Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Guns And Obama: The Stand

January 10, 2013 by  

Guns And Obama: The Stand
PHOTOS.COM

The Newtown, Conn., massacre has touched off a new front in the liberal assault on our most basic freedoms. And this time, the cult of personality around President Barack Obama and his accomplices appears to have rendered them all impervious to not only criticism, but even simple justice. Not only have they used the mindless fealty of their liberal subjects to avoid answering for crimes like Operation Fast and Furious and Benghazi, Libya, they’ve deflected attention from those disgraces by turning the Newtown victims into political carrion.

The reality is that the Democrats’ war on the Bill of Rights isn’t markedly different from their efforts to punish success and achievement in order to pay for “Obama phones” and Detroit. But their macabre use of human suffering to further their nefarious goals — while fairly predictable — has never coincided with a perfect storm like this one: a criminal President who actually believes he’s above the law and the Constitution, a Democratic Party bent on subjugation of the people and an electorate willing to trade freedom for perceived security.

Hence, Senator Dianne Feinstein’s opening salvo: a bill that would not only restore the useless so-called “assault weapons ban” but take it to its fascist extreme — with national registries, magazine restrictions and the rest of the Democratic list of meaninglessly symbolic gestures that have been repeatedly proven to exert no discernible effect on actual violence and actual crime. (See also: gun Grabber paradises like Chicago and Washington, D.C.)

But former concealed-carry permit holders like Feinstein are just the tip of the projectile. Behind her, Obama charges ahead, flanked by cohorts like the anti-Constitutionalists in the Brady Campaign, media sock puppets who use phrases like “gun violence” and the very same masses of liberal sheep who consistently vote to keep in power the architects of violence and poverty who now claim high-capacity magazines and so-called “assault rifles” are the cause of the problems they themselves deliberately exacerbate. And recent Obama tactics such as Vice President Joe Biden’s so-called “task force,” in concert with fire from Democratic legislators like Feinstein and Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) expose a push toward a Federal attempt to disarm the populace.

If Obama and his cretins’ attempts to grab your guns give you the willies, consider this response to their best laid plans: “Taking my guns? You and what army?” Certainly not the U.S. Army. While Obama clearly believes he lives beyond the reach of the Constitution, I doubt he can convince the U.S. military to violate Posse Comitatus based on his whimsy. Despite Obama’s delusions, I suspect the overwhelming majority of servicemen and servicewomen, many of whom own firearms privately, would be loath to break down their own doors — not to mention those of their comrades, active and retired. If the Democrats want to take that up with the 1st Ranger Battalion, they’re welcome to it.

Of course, Obama could follow the example set by Bill Clinton — aka “the first black President” — and “go Waco” on the gun-owning population. But the gun-owning population is a great deal bigger than a handful of religious kooks on a compound. There are somewhere in the neighborhood of 270 million firearms in private citizens’ hands in the United States. Even if Obama does try to restage Tiananmen Square domestically, the results would be the kind of catastrophe that usually involves Occupy protestors and defenseless teenage girls.

Of course, any attempt by Obama and his cronies to abrogate the Bill of Rights by force of arms would physically tear the Nation apart. To suggest such a plan would be the equivalent of suggesting the 22nd Amendment should be eliminated to keep Obama in office in perpetuity — not that anyone would ever dream of such a colossal error in judgment. (I’m looking at you, Representative Jose Serrano [D-N.Y.].) An attempted government gun grab would likely lead to armed insurrection. A Democratic attempt to violate both the spirit and the letter of the law in such a manner would be an exceptionally bad idea. So they’ll probably try exactly that. Lock and load, kiddies.

–Ben Crystal

Ben Crystal

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

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Guns And Obama: The Stand”

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

  • Bert Cundle Sr.

    Dim wits blame Liberals… Punish the good for the bad! ( The Criminal System ).

    • demsagainst obama

      What?

      • Vicki

        More then 50 MILLION people didn’t murder anyone let alone massacre school children, yet all the gun-grabbers can talk about is taking guns away from those 50+ million innocent people.

      • dan

        There is NO such thing as an “assault weapon”. The term was invented by the left stream propaganda media for the very purpose of forcing you onto their territory. Now that you have surrendered, you are only discussing “how much”. Prime example of how the libs win arguments.

      • http://www.facebook.com/rhonda.reichel Rhonda Reichel

        what he really meant to say is democrats used the WAR ON WOMEN….now it’s time for the rest of us to use the WAR ON FREEDOM against them

      • Gordon

        Cars must be outlawed and confiscated NOW. Drunks drive cars, texters and cell users drive cars, old and otherwise incompetent people drive cars, inexperienced kids drive cars,etc…… and sooner or later they kill people with cars. Confiscate now before its too late.

