOP it
        STOP IT NOW

        All of them including the unconstitutional requirement to get a permission slip to exercise a right (concealed carry).

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Murder rate in US is 58 times higher than in England.”

        And yet in-spite of having a murder rate so much higher then that of another country

        ~300 MILLION AMERICANS DID NOT MURDER ANYONE.

        STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT for the acts of a few.

        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW

      • csaaphill

        not opinion its fact. Our forefathers knew this day was coming. Something special they must have had back then. Nope not a must enough said.

  • csaaphill

    Technically we could ban cars, for cars aren’t a right they are a privilege. That’s what their tring to do too. Make our right to own guns into a privlige.

    • meteorlady

      Last year in this country over 12,000 people died as a result of drunk drivers. 34% were repeats offenders. Yet the liberals campaigned that these people need a second, third and fourth chance. So using the gun logic of liberals we should ban cars.

      Over 194,000 death occurred via medial malpractice at US hospitals so using that logic we should ban hospitals.

      Firearms were used to kill 30,143 people in the United States in 2005, the most recent year with complete data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A total of 17,002 of these were suicides, 12,352 homicides, and 789 accidental firearm deaths. IN 2011 there were 11,493 people died from gun homicides. Seems the figures are going down not up….

      According to the FBI, since 1992 to 2011 violent crime and murders are DOWN 54% in this country so why aren’t the congressional idiots talking about this statistic?

      • Don 2

        I agree with you. Come hell or high water, Conservatives will remain armed when the financial collapse hits. I’m on 30-acres of farm land in the country, equipped with water, and equipment to raise food, chickens, etc., have the guns and ammo needed to keep the little trolls away. Farmers around here have been stocking up for awhile now. They see the hand-writing on the wall.

        I can just imagine the anarchy and hell that will break out in the cities where most of the unarmed liberals reside.

  • csaaphill

    Truely I’d hope that no one would turn in a gun even if compensation came? turning a gun just for compensation is paramount to I’ll only fight tyrrany until theres money to be had.

    • sheep dog on patrol

      I saw something on TV here a while back where some people in California were turning in their guns to get something like a $100.00 Wal-Mart gift card. I sat and thought about that for a minute and then I began laughing. Now I know why California is bankrupt and in the crapper. Those retards turning in the guns were probably a bunch of sheeple that were paid by Obama and set up for the country to see as his “good example” of what to do. I don’t have a single firearm that I would even think of trading for a “shop in China” gift card.

    • meteorlady

      Recently in Washington State they tried this approach. The gun dealers parked alongside them and put up signs for free coffee and donuts and proceeded to purchase the guns at a higher price than the government was willing to pay. That worked out well I think since those guns were not CONFISCATED but rather they will be resold and put back in circulation.

  • securityman

    I will tell you right now that I WILL NOT GIVE UP MY GUNS!!!!!!! I spent 2 1/2 years in viet nam defending this country and I WILL NOT STOP NOW!!!!!!

    • ranger09

      RIGHT ON: I to have spent almost 3 yrs there, Also my family members have fought in The indian wars< Both sides,British,Civil War,WW1,WW2,Korea.Vietnam Etc And for what So the few can tell me i have no rights, Bull crap, And i thought Missouri had a lot of big tree limbs. I will shed no more blood outside this Country Only within.

      • Don 2

        If these totalitarian anti-constitutional sh/tbirds want them – Come and Take Them!

  • Don 2

    I heard today that these progressive pigs have submitted similar legislation to confiscate so-called assault (semi-automatic sporting rifles using 100-year old technology) weapons in the State of Minnesota also.

    • meteorlady

      Here’s the stupidity of their arguments. Because the gun looks scary it’s bad. I can open my gun safe and take out most any of my hunting rifles or my 12 gage and I can do far far more damage than with an AR15. I can fill all my clips for any of my guns and I can drop an empty one and put another clip in seconds. It’s all political show.

      If the Democrats really cared about children, then they would stop the drone strikes which have killed 179 innocent children in just Pakistan. In Yemen we are doing the same thing and civilians are dying along with their children.

      If Democrats really cared about children they would stop interfering in the educational system, get rid of the government supported unions, and let the good teachers be hired to teach.

      If they really cared about the poor they would stop spending so the FED would stop the printing presses and we would all not have to live through inflation. What have they done for the poor? Since the War on Poverty there are 20% more people per capita in this country that are poor.

      It keeps us from learning the truth of Fast & Furious, Benghazi and a few other things like the $222 TRILLION unfunded obligations that face this country. Or the $1.4 TRILLION we spend over what we take in. Or the affect of the national DEBT on our money and our credit rating.

      The fact is they don’t care about anything but votes so the political show must go on.

      • Vicki

        Hi meteorlady. Welcome back. Have not seen you on in a while. Here is one statistic that we came up with that has been driving the paid shills mad.

        ~300 MILLION Americans did NOT shoot anyone last year nor in this year nor…..

        Stop punishing the INNOCENT for the acts of a few.

        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW

        They even tried copying it and twisting it to their purpose. Alas self evident and easy to verify truth is really hard to twist.

      • Don 2

        Vicki,

        For awhile there, you had Right Brain Thinker on the verge of suicide….LMAO.

      • Vicki

        Don 2 says:
        “Vicki,

        For awhile there, you had Right Brain Thinker on the verge of suicide….LMAO.”

        RBT, eddie and even Dave67 where working on that. No solution yet. Self evident truths are really hard to propagandize against.

  • Sarah

    State and Federal courts cannot, cannot take away from us what the Constitution of the United States says is our God given right. Don’t let anyone tell you any differently.