      • Sheepdog on patrol

        Response to Dan, Assault weapons, as defined by the Government, is a fully automatic weapon and was banned in 1968 in the Federal Firearms Safety Act and a person can only own one if they have a class 3 FFL.

        Now, about this “evil” word, assault which was conjured up by the libertards to create an ominous picture in the minds of the uneducated and uninformed. My easy to understand example follows. I am holding a ball point pen in my right hand. At the present time, I am holding in the proper way to use it for writing. At this point, it is merely a writing instrument, a ball point pen. Now, I change that hold on the pen and making a fist, I now hold the pen as I would hold a knife and thrust it several times into the side of your neck. Has the ball point pen now become an assault pen? Of course not. “Assault” is an action, not an object. A gun has no more ability to pull it’s own trigger any more than a ball point pen has the ability to stab you in the neck. Thus, the “assault” action must be committed by an individual with mal intent. Now, let’s attack the real problems. That would be the, A. Doctor/Patient confidentiality when it cimes to individuals being treated for a mental irregularity. In particular, depression. B. The pharamaceutical industry who is not taking responsibility for the side effects for such anti-depressives as Prozac, Paxil, Effexor,Celexa, Zoloft and Anafranil. In virtually every case where there is a mass shooting, the perpetrator was being treated by a physician and on one of these anti-depessants. Do we have a common denominator here? Yes we do. Yet the Liberals are using these tragedies to further their own agenda to attack the liberites of innocent gun owners. They are punnishing US for the acts of others. At this point, we must surely realize that the tyrants running our government are more concerned about us using our second amendment rights to attack them. That is why they want to disarm us. THAT is the real reason and THEY know it. If you can remove the claws of the cat, it becomes defenseless. What these idiots don’t realize is that the people of the USA are not like the Brits,nor the Aussies. We’ve seen what happens to the people when they allow themselves to be disarmed and Americans will openly defy any laws that attempt to do so to the point of doing exactly what our founding fathers intended when they wrote, “a well armed militia being necessary to the defense of the State.” And, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That second item has been violated more times than I can remember and it seems every time it has been infringed it has been under a Democrats administration.

      • eddie47d

        Dan the propaganda man! There are indeed assault weapons and those on the right are continually trying to water down their meaning to be in the same category as Roy Rogers six shooter. They are what they are and your rewording or ignoring what they are doesn’t make them any less volital.

      • http://comcast.com thefisherman

        you do not need machine guns and rocket lounchers to kill rabbits . These are the guns that should be restricked. The only people that what to bare these arms are the nuts and hard heads,We are not playing cowboys and indians.

      • Dennis48e

        thefisherman says:
        January 10, 2013 at 4:07 pm
        “you do not need machine guns and rocket lounchers to kill rabbits . These are the guns that should be restricked.”

        fisherman you need to get with the program and quit making uninformed stupid comments. While they are available if you can afford them machine guns are strictly controlled and you must get a special permit (class III license I believe) to purchase one. Rocket lounchers (I presume you mean launchers) are even harder to get legally. There is one instance of a legally owned and registered machine gun being used to commit a crime. that crime was committed by a LEO using a department gun. I am not aware of a single instance of any of the very few legally owned rocket launchers being used in a crime.

      • Bruce

        I hunt rabbits with a semi-auto pistol with a 10 shot clip I carry 3 spare clips, time to change clips less than one sec. A single shot pistol would not “do”, I need a semi auto so I can get a quick 2nd shot, and third when the rabbit hops as I shoot. Still the rabbit usually wins. A full auto would just be silly. and a single shot almost useless. What is perfect is a semi-auto 22 cal pistol. A rifle is too hard to carry and turn thru the very very thick woods the rabbits hang out in.
        So people DO use such guns for hunting, got photos to prove it. It is quite a challenge, try it, before you knock it again..

    • http://yahoo.com Frank

      A Revolution is coming!!

      • Average Joe

        …..as well as another (un) civil war….which will make it even more bloody. While all of this is going on…we will be attacked from outside of our borders ( Think UN troops)…making this a triple threat to the Nation’s Sovereignty.

        AJ

      • ibcamn

        and if you do revolt,Obama will say you are not on his side so you must be the enemy of this country,and have you put in a prison for the rest of your life or have you shot for being against him!the progressives will find a way to make US the enemy and not them(who is actually the enemy,domestic)this will all come out in the wash,the constitution will prevail!!

      • Gordon

        All this stuff is just step by step right out of the nazi playbook.

      • Kate8

        Forget the US military. Some will go along, some won’t.

        You all remember that Obama has been training thousands of youth to be his PERSONAL military, specifically to do his bidding on US soil. Exactly like Hitler’s youth brigades.

        We also have thousands of patriotic military being “suicided” on a regular basis. He is replacing the ranks with his own choices. Is he transforming our Military, as well, replacing them with those loyal to him rather than the US Constitution? And how about how he’s been training and replacing sheriffs and police forces with the same?

        He’s been busy putting together a civilian army, while our attention has been diverted by wondering about the loyalties of the military as we know it. With the way he’s been neutering them, they’ll be overwhelmed by ‘homeland’ forces and UN troops, who are just as well armed and well funded as the regular military.

        Then, we do have the militia, but from what I’ve seen, they aren’t very organized. At least, not here. The ones I’ve spoken with leave me to wonder WTH… I mean, it’s not like the government is going to announce themselves before they strike in the middle of the night.

        The PTB are not stupid. You can believe that they’ve considered every eventuality, and have planned accordingly. They know what to expect from us. And they’ve spent generations dumbing us down and making us all sick, weak and afraid.

        Our only real hope is the power of the human spirit. Do we still have it?

      • eddie47d

        Kate 8 ; Implying that Obama is replacing those who commit suicide with troops of his own liking is disingenuous of even you. Those of us who have served know why soldiers commit suicide and with the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars its the multiple tours and being torn away from families which is the main culprit. That increases divorces and family conflicts in our volunteer army.

      • ranger09

        History has shown us THAT the Military WILL follow the Govt Politicians, Also the police in the country will follow the Govt politicians, The Govt considers the militia to be the National Guard, When the govt calls up the national Guard They will follow the Govt Politicians, History has shown that VERY few will desert to the People. History has shown that the Military and Police will not revolt to the People UNTIL the people have and can control 47% of the Country. In our case the Amount of Military power at the Govt hands Makes the 47% happening is very unlikely. Over the years the Military and police have been tested in many cases to see how well they are under control. WE may have waited to long to get back controll of our Country.
        Most Honest and Desent and well trained Police would tell you that WACO was not handled properly, From the warrant being served to everything else that took place.All evidence was rejected except what the govt supplied, A crime site that was completely cleaned by the Govt, Before any other investigation could take Place. AND out of the Hundreds of Police at the site ONLY one walked away Saying this is all WRONG.Just one man out of all these hundreds. People this is what the People are up againest.

      • ranger09

        Also the UN whom we mostly support will also side with Our Govt againest the People.
        Criminals will always have weapons, The Govt uses the Criminals againest us, The Govt has supplied guns to them In the past and the Present, Crime keeps Growing and the Govt keeps growing.Criminals are gaining more Power the Govt is gaining more Power WHILE the People are getting weaker.And we still do Nothing But talk.

      • Jana

        Eddie says, “Those of us who have served know why soldiers commit suicide and with the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars its the multiple tours and being torn away from families which is the main culprit. That increases divorces and family conflicts in our volunteer army.”______

        This is partly true. Another major point in the suicide of some of our vets is coming back to a thankless society who mocks them for serving in the first place. Some of them have even been spit on. They are made to feel that what they have done for their country is worthless from the left.. John Kerry who lies about what they did over in Nam, and is cozy with the traitor Jane Fonda is now going to be running the State Dept.

        ,

      • eddie47d

        Where’s Kerry’s lies? Cetainly not from the Swift Boaters who made many untrue comments or accusations.

      • Larry K.

        i think feinstein and blumenthal needs to be investigated on just why they want to disarm the american people, there’s more to this that meets the eye.

      • Gordon

        So Eddie47……. you admit you were stupid when you volunteered. What did you think would happen to you in the military? The more you say, the flakier you sound. Get mental help now.

      • Gordon

        6 minute video citing facts from the FBI website.
        Less than 3.5 % of crimes are commited with rifles of any kind.
        USA is the safest country in the world.

        http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/important-gun-violence-video-to-share-with-friends/

    • http://www.facebook.com/kasay.mardis Kasay Mardis

      Here is the PA Firearms Protection Act petition I created. Please share this with all of your friends and neighbors and protect your freedoms as an American.

      http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/the-pennsylvania-2nd-amendement-protection/

    • r.p.

      Hey>>thefisherman: It’s not about shooting rabbits. It’s about shooting RATS. And for those who think the 2nd was about “muskets”!! Your ignorance is showing. It was about arming the people with the same “state of the art” weapons that the “Tyrant in the U.K.” was attempting to use against his own people here. This is feeble and tired rhetoric…Get an education please.

  • Jeremy Leochner

    Its a tough issue. We need to have a talk about gun control and all the issues relating to the Newtown shooting. I think a ban on guns does not work. Its like prohibition. On the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 the website freerepublic.com says:

    “The law specifically names 19 different firearms as patently illegal, and specifies that three or more of the following features present on a single firearm constitutes an assault weapon.