    • http://Arkybill.cominprogress Bill Henry

      If you read your State Constitution you will probably find the right also written into those constitutions, since 42 states have done it. If nowhere in the State Constitution are laws prohibiting it, you can openly carry your firearm. You may get some hassling about it, but it is not against the law. I speak for Alabama only. If you google “state of (your state)constitution open carry”, you may find some information.

  • Don 2

    The best thing Conservatives on this site can do is to stop playing into the ploys of eddie47d and the rest of his goony squad of leftist imbeciles and Obama supporters. Their job is to frustate you. Shut them up by not responding to them.

    • meteorlady

      I don’t come here all the time, but Eddie and the rest are not worth the time and trouble. They are not well educated about what they speak so why bother. They are also brainwashed and they have set beliefs. To upset these beliefs is not going to happen because once a liberal gets the idea, they are locked in. It would simply be too much for their brains to comprehend that they might have been wrong all this time.

      I always ask one question of liberals… Why do I owe you any of my hard earned money? They can never answer adequately except to say that we must take care of others. I do that, it’s called CHARITY and we help people help themselves. The liberals help people become dependent and sentence them to the government plantation.

      • Don 2

        The left-wing loony squad received their morning PLD assignments:

        A Really Rotten Anniversary – Right Brain Thinker

        President Harrison J. Bounel – Flashy/marc

        Gun Control Fanatics Continue Biggest Gun Nanny Contest – eddie47d

    • JeffH

      Don 2, just an FYI on eddie…he’s genuinely stupid for real. I agree and add that you’d have better luck arguing with a rock because rock’s can’t talk, aren’t stupid and they don’t say stupid things.

      • Vicki

        Unfortunately eddie speaks the way many brainwashed liberals think. I know cause I was once one of them. The reason we chew on eddie’s comments is to help others who have come here to learn the truth. And as you know, one of the most useful truths we have in the gun control debate is an actual statistic of the number of law abiding who will be punished by any and all gun-control laws.

        That statistic is

        ~300 MILLION Americans did NOT shoot anyone last year nor in this year nor…..

        Stop punishing the INNOCENT for the acts of a few.

        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW

      • Don 2

        Vicki,

        Get out, you were once a liberal? I’m shocked, I can’t believe it! I’ve read many of your common sense postings, and I’m glad that you’re on the right side.

        I’ve listened to a lot of former libs confess on the Rush Limbaugh show, how they were once liberal Democrats, then at some point, they started actually paying attention, realized what was really happening to their country, and became a Conservative.

        • BR549

          Don wrote: “I’ve listened to a lot of former libs confess on the Rush Limbaugh show, how they were once liberal Democrats, then at some point, they started actually paying attention, realized what was really happening to their country, and became a Conservative.”

          I was listening to Rush today and the sad part is that he still hasn’t figured out that both Bushes are part of the globalist problem; same as both Clintons, Obama, and Romney. I’d like to say that at least one of them had a conscience, had opposed NAFTA or didn’t support the Patriot Act and NDAA, but I can’t.

          There’s big difference between the Goldwater Republicans, the Nixon and Bush Republicans, and then the Reagan Republicans, the last of which where we might have actually had a chance if it weren’t for Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Bush Sr. sabotaging his office under the table.

          Limbaugh is still polishing Bush’s American flag lapel pins and can’t fathom his savior’s part in the Patriot Act, wire tapping, water boarding, etc.

      • Vicki

        Don 2 says:
        “Get out, you were once a liberal? I’m shocked, I can’t believe it! I’ve read many of your common sense postings, and I’m glad that you’re on the right side.”

        Technically I am still a liberal. Classic liberal. Libertarian is the current name for the political group that most closely matches my politics.

        As to the brainwashing I am a Public (Indoctrination) School survivor so it is no surprise to me (now) that I could hold a firm understanding of the 2nd Amendment and yet have no trouble with the “brady” bill. I got over it :) All I really had to do is look up “infringed”. President Clinton did throw some confusion in when he argued the definition of “is” but I got over that too. :)

        My parents were one of each (Democrat, Republican) but they taught me to think rather than just program me to be a good little slave. For that I thank them and God.

      • Don 2

        BR549,

        So you listen to Rush…..a guy who has never passed a single law, never taxed you, never taken any of your freedoms away…..yet, you listen to him…..why?

        • BR549

          Don 2 wrote: “So you listen to Rush…..a guy who has never passed a single law, never taxed you, never taken any of your freedoms away…..yet, you listen to him…..why?”

          Excellent question, my friend. Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck are media whores with the rest of them. Back in the ’60s, back when we woke up to the Today Show with Dave Garroway and could listen to Cronkite and Huntley and Brinkley in the evening, at least the majority of the people had the “illusion” of getting some professional journalism. Back then, the economy was working well enough such that people could be lulled into believing whatever worked for them. Now, many people are questioning many things.

          Unfortunately, as I found out way too late, even those journalistic stalwarts were pushing the government approved drivel. Now we are left with no real standard around which to judge fair and unbiased journalism and even the sources we do find are often occasionally slanted. So, we are all cast into a sea of journalistic uncertainty, grabbing bits and pieces of articles that seem to make sense. Me, I have a whole list of sources I refer to on a weekly basis. Back in the ’90s, I used to listen to the BBC, but they are all but worthless now. In any given week I listen to or read (in no particular order) AL Jazeera, Russia Today (RT), Clyde Lewis (Ground Zero), Alex Jones, Tenth Amendment Center, Oathkeepers, Drudge Report, Mike Savage, Guardian (UK) and there are others. ………. And certainly, Paul Craig Roberts should be on anyone’s list. As former Asst Sec of the Treasury under Reagan, this man wastes no time ripping apart anyone who can’t seem to remember their oath of service to support the Constitution, whether Democrat or Republican.

          So why do I listen to Rush and the rest of those buffoons? I do it to better understand the nonsense that many people sitting on the fence have been using for news sources so that I can counter them when they they start talking stupid. Beck is a smooth talking guy and I see why he attracts his audience, but back when Bush was in power, Beck was so busy polishing Bush’s American flag lapel pins that he forgot about journalism. Now, 15 plus years after Alex Jones and others have been trying to hammer us with the New World Order threat and Agenda21, Beck decided he was losing too much market share and so now he’s come at least part way over but his low IQ followers haven’t figured out that they’d been switched. They think Beck is some kind of genius and Jones is a crazy idiot.

          Alex is his own problem. There were times when I’d suggest for people to listen to him, only to have him launch onto another one of his explosive rants, foaming at the mouth. And no wonder, those people would never speak to me again. Alex has a way of stabbing you in the back that way, although it’s only because he’s just passionate about what he does. As far as his information, 98% is worth taking note of.

          So yeah, Beck has NOW postured himself as an Agenda21 expert, albeit 15 years late, and Limbaugh still worships the ground that Bush walks on. Limbaugh is another likable character, and no doubt has his following, but try to talk about the ravages of globalism and the man is clueless. Bush should divorce Laura and marry Rush. Hannity, I can’t even go there.

          But unless we get out of the trenches and understand the crap that other people are having to listen too when they rely on the media whores, we aren’t likely to be able to help them understand what dots are missing for them.

          That’s why. Pardon my lack of brevity. :o)

      • Don 2

        Vicki,

        Back in the day when the word ‘liberal’ had a whole different meaning. By the way, I have to agree with many of the Libertarian Party positions.

      • Don 2

        BR549,

        O.K-k-k-kk-k-k, whatever floats your boat?

  • MexicansaysLibtardsRPukes

    Gee! the gringo Libtard LA police chief is a moron! The idea that a gun is a defensive weapon is a ‘myth’ Let’s see gangs and other bad guys in pack uses guns as offensive weapons, Laws abiding uses guns as a defensive weapon against bad guys, and out of control govt troopers who decide to go Red! even cops and military use guns as a offensive weapons go after bad guys, as well use guns as a defensive weapons if they are under attack! http://washingtonexaminer.com/california-police-chief-the-idea-that-a-gun-is-a-defensive-weapon-is-a-myth/article/2521563

    • meteorlady

      My good friend is Swat in a large city. He says police carry guns to protect themselves.

  • Don 2

    BENEFITS OF GUN CONTROL -

    CONCENTRATION CAMPS

    KILLING FIELDS

    GULAGS

  • TML

    “Missouri House Bill 545 would make a felon of any owners of so-called assault weapons in the State”

    Missouri Constitution, Article 1, Section 23: “That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned”

    • Vicki

      TML writes:
      “Missouri Constitution, Article 1, Section 23: “That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned”

      That’s just setting up a “don’t ask don’t tell system” :)

  • Allen Boyles

    Hello all of you who are forgetting about foriegn enemies that sit and wait, with “baited breath” for the time when we do not have a personal defense against their invasion of this country. One of the only things that stop any country’s invasion of America, has been and is the fact that a very, very many of us, are armed and willing to defend our homeland. Bho and his group of thugs, would do well to remember this fact also. Just because we have domestic enemies is not a reason to give up and lay down for their nazi/gangster tactics. Every common man on this planet has chimed in with this slogan for all Americans”Do Not Give Up Your Guns, Ever”. They are all sorry that they did not keep them and fight for their own survival and defense from their government take overs. America is the very last nation on Earth, that is a refuse from tyranny. Please wake-up, Please ask GOD to return and bless America again.

  • Jean

    First of all they cannot take our weapons because it’s against the constitution. Second, [expletive deleted] is illegal so I for will not answer to an illegal president. And third, where do they think they will put everyone. The jails are full and they will be even more crowded when [comment has been edited]

    • http://google gary gerke

      FEMA CAMPS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Vicki

      Jean says:
      “First of all they cannot take our weapons because it’s against the constitution.”

      Sure they can. NFA 1934, GCA 1968, Assault weapon ban 1994. And that is just at the federal level. There is Waco, Ruby Ridge, Katrina for working examples. And there are hundreds and hundreds of additional examples. Those are just the easy to recall ones.

      – Jean: “And third, where do they think they will put everyone”

      FEMA disaster relocation camps.

    • ibcamn

      jean,if you heard Obama’s speech,he say’s in it,he want’s us in collective think tank centers to work!!