    * A folding or telescoping stock

    * A pistol grip

    * A bayonet mount

    * A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one (a flash suppressor reduces the amount of flash that the rifle shot makes. It is the small birdcage-like item on the muzzle of the rifle)

    * Muzzle capable of acting as a grenade launcher.

    * Magazine capacity over 10 rounds”-http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/817036/posts

    I do not support bans. However I do not see why a person would need a gun with either a muzzle capable of acting as a grenade launcher or a magazine capacity of over ten rounds for personal protection or hunting. I would imagine a handgun would be decent enough protection for the home or person.

    Personally I think magazine restrictions might be a good thing to add to any plan. Make the bad guys have to reload a little more often might just by time for someone to stop them or at least get away. Of course any such magazine restrictions would also need other things to help.

    An interesting article I found on motherjones.com mentions that “parts of the original Tiahrt Amendment remain in place. The ATF can’t require gun dealers to conduct an inventory to account for lost or stolen guns; records of customer background checks must be destroyed within 24 hours if they are clean enough to allow the sale; and trace data can’t be used in state civil lawsuits or in an effort to suspend or revoke a gun dealer’s license.” -http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/five-federal-policies-guns

    Perhaps some of these rules could be amended. Stealing guns is a way for bad guys to circumvent gun laws. Though a recent PBS article stated that “Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes,”. So just turning the screws on gun thieves is not enough either. An interesting point the same PBS article makes is that “illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees
    (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen.”-http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

    So perhaps it’s the government that needs fixing. They need to either make it more difficult to apply for and obtain Firearms licenses. And in addition perhaps they need to be more selective in who is allowed to oversee the application process. And we the people need to make sure they do both.

    Those might be good ways to combat the illicit gun trade which is how most bad guys get guns.

    Now at the same time we need to talk about our countries mental health system and our media culture of attention glorification. We need to stop this demonizing of mental illness and at the same time stop the media scavenging of these kinds of tragedies. In fact changing the way the media treats these kinds of stories could help in both fields. Because often the media delves so deeply into the lives of these monsters that instead of just making a general discussion of their mental health they instead dissect and analyze their every quirk and oddity. Until suddenly their being a loner or being introverted turns into the definitive warning sign that something was seriously wrong with them. Just as the medias storm of coverage would encourage those who seek attention so their fear mongering about mental illness would discourage those with those issues. To deal with mental illness we need to encourage people to accept their issues and seek help rather than hide them.

    As much as I hate gun violence and wish we could all live in a world of peace and trust I have to be reasonable. Gun bans like prohibition do not work. They violate the constitution and make us less safe not more. What we can do is try to set reasonable limits on how to legally obtain a gun while simultaneously putting in every effort to stamp out the illegal gun trade.

    • Vicki

      Or we could stop worrying about the illegal gun trade cause it only exists because there is a law (in violation of the 2nd Amendment) blocking a citizen from buying a gun.

      If he has broken some law such as committing a violent act then he belongs in jail were he can’t buy much of anything.

      If he is insane then he belongs in a mental institution where he can’t buy much of anything.

      If he is out in society he has done his time and gets his rights back.

      For those who are released by mistake they have to contend with the fact that most of their intended victims are actually armed and can neutralize the threat they pose.

      As a plus those who have not been caught yet can be neutralized when they first attempt their violent acts.

      • http://www.facebook.com/pigity.pinky Patrick Clute

        All laws violate our rights in one way or another…so in the spirit of not worrying about it…do away with all laws so nothing is illegal so no one breaks the law and we are truly free and we are supposed to be…I means laws do not prevent or stop anything right so why have them at all…oh that’s right that is known as chaos and anarchy

      • Don.W

        Another sensible and factual comment from Vicki.

      • roger

        AMEN, Vicki

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Vicki there are laws regulating guns in order to prevent just anyone from getting a gun. Just because there are those who would ignore such laws does not make them meaningless. Our country has far more relaxed laws on guns than say England. Yet we have many more gun related deaths. There is no perfect solution to the issue of gun violence. One side likes to say more guns equals more crime and less guns equals less crime and the other likes to say more guns equals less crime and less guns equals more crime. Neither of these simplistic statements are true. Its not enough to simply ban guns and expect everything to be okay. But its also not enough to say lets just arm people so the bad guys will think twice. Bad guys have no way of knowing who has what type of gun and who knows how to handle it. We can never make a perfect world with no violence. But we can take steps toward curbing the problem with legislation and personal action.

        • DevilDogVet

          The definition of a criminal is someone who does not obey the law. So who do laws really affect………….the law abiding.

      • Jimmy The Greek

        vicki is right !