  • csaaphill

    here eddie might try these numbers instead.
    From the World Health Organization:

    The latest Murder Statistics for the world:

    Murders per 100,000 citizens

    Honduras 91.6
    El Salvador 69.2
    Cote d’lvoire 56.9
    Jamaica 52.2
    Venezuela 45.1
    Belize 41.4
    US Virgin Islands 39.2
    Guatemala 38.5
    Saint Kits and Nevis 38.2
    Zambia 38.0
    Uganda 36.3
    Malawi 36.0
    Lesotho 35.2
    Trinidad and Tobago 35.2
    Colombia 33.4
    South Africa 31.8
    Congo 30.8
    Central African Republic 29.3
    Bahamas 27.4
    Puerto Rico 26.2
    Saint Lucia 25.2
    Dominican Republic 25.0
    Tanzania 24.5
    Sudan 24.2
    Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 22.9
    Ethiopia 22.5
    Guinea 22.5
    Dominica 22.1
    Burundi 21.7
    Democratic Republic of the Congo 21.7
    Panama 21.6
    Brazil 21.0
    Equatorial Guinea 20.7
    Guinea-Bissau 20.2
    Kenya 20.1
    Kyrgyzstan 20.1
    Cameroon 19.7
    Montserrat 19.7
    Greenland 19.2
    Angola 19.0
    Guyana 18.6
    Burkina Faso 18.0
    Eritrea 17.8
    Namibia 17.2
    Rwanda 17.1
    Mexico 16.9
    Chad 15.8
    Ghana 15.7
    Ecuador 15.2
    North Korea 15.2
    Benin 15.1
    Sierra Leone 14.9
    Mauritania 14.7
    Botswana 14.5
    Zimbabwe 14.3
    Gabon 13.8
    Nicaragua 13.6
    French Guiana 13.3
    Papua New Guinea 13.0
    Swaziland 12.9
    Bermuda 12.3
    Comoros 12.2
    Nigeria 12.2
    Cape Verde 11.6
    Grenada 11.5
    Paraguay 11.5
    Barbados 11.3
    Togo 10.9
    Gambia 10.8
    Peru 10.8
    Myanmar 10.2
    Russia 10.2
    Liberia 10.1
    Costa Rica 10.0
    Nauru 9.8
    Bolivia 8.9
    Mozambique 8.8
    Kazakhstan 8.8
    Senegal 8.7
    Turks and Caicos Islands 8.7
    Mongolia 8.7
    British Virgin Islands 8.6
    Cayman Islands 8.4
    Seychelles 8.3
    Madagascar 8.1
    Indonesia 8.1
    Mali 8.0
    Pakistan 7.8
    Moldova 7.5
    Kiribati 7.3
    Guadeloupe 7.0
    Haiti 6.9
    Timor-Leste 6.9
    Anguilla 6.8
    Antigua and Barbuda 6.8
    Lithuania 6.6
    Uruguay 5.9
    Philippines 5.4
    Ukraine 5.2
    Estonia 5.2
    Cuba 5.0
    Belarus 4.9
    Thailand 4.8
    Suriname 4.6
    Laos 4.6
    Georgia 4.3
    Martinique 4.2

    And

    The United States 4.2

    ALL the countries above America have 100% gun bans

    • Wellarmed

      I wish that facts and statistics were information that many with dissenting positions towards the second amendment could use to understand the fallacy of those positions.

      I am certain that someone will respond with a suitable poll that if in printed form would be much more suited to use in the event of an emergency just like “Justice” Roberts did when he broke the glass of the framed copy of the Constitution when he ran out of paper in the restroom before rendering his decision on the Affordable Care Act.

      Our Right to Bare Arms is no more dependent on rulings from SCOTUS than it is from those who swore an oath to uphold our Constitution and recognize the Bill of Rights.

      I do believe that there will come a time when my fellow Americans will be faced only with the question freedom or slavery?

  • csaaphill

    eddie no no no no no no no you can not come here and tell us to accept your infringements they are and you know they are. stop making a right into a need it’s not a need it’s a right and as a right we have the right to choce what we would want. and no to your damn permits crap the 2nd is supposed to be unfettered permits are the same as fetters or chains. From some of the legislation I’m reading out there especially this new one in Misourii they don’t even do that they just out right come in and take them. Unconstitutional laws are null and void anyone trying to enforce such laws are treasoniouse.
    I guarantee you if these things go through even if some roll over there will be enough who won’t and there will be bloodshed.

  • csaaphill

    last comment to eddie then I ignor him. when people have to jump through hoops that takes away from being a right when no hoops are in place then it’s a right.
    Or when it’s a right it’s permission granted end of story but when one has to ask permision then it’s not a right.
    Look weve put up with your guy’s crap since the 1930′s all you have accomplised is turn america into a police state were pissed times up.

  • spartacus !

    the only good that will come out of this is when the “SHTF” the liberals will be unarmed !

  • FreedomFighter


    Refuse All Registration Schemes

    National firearms registration and gun databases are almost always followed by full gun confiscation. The process is usually done in a standardized manner: First demand extensive registration and cataloging of gun owners. Second, ban more effective styles of weaponry, including semi-automatics and high capacity rifles (Let the sport hunters keep their bolt actions for a time, and lure them onto your side with the promise that they will get to keep their .270 or their 30-06). Then take all semi-auto handguns. Then, ban high powered magnum style bolt actions by labeling them “sniper rifles”. Then demand that the gun owners that still remain allow official “inspections” of their home by law enforcement to ensure that they are “storing their weapons properly”. Then, force them to move those weapons to a designated “warehouse or range”, locked away for any use other than recreational shooting. Then, when the public is thoroughly disconnected from their original right to bear arms, take everything that’s left.

    Keep in mind that the federal government and certain state governments are acting as if they would like to skip ALL of the preliminary steps and go straight to full confiscation. I am not discounting that possibility. But, they may feign certain concessions in the near term in order to get the one thing they really want – full registration.

    Registration must be the line in the sand for every single gun owner in this country, whether they own several semi-automatics, or one pump action shotgun. Once you give in to being registered, fingerprinted, photographed, and tracked wherever you decide to live like a convicted sexual predator, you have shown that you have no will or spirit. You have shown that you will submit to anything.

    After a full registration has been enacted, every gun (and maybe every bullet) will be tracked. If confiscation is utilized, they know exactly what you have and what you should not have, and exactly where you are. Criminals will still acquire weapons illegally, as they always have. The only people who will suffer are law abiding citizens. It’s a recipe for dictatorship and nothing more.

    Gun Rights: Are There Any Peaceful Solutions Left?
    http://www.alt-market.com/articles/1337-gun-rights-are-there-any-peaceful-solutions-left

    Registration = confiscation = slavery to the state

    Laus Deo
    Semper FI

    • Wellarmed

      I cannot agree more FreedomFighter. I unfortunately made the mistake of obtaining my CCW which for all intensive purpose treated me as no more than guilty until proven innocent as far as the requirements to receive the permit were concerned.

      I would strongly suggest to others to forgo the CCW for their respective state particularly if they currently have unregistered firearms. Not all states require firearms to be registered, and my state happens to be one of them, but it is a moot point. I provided the state all the information that they needed to know if the Federal Government were to implement a plan of forced confiscation.

      I will view that action as no less than an ACT OF WAR upon the American Citizenry. And I find no differentiation between the confiscation of my weapons or those of my Neighbors in New York, or California.

      Any attempt to seize their weapons will be treated no different than an attempt to seize mine. I will not let my fellow Americans be subjugated. I will live free or I will die.

      It is the only way.

  • Don 2

    Government Backfire – Obamacare Forbids Gun and Ammo Registration

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/09/Backfire-Obamacare-Forbids-Gun-and-Ammo-Registration

  • ssgrick

    Universal background checks will work just as soon as government agencies force drug dealers to conduct universal background checks. Most criminals buy their guns from the same people they buy their drugs from. The typical transaction goes something like this:
    Hey Jose do you have my half ounce of coke? Yeah Pedro I got it. Hey man could you throw in a couple of nines too? I’ll pay extra. Sure man but it’s gonna cost you. No problem but you’re not gonna make do a background check are you? No way man that’s why you pay extra.
    AS SOON AS THESE IGNORANT POLITICIANS AND CRYBABIES REALIZE THIS THEN WE CAN BEGIN TO ACTUALLY SOLVE THE PROBLEMS OF GUN VIOLENCE AND NOT ONE SECOND BEFORE THEY REACH THIS REALIZATION.

  • ssgrick

    On a lighter note….Hey guys in the future just ignore every comment made by eddie47 the dumb a** ignorant communist democrat liberal. And he will eventually go away. The only reason he keeps coming back here and posting comments is to frustrate, anger and attempt to get you to say something which might be considered a threat of some sort to either him or some ignorant politician.
    Every time you reply to that a**hole he sits in front of his computer screen and laughs himself silly. Quit giving that ignor-anus the satisfaction.

    • Don 2

      ssgrick,

      I’m already there with you regarding eddie67d, and his obvious other little puke buddies. Ignore them, and let them go to McD’s for a new burger flipping career.

    • JeffH

      ssgrick, I hate to be the one to tell you but eddie’s to stupid to “go away”. He’s been suspended from commenting for a month and now he’s on permanent moderation. The guy is a total loon, loves all of the negative attention and is totally shameless without morals of any kind. The idea is to ignore him and if any response is needed, point out his ignorance, his stupidity and his hypocrisy and prove him wrong…don’t, and I stress this, don’t try to reason with him…you’d have better luck reasoning with a rock.

      • jopa

        JeffieHYou talk about others being suspended or being moderated how about when the weekend censors booted you off for nasty comments.That was so funny when you snuck back in under a differant name to tell Kate and others” it’s me I’m here it’s Jeffie”.That was so funny and it was similar to Horton Hears a Who.Sometime it may take a little voice like yours for others to be heard.Ya Think!!

      • JeffH

        jopa, you’re alwats such a moron. I’ve never been “booted” or “censored” on this webite. Yeah, when PLD was in the changeover process with their new log in & commenting system there were problems getting on…I wasn’t the only one…PLD straightened it out for me. Of course you’d tell it the way you wanted it to be…but you are a liar and it just ain’t so!

  • jopa

    JeffieH; You are so clueless to think that Diane Feinstein even read your letter and that was a personal reply to little old you.You are just too funny.The only thing that matters in DC is a big envelope containing a large amount of big bills for financing a reelection campaign.not a letter from some unknown somewhere in the good ole USA.I bet you just couldn’t wait until you had that letter posted thinking others would think,Wow is that guy connected to the folks in DC when everyone just got a good laugh at your expense.I’m sorry but I know you meant well.ROFLMAOHave a good one.

    • JeffH

      jopa, thanks for another “eddie” like ignorant reply. If you couldn’t say something stupid you wouldn’t say anything at all.

      “Wise people talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something.”
      Plato

  • Dave67

    The thing I find disturbing is that only an extremist organization like the NRA would fight to make it easier fir criminals and those with mental problems to get guns. All in the name getting people even more scared so they buy more guns.

    • JeffH

      What is disturbing is ignorant people like yourself who have been programmed with progressive think. Your comment proves that and is just as ignorant as the allegations that you just made.

      • Dave67

        No Jeffrey,

        Just common sense. Wayne LaPierre now opposes 100% background checks for all gun sales so the criminals can easily go to a gun show and pick up a gun. Why?

        Do you have a clever answer on why he has such a change of “heart” since1999?

      • JeffH

        Hey dummy, you’re sounding more and more like eddie every day. eddie can’t comprehend either.

        I’ll school you only because you need schooling…hopefully eliminating some of your ignorance regarding the NRA, LaPierre and legal law abiding gun owners.

        When you buy a gun from at a gun show, you have to go thru an FBI NICS background check…that’s the law.