      • ranger09

        Amazing how much money and perks these politicians make, Amazing the stupid laws WE allow them to make, Amazing the laws we allow them to make Protecting themselves,Amazing the laws WE allow them to make punishing the hard working honest American, Amazing how we have let them make our Justice system cater to the Criminals and not to the protection of the honest American citizen.WE the people are nothing but Sheep following the Bell.
        Ever wonder why a politician is NEVER Punished for Wrong doings. Because they protect ea other. Something the American People do not.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        With all due respect DevilDogVet. Are you trying to invalidate all laws. People disobey laws. Its a fact of life. But it does not mean we abandon them.

      • Jana

        Vicki,
        That is just plain ole common sense.

        ( sadly, The left doesn’t understand common sense though.)

      • Gordon

        Redundant?

        6 minute video citing facts from the FBI website.
        Less than 3.5 % of crimes are commited with rifles of any kind.
        USA is the safest country in the world.

        http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/important-gun-violence-video-to-share-with-friends/

    • czman75

      When are people going to learn/understand that the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting!!!! When referring to or insinuating the 2nd amend., hunting and target practice is not to be mentioned!!! and only when defending this country against a tyrannical government does self-defense come into play! JEEZ! Plus if we are limited to revolvers with 5 or 6 rounds, we will survive against criminals that will still have their semi-autos with 15 – 19 round magazines! The only solution (is not gun banning) is obama banning!
      This puke and his cronies are the one that need to be banned!

      • czman75

        Edit: we will NOT survive against criminals…

      • Jeremy Leochner

        czman75 The issue of crime is not one of war. The way to deal with it is not a cold war style arsenal free for all. How many thugs in the street are going to come after your wallet or break into your house with semi-autos with 15 – 19 round magazines. I can respect that bank robbers might do that. But I would consider the chances of someone coming at you in the streets to be a far more likely danger than a bank robber.

      • Dennis48e

        “How many thugs in the street are going to come after your wallet or break into your house with semi-autos with 15 – 19 round magazines.”

        15-17 round magazines are common in certain caliber pistol so the chances are fairly good a street thug would have one.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I did not know that Dennis. There was an article by nonnonsensedefense.com which stated that “Guns make up for 40% of all robberies with knives and other weapons making up another 20%”. Though it did not specify the guns or their magazines. The article also said that “Many people do not realize that 40% of all robberies are committed by strong arm tactics.” So 60% of all robberies are committed with either strong arm tactics, knives or other weapons. So I feel the chances of being attacked by a robber with a knife or with a couple of unarmed buddies is more likely than being attacked by a robber with a 10 or more shot capacity handgun.

      • Gordon

        This is NOT about self defense from criminals, per se. It is about the federal government having complete dominance of the population……. Hitler, nazi Germany, etc.

      • Dennis48e

        Jeremy you said once you are 23. It is very obvious you have lived a very sheltered life for those 23 years.

        You say: “So I feel the chances of being attacked by a robber with a knife or with a couple of unarmed buddies is more likely than being attacked by a robber with a 10 or more shot capacity handgun.”

        It really does NOT matter if the criminal is armed or not or what he is armed with. If he/she has a weapon you need one equal to or better than he has. If he has no weapon but is stronger than you you need a weapon to defend yourself from his superior stregnth. If there are multiple criminals then you need an equalizer. The best option for the victim to have for defense is a pistol either semi-auto or revolver which ever the victim is more comfortable with.

    • Average Joe

      Jeremy Leochehner,

      “However I do not see why a person would need a gun with either a muzzle capable of acting as a grenade launcher or a magazine capacity of over ten rounds for personal protection or hunting. I would imagine a handgun would be decent enough protection for the home or person. ”

      With all due respect, you may want to reconsider this stance:
      http://conservativevideos.com/2013/01/why-6-bullets-is-not-enough-to-defend-your-home-from-intrusion/

      AJ

      • Kate8

        AJ – I address this also to Jeremy, but he is a shill and is going to be on the side of government because he has to be.

        But here is what happened in Russia. Under the czar, they were free and fully armed, and were able to defeat the communists. But when they toppled the czar, they were disarmed, and the people were subjugated and millions slaughtered. They remain defenseless today (except for the criminals), and they are warning us to learn from what happened to them.

        Even if all guns were removed, people would still commit violent crimes (I’d much rather be shot than hacked up, given those two choices). But, the one sole reason governments have for disarming (or under-arming) the people is because THEY HAVE PLANS FOR US THEY KNOW WE AREN’T GOING TO LIKE.