        The National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, and the NRA has supported the NICS since its inception in 1993.

        In 2007, after the Virginia Tech shootings, the NRA and The House teamed up to strengthen the National Background Check System. With the NRA on board, the bill, which fixes flaws in the national gun background check system that allowed the Virginia Tech shooter to buy guns despite his mental health problems, has a good chance of becoming the first major gun control law in more than a decade.

        “We’ll work with anyone, if you protect the rights of law-abiding people under the second amendment and you target people that shouldn’t have guns,” NRA chief Wayne LaPierre told CBS News Correspondent Sheryl Atkisson

        In his opening statement(Jan. 2013) to the Senate Judiciary Committee following last month’s elementary school in Newtown, Conn., LaPierre called on lawmakers to enforce “the thousands of gun laws already on the books,” rather than create new ones.

        “Law-abiding gun owners will not accept blame for the acts of violent or deranged criminals, nor do we believe that government should dictate what we can lawfully own and use to protect our families,” LaPierre said Wednesday. “We need to be honest about what works and what does not work.”

        “Prosecuting criminals who misuse firearms works,” LaPierre said. “Proposing more gun laws while failing to enforce the ones we already have, it’s not a serious solution for reducing crime.”

        What LaPierre said was that “When it comes to background checks let’s be honest, background checks will never be ‘universal,’ because criminals will never submit to them.”

      • Dave67

        So moron, your idea is to do nothing… Let the criminals have a free go at guns. Thankfully your brand of extremism is dying. There is a gun show loophole for a reason dunce. Now maybe the NRA could have some credibility on enforcing the laws on the books if the GOP putting legislation forward on he behest and authorship of the NRA didn’t neuter the ATF and other law enforcement.

        Your lies and BS do not work on me and other sane people jeffrey. Go back and play…

        • JeffH

          Hey dummy, the only one telling lies is you and you know it.

          Why don’t you explain this “gun show loophole” to me? Tell me how the NRA is supposed to enforce laws when they are not a law enforcement agency?

          You make the same anti-gun spoon fed rhetorical arguements that eddie makes…I’m guessing that you to must be getting your mis-information from the same source or you’re being educated by eddie. Which is it?

      • Dave67

        No Problem SFB

        The “Gun Show Loophole” is a gap in federal law that allows private citizens, who are not licensed firearms dealers, to sell guns without conducting background checks or keeping records. These “private sellers” often sell guns at the thousands of gun shows that take place every weekend across the country. But, private sales of guns also take place daily between individuals as people sell guns to family members, friends and strangers without any requirement that the purchaser undergo a background check.
        •Federal law requires federally licensed gun dealers (FFLs) to conduct background checks on all buyers to make sure they are not felons or otherwise prohibited from owning guns. Dealers must conduct background checks whether at their primary place of business, or at a gun show. Dealers also keep buyer records in the event a gun is recovered in a crime and ATF needs to trace its serial number to its owner.
        •Private sellers are not required to conduct background checks or keep records. In fact, federal law prevents private sellers from access to the National Instant Background Check System (NICS).
        •Many criminals, knowing they can bypass background checks by purchasing from private sellers, use gun shows and individual sales as their source for obtaining guns.

        Enjoy.

        Where and I lying JeffhH aka SFB?

        • JeffH

          Gun show loophole is a misnomer, a term created by the anti-gun lobby. Private sales are not dealer sales. Private gun sales are regulated by the states. Some states, like California, require that all sales and transfers of firearms between private parties be conducted through FFL dealers, other states don’t .

          So, the term “gun show loophole” is a misnomer and just another of many anti-gun talking points that have nothing at all to do with the Gun Show, their management or the vendors.

          I understand how criminals aquire their guns…they don’t go to gun shows to buy them.

          A 1997 Justice Department survey of more than 18,000 state and federal convicts revealed the truth:

          • 39.6% of criminals obtained a gun from a friend or family member
          • 39.2% of criminals obtained a gun on the street or from an illegal source
          • 0.7% of criminals purchased a gun at a gun show
          • 1% of criminals purchased a gun at a flea market
          • 3.8% of criminals purchased a gun from a pawn shop
          • 8.3% of criminals actually bought their guns from retail outlets

          Note that less than 9 percent of all guns obtained by criminals in this survey came from retail outlets, hardly “a lot” compared to the almost 40 percent of convicts who obtained guns from friends or family or the almost 40 percent who obtained them illegally on the street.

          The gun-show loophole? Less than 1 percent of criminal guns came from gun shows. Nothing there, either.

          The survey data were analyzed and released in 2001 then revised in 2002, but while the eye-opening details are more than 10 years old it’s hard to believe criminal responses have changed much over the last decade.

          “Universal” background checks won’t work. The fact is we have them now. Anytime a law-abiding citizen purchases a gun from a brick-and-mortar or online retailer, pawn shop owner or private dealer—essentially any licensed dealer who sells more than a handful of firearms per month—he or she must submit to a background examination via the National Instant Check System. What’s more, it is already a crime to knowingly transfer a gun to someone who is not authorized to possess one. Neither safeguard has stopped criminals from doing what they do—break the law.

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

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

          Join us in telling them to STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT

          STOP IT

          STOP IT NOW

    • Dave67

      here is another example of NRA BS double talk

      Sometimes it takes a comedy show to connect the political dots in a way that makes the ugliness of Washington DC chillingly clear. On a recent episode of “The Daily Show,” Jon Stewart laid out the train-wreck that is our governmental policy toward guns in America. Here’s a brief breakdown:

      A few years back, Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS) suggested during a CNN interview that we did not, in fact, need additional gun laws. He noted that we already have about 2,200 gun laws on the books, and that the real issue is that those laws are not being properly enforced. Tiahrt went further to suggest that enforcing these laws should not be the purview of state or local law enforcement, namely because we have a government agency – the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) – whose job it is to pursue such enforcement around the clock.

      Makes sense. At least if that was the whole story.

      The problem is that the ATF hasn’t had a permanent director since 2006. Instead, the U.S. Attorney for Minnesota (a full-time job in itself) “commutes” from his home state to serve as an interim director. Seems ridiculous, right? Why not just appoint a new director by executive order? This is how it should work, yes?

      In theory. But back in 2006 (a year before Tiahrt’s CNN interview) Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) inserted a clause into the Patriot Act requiring

      Congress to aprove any appointments to the head of the ATF, which is the sole government agency responsible for the federal control of firearms. Since then, they have failed to approve anyone brought forward by a president to fill that post.

      Keep in mind that, for two of those years, the President was George W. Bush.

      Strange thing, to put a clause about the ATF into a seemingly unrelated bill. Interesting, also, that the same year this clause found its way into the Patriot Act, Sensenbrenner accepted the NRA’s “Defender of Freedom” award.

      Lest we give too much credit where it’s undue, it should be noted that Sensenbrenner didn’t actually write the ATF clause; he simply inserted it into the Patriot Act. The one responsible for writing the clause was – yes, kids – Rep. Todd Tiahrt, the very one who urged us to lean on the ATF to enforce our existing gun laws rather than doing anything else to rectify the problem.

      ——————-

      Here is some more idiot…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      So in the end… The NRA wants no common sense law enforcement of gun violence… All they want jerk is more members so Wayne LaPierre can keep his 6 figure salary. And morons like you are more than happy to be the suckers.

      • JeffH

        LMAO @ eddie67! Your loud bahhhh, bahhhh, bahhhhh’s…ROFLMAO!

        POLLY WANT A CRACKER? baaarrraaaccckkkkk!

      • Dave67

        Whats the matter SFB? Can’t answer what the NRA has been up to?

        I thought not.

      • JeffH

        Sorry eddie67, I’ve made my case based on verifiable evidence, not based on conjecture and ignorant progressive talkig points like you have.

        ROFLMAO at the ignorance of SFPE67

    • Dave67

      So SFB,

      What is your solution to curb gun violence in America?

      You don’t want to close the gun show loophole
      Banning assult weapons with large magazines violate your version of the second amendment.
      You don’t like psych evaluations because you question “who is qualified” to make that determination
      You don’t like waiting periods because that takes away from your “freedom”
      You don’t like better mental health facilities and treatment from the Gov because its the govument…

      [comment has been edited]

      Come up with real solutions besides arming everyone and making “carry and conceal” the law of the land.

      Give me something besides more BS.

      • JeffH

        eddie67/SFPE67 says “What is your solution to curb gun violence in America?

        “You don’t want to close the gun show loophole”
        There is no such thing as a “gun show loophole”

        “Banning assult weapons with large magazines violate your version of the second amendment.”
        Assault weapons are already banned. Banning large capacity magazines only punishes law abiding citizens and does nothing to curb criminal violence.

        You don’t like psych evaluations because you question “who is qualified” to make that determination
        I don’t? Conjecture – argument lost! I support legislation to ensure that appropriate records of those who have been judged mentally incompetent or involuntarily committed to mental institutions be made available for use in firearms transfer background checks and I will support any reasonable step to fix America’s broken mental health system without intruding on the constitutional rights of Americans.

        “You don’t like waiting periods because that takes away from your “freedom””
        Conjecture – argument lost! If a law abiding citizen passes the National Instant Criminal Background Check System there should be no reason for a waiting period, other than the time it takes for the NICS to process and render the finding of said background check.

        “You don’t like better mental health facilities and treatment from the Gov because its the govument…”
        Again, pure conjecture – argument lost!

        I thank my parents God I’m not an emoitionally unstable progressive like you SFPE67

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

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

        Join us in telling them to STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT

        STOP IT

        STOP IT NOW

      • JeffH

        SFPE67, forgot to mention…again…”The gun-show loophole? Less than 1 percent of criminal guns came from gun shows. Nothing there, either.”

        Oh, a slight correction too…I thank my parents and God I’m not an emotionally disturbed progressive like you SFPE67.

      • Dave67

        Wow SFB,

        It took a post with the same sorts of conjecture you and your allies use against Obama, liberals and Democrats to get any solution answers out of you. (sort of)

        Its good to see that I can train you like the monkey you are.

        Enjoy your night SFB.

      • JeffH

        eddie67, only in your wildest dreams could such delusions be imagined.

        POLLY WANT A CRACKER? baaarrraaaccckkkkkk!

      • Dave67

        [comment has been edited]

        I just did…I should have used broad general statements like you and your allies use when describing Obama, Liberals and Democrats… Then I can get something out of you besides whining.

        I should have used this technique earlier. You are just so predictable. LOL

  • csaaphill

    personally I think the NRA caved on that I wouldn’t have backed any of that but so beit we have enough gun ctrl don’t need no more. If extremist means suporitng the 2nd and no fetters then so be it.

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

    What is disturbing is that the same anti-NRA, gun-control idiots, are at the same time, enthusiastic-supporters of killing innocent-Americans with the use of “drones”! Why? How can these dumbbells be anti-guns, anti-NRA, but at the same time, pro-drones, killing innocent Americans?