        Great (and chilling) article. If anyone is on the fence as far as how well armed we should be….well, we need to be as well-armed as the government, because that is exactly what our founders had in mind when they put in the 2nd Amendment:

        http://americankabuki.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/pravda-americans-never-give-up-your-guns.html#more

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Average Joe I saw the video. Okay maybe a .38 caliber handgun is not enough. Maybe 6 shots is not enough. But I have to consider other points. A home invasion is far less likely than a break in when your not around. And even threatening with a gun or firing a shot may very well be enough to give an intruder enough sense to think maybe I should not be here. In this case the woman did as she felt was right and was correct in her actions. But for others there are other ways to respond. The news reporters on the video mentioned the risk posed if there had been more than one intruder. There are other ways to prepare for such an event without simply getting more guns.

        • DevilDogVet

          You and your cronies should move to another country. And take piers morgan with you

      • Jimmy The Greek

        Jeremy You are right ! that’s the reason we need 30 round Mags in case there are more than one !

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Kate I am no shill. And I do not support gun bans.

        However I do have a disagreement with your statement regarding the Soviet Union. You yourself state that “But when they toppled the czar, they were disarmed, and the people were subjugated and millions slaughtered.” The key words in that statement are “toppled the czar”. First it was not the communists who toppled the czar it was the February revolution which established a chaotic system that never had any real control and was then overthrown by the Bolshevik October revolution. They did not take power legally or with an election and they did not have a republic like ours. So if as you say “they are warning us to learn from what happened to them.” than I believe the lesson is that should there come a day when a group of extremists seizes power with an armed revolution than gun owners should be fearful. Because Soviets just like Hitler did not start seizing weapons and outlawing the right to bear arms until after they were already in absolute control.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I disagree there are other ways to stop a home invasion than with a 30 round magazine. Dogs, Alarm systems. Guns with perhaps 10 round capability, Neighborhood watches and better locks can all be beneficial.

      • Jimmy The Greek

        Jeremy So you are saying i should lock my self in like some kind of wimp ? and i don’t even like the kind of people that do the neighborhood watch thing . , Some one comes to my place kicking in the door well be killed even if i have to go back and slit there throat after the shooting stops , there is more than 150 acres behind the house with wild hogs and other critters that would get rid of the body’s in a few days and what was left if found no one would know were it came from or who dumped it there . i could even feed some of the meat to my dogs .

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Jimmy Locking your doors does not make you a wimp. And you do not have to take part in neighborhood watch. All I am saying is you do not need a fully stocked arsenal in your house in order to be safe.

      • Jimmy The Greek

        Your right in a way just one AR-15 or simi auto AK-47 for each one in the house from eight to eighty years of age with 75 to 100 round drum mag’s would do the trick !

      • Bill

        Jimmy the Greek’
        I agree with you.We ought to start a new division of the NRA: AK-47′s for seniors. Let’s level the playing field for the seniors. I am a senior and I shot several AK-47′s within the last year and they are fun.

      • Dennis48e

        “Kate I am no shill.”

        Jeremy there are those who say you and Flashy are the same person. I do not know if that is true or not. However, if you are the same person you are a paid shill because Flashy has admitted 1) he is paid to do his job. 2) he comes on this site as part of his job. 3) he includes what he reads here in reports to his superiors. 4) When he comes on here as part of his job he makes comments 99.99% of which go against the common threads of thought presented here. As a result it is obvious he is a paid shill and as I said above if you are as some say the same person then you are one to.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I assure you Dennis I am not flashy. I am not paid to come on here and I am no shill. I believe what I believe. I do not base my views on what is most convenient or the most profitable. I base my views on evidence and my analysis of it. I come on this site because I feel the articles bear commenting on. That is the reason why.

      • Jana

        Jeremy,
        You may not be a shill, but you sure make yourself sound like a wimp.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        How am I a wimp Jana

      • Bruce

        like in Swiss land every household should have one (or more) good assault rifle, and the training to use it effectively, and the bullets to feed it. It should be kept under lock and key. When our government crumbles, (not if), we will need our weapons to defend this dirt from the rest of the world. The better our weapons the better we can defend. Why do you see civil war cannons on the court house lawn? and old tanks on the VFW’s lawn? we were sending articles of war (more than guns) to each town so if the need arises they would be already there. That was the thinking at the end of those wars, spread the arms around so civilians can defend their country when the Fed gov gets its hands tied in some way (foreign debt and currency wars) and will not or can not do its job to protect OUR BORDERS or its citizens. When that happens the job falls to us, this is forgotten by most it seems, we are to be prepared, not dependent on the gov. (9% approval rating? really, you are willing to accept that? and then allow them to run your health care? wow wow wow). so like the boy scout motto, BE PREPARED, we civilians need to be prepared for the different collapses that are now possible. for example We need as individuals a one year supply of food so when major problems arise we can “take care of ourselves” because we were “{prepared” like boy scouts trained us to be. We should be able to shoulder pack and gun and go fight an incoming foreign force, as a TRAINED fighter, like what happened in civil war times. You should know who to join with and when, and where, and what your job will be. That is a civilian defense force actually doing its preparedness activities. We ARE at war, but no one acts like it. Many enemies have us in their sights and are ready to act when the time is right, (or are and have already acted). Are we ready to defend? So many things to defend….need civilians who will step up in their communities to defend that community. Time for a community organizer to organize the communities into good effective fighting forces who will be able to defend our dirt from forces wanting to snuff out the flame of freedom. Think our gov would support such an idea? should it? tell me!.