    Perhaps this may answer your question:
    http://www.reprieve.org.uk/press/ge_olympic_truce/

    • Dave67

      Kinda like being “pro-life” and being for the death penalty isn’t it?

      Have you done a study to find out who these people are?

      So you can’t be anti-NRA and be pro-Drones? How do you equate the two?

      Guess what? You can be fine with guns and anti-NRA. I know that blows your mind… But its true.

  • csaaphill

    being a NRA memeber I would never allow drones to be used on Americans.
    Take out all these draconian laws then we wouldn’t need to worry so much about people as much for there wouldn’t be so much rebelion as we see today.
    and NRA members don’t suport people killing people we just don’t want any more infringments.

  • Patrick Henry

    This is to Commie thinking/speaking Dave67. If we have registration, licensing, photo ID, inspections AND permission for use, then according to your ideals ALL OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS will eliminate and drastically reduce or even ELIMINATE crimminal activities from happening and of course practically eliminate injuries and deaths too! We currently have all that regulation with motor vehicles and it has NOT STOPPED, eliminated or slowed criminal behaviours. Why not Dave? WE still have rapes inside of motor vehicles, robberies, bank heists, abductions and list goes on and on…..Exactly the same reasons your anti 2nd amentment freedom ideas won’t work either. The bad guys are still going to be bad and don’t care about your ideas, because your ideas only deal with the honest Citizens of which your ideas have the most impact on and which you obviously don’t care about or realize that part of your equation. What if our country ever got invaded by a foreign army? Most of our forces are over seas and that alone would put us at a disadvantage and without those traditional semi auto rifles and magazines we could be in jeapardy. You might even wish you had one then also.

  • RG

    Last week I asked you to call your senators and tell them to vote against every element of President Barack Obama’s gun ban agenda.

    Your calls are working! I’ve received numerous reports that NRA members are lighting up the phone lines and our senators are definitely hearing from us.

    HOWEVER, now we need to take our phone campaign to the next level.

    There are 20 U.S. senators, in particular, who hold the fate of your freedom in their hands.

    These senators represent states where gun ownership is respected and our Second Amendment freedoms are revered.

    But right now, they’re facing huge pressure from the gun ban lobby and Barack Obama to support Obama’s extreme gun control agenda!

    So please, call each of the senators below and tell them to vote NO on any gun ban…NO on any magazine ban…NO on criminalizing private firearm transfers…and NO on any gun registration scheme.

    Sen. Max Baucus

    202-224-2651

    Sen. Mark Begich

    202-224-3004

    Sen. Susan Collins

    202-224-2523

    Sen. Joe Donnelly

    202-224-4814

    Sen. Kay Hagan

    202-224-6342

    Sen. Martin Heinrich

    202-224-5521

    Sen. Heidi Heitkamp

    202-224-2043

    Sen. Tim Johnson

    202-224-5842

    Sen. Tim Kaine

    202-224-4024

    Sen. Angus King

    202-224-5344

    Sen. Mary Landrieu

    202-224-5824

    Sen. Joe Manchin

    202-224-3954

    Sen. Claire McCaskill

    202-224-6154

    Sen. Mark Pryor

    202-224-2353

    Sen. Harry Reid

    202-224-3542

    Sen. Jeanne Shaheen

    202-224-2841

    Sen. Jon Tester

    202-224-2644

    Sen. Mark Udall

    202-224-5941

    Sen. Tom Udall

    202-224-6621

    Sen. Mark Warner

    202-224-2023

    Spread your calls out over several days if you need to.

    And remember: It doesn’t matter if you do not live in these senators’ states – YOU NEED TO CALL THEM. After all, the votes they cast will affect you no matter where you live!

    Thank you for your hard work and dedication to winning this battle. Now is not the time to let up! Call each of these 20 senators as soon as you can.

    By working together, we can defeat the Obama gun ban agenda and save the Second Amendment!!!

  • Sniper

    I have never heard or read so much negative attitudes toward our government. That alone should tell congress that an immediate change in our government’s administration is necessary. Our would-be dictator, President Obama needs to be impeached.

    The things proposed with “executive orders” are beyond the president’s power. He took an oath of office to uphold the constitution of The United States while at the same time he is trying to destroy the 2nd amendment rights of us all. He can’t do that–not legally. Where are our state representatives and senators who are supposed to be looking our for our interests. They are ignoring these breaches of the law. They can be impeached also.

    That would be safer than a government purge by fire–and by that I mean violence; that’s what it is going to come to. I have never heard so many Americans claim that they would rather die fighting rather than submit. Whether they will or not remains to be seen. Just the fever should make our lawmaker scramble to upright the government. It is out of control and the waters are being muddied up by our president.

    Proposals to label all returning vets as mentally incompetent to keep them from having firearms is just a ruse to disarm those best suited and trained to fight to preserve our freedom.

    Following is the procedure to take for impeachment:

    The Constitution and Impeachment
    The Constitution, Article II, Section 4:
    The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
    The Constitution, Article I, Section 3:
    The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
    Judgment in Cases of Impeachments shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States, but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishmnet, according to Law.
    ARTICLE II: Presidential Powers
    SECTION 4: Impeachment
    THE CONSTITUTION AND IMPEACHMENT
    THE CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE II, SECTION 4
    The President, vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and Misdemeanors.
    Similar to the British system, Article One of the United States Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment and the Senate the sole power to try impeachments
    “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”
    The impeachment process is a two-step procedure. The House of Representatives must first pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon their passage, the defendant has been “impeached”. Next, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a president, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings.

    Our congressmen (and women) are supposed to be there to represent what WE desire.

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.