      • Gordon

        If you people had ever been in a situation in which you would have given $50,000 for a loaded six shot 22LR revolver…… you would certainly understand the situation better.

      • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.98892 Benjamin Fox

        I don’t see why people always bring up hurting, has nothing to do with the second ammendment but, some like to throw that around? Not getting on you Joe, just used your reply to say I have read all the commie comments, such as eddie teddy 47 ways to be a commie, Jeromy and all we need now to have the commie lying army on site is trashy flashy dashy the left wing lie squad as always, eddie teddy even says he was in the military? Which one, the USSR, or China? If the guy actually had to do something for himself, would probably have a heart attack, needs the nanny state to tell him what to say and what to do, such a good little marxist robot.

    • KCRedeye

      I don’t see why a person should NOT be able to own and possess a mag that holds more than 10 rounds! Suppose I’m in my home…..and 4 thugs force their way in……with knives, and I’m alone! Recently in the news, a lady (mother of twins) was confronted with a criminal, and she did indeed shot the idiot (5 times, actually)……and STILL, he managed to escape from her home……..get in a car, and drive away (although he crashed, and was caught by authorities). What if there’d been several thugs???? Your banning magazines will do NOTHING to prevent violent crime……..which is actually the BEST arguement!

      • Flashy

        KC…suppose I was watching TV, and it was secretly a homing device for hostile space aliens who transported down, and I had only a 10 shot magazine and there were 12…so they ate me, enslaved the world, and we became a the provisions and food for the invading forces as they took over the planet.

        About as real as your ‘what if” ….

      • Steve E

        Flashy, If you had a suicide bomb vest, you could have killed the other two aliens and that would have saved the world.

      • sheep dog on patrol

        Too late for that. The other two ate his brain.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Redeye what are the chances of facing a home invasion by multiple people. And if they do have knives as you say why wouldn’t a gun or two guns each with a 6 round capacity be enough. Why not keep a dog in the house to provide some protection. Why not install an alarm system with defensive capabilities. Why not form a neighborhood watch so the neighbors keep in close contact and an eye on each other. So that if your home is invaded the whole block can come to your defense. Perhaps some neighbors may have guns with just a six shot capacity. Numbers can prevail. But consider we are speaking in hypotheticals here. There is a genuine reality to consider. And the reality is that a break in when you are not home is far more likely than a home invasion. And in either event simply arming yourself is not the answer. Read this article from howstuffworks.com:

        http://home.howstuffworks.com/home-improvement/household-safety/security/prevent-home-invasion.htm

      • ranger09

        ITS all about degrading the publics ability to fight back on equal terms. Its been proven in history that politicians only fear the armed Citizens, When the people are unarmed they become subjects OR sheep. Follow the River for the River knows the way. Same as follow History as History will show you the Way.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Ranger would you consider such unarmed individuals as Jesus, Martin Luther King, Gandhi, The Tea Party Protesters, The Occupy Wall Street crowd or any number of social activists to be helpless sheep or subjects.

      • Jimmy The Greek

        Jermey around here they never come one at a time !

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Jimmy I do not know where you live. If that is the case than keep a few guns in the house.

      • Jimmy The Greek

        Texas ! and them mexican gang bangers run in car loads i am 35 miles north of downtown Houston they jump the border and breed like files the little anchor babies grow up to be gang bangers like the ones that jumped the border , hell down in Houston there in the 5th ward jensen drive used to be a black neighborhood the mexicans started moving in there and the black people had to move because the crime went up so much !

      • Bill

        Hi KC,
        That’s what the large mags are for. It levels the playing field between you and the thugs. And there will be more thugs with the failed economic policies of the left.

      • Gordon

        Jreremy— facing a home invasion of several assailants????? When the economy collapses and 15+ (insert your favorite racial, ethnic, or national term here) thugs come to your house for food, etc…… you will not be able to stop them with a fully auto AK. After you are dead, they will rape your wife and teenage daughters for months after you are dead. This has happened right here in the USA in history…… often by the civil war troops…. A new civil war is imminent. Think about it.

      • Gordon

        Jeremy, I will post YOUR reply for you……. “DUH, I don’t have any teenage daughters”.

        I don’t expect that you will ever understand.

      • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.98892 Benjamin Fox

        What the idiots on the left don’t seem to understand is crooks have these same weapons, so we are expected to have a pea shooter to defend ourselves from these guys who don’t worry about ink on paper.

    • dan

      the Second Amendment of the Constitution is NOT ABOUT hunting or sporting.
      it’s about the people retaining the ability to “alter or to abolish” a government gone bad,as written in the Declaration of Independence.
      the Founders had just overthrown their own incumbent government (Britain) by FORCE OF ARMS,and recognized that it might have to be done again in the future,thus the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment protecting the People’s right to keep and bear arms.
      The American Revolution BEGAN when the Brits moved to confiscate arms at Concord.
      the people (in militia) responded with privately owned arms.

      semi-auto,magazine-fed rifles such as the AR-15 and AK-47 are today’s modern MILITIA weapons,and thus should be the most protected of firearms under the Second Amendment.

      Militiamen were expected to appear for muster bearing arms and ammo similar to and compatible with what the Regular military had in use AT THAT TIME.
      Since we “compromised” and restricted ownership of full-auto,true assault rifles,that leaves the semi-auto versions for civilian militia use.

      In US v Miller,SCOTUS asked if a short-barreled shotgun was a weapon that a militia would commonly use,implying that arms protected by the 2nd Amendment had to be arms a militia would use. AR-15′s,M-16′s and AK-47s would be ordinary militia arms,and “hi-capacity magazines” also would be protected.

      • Shawn Sweeney

        Here is an apparently little known Federal Law.

        10 USC 311 – Militia: composition and classes

        (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
        (b) The classes of the militia are—
        (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
        (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
        Heraclitus51

      • http://www.facebook.com/eugene.sevene Eugene Sevene-THE PATRIOT

        You are correct and Obama and the gun control advocates also know the intent of the second amendment. As I have said before, gun control has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with control. We as citizens don’t need to allow those that commit crimes and caught in the act to be on trial for years spending tax payers money to defend a person that everyone knows is guilty. We need the death penalty for those that commit crimes such as murder and crimes against the people of this country, we don’t need a long drawn out trial defending those that we know beyond a reasonable doubt are guilty.I hear the self proclaimed Christians scream about the death penalty saying though shalt not kill. Get a life and read the Bible in it’s entirety and take notice where God sent Joshua to Jericho to destroy every living thing for it was evil. God didn’t mean that you don’t kill at all, it means you don’t kill to possess that which belongs to another. you don’t kill for out of hate. He didn’t mean that you don’t kill to protect that which is good in the eyes of God.When are we going to get angry as Christ did and drive the evil from our country.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Militia is the main issue Dan. The founders intended a militia to be the peoples defense against a tyrannical government. They did not intend for the personal arsenal one keeps in their home to be a persons defense against government gone bad. You can have the maximum number of weapons allowed in your home. That will make no shred of difference should big brother one day be coming for you. The founders intended a well regulated militia to be the defense against bad government. They intended the individual right to keep and bear arms to be primarily focused on hunting for survival which is what many did in the late 1700s and for personal protection. Things have moved on and people do still hunt for both survival and pleasure, the second amendment protects that. And people still need to protect themselves, the second amendment protects that as well. However the individuals right to keep and bear arms whether in the home or on ones person was never intended to be that individuals protection from bad government.

    • 2bvictorius

      Do you actually believe giving more power to the cental government will help make anyone safer, and giving up more of your freedom to the tyrants is a good idea?

      • Steve E

        Some people just have so many preconceived ideas which causes mental disorder that they can never learn from history.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I don’t believe in giving up freedom or handing over power. I think what matters most is who is in power and how they use the power they have. I am not saying government should be big. But my focus is on making government better. Making it more accountable to we the people. Cleaning up corruption and taking people to task when they are deceitful or hypocritical or hyperbolic. Such things are unbecoming for someone involved in public service.

    • http://jmcgraphicdesignworks.wordpress.com jcfromdc

      At the risk of repeating from a previous article, the 2ns Amendment was specifically charged with SECURING the RIGHT to put equality of “military style” arms in the hands private citizens. This for the real purpose of NOT being overwhelmed by a standing army (or an internal military-style police force, which we see more of each day) used by a dictatorial and oppressive government (which we ALSO see more of every day).

      There is the silly argument about “they were talking about flintlock muskets” when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. Fact is, the “Brown Bess” (musket in question) was the #1 choice of every European Army at the time (or ones very similar in make), i.e. the “military assault weapon” of its day. (The Colonists had many rifled arms even then, which were actually superior in range and accuracy, but did not mount a bayonet).

      Later, when the cap-lock came into being, then the cartridge repeaters (lever, bolt, semi-auto, pump-action and “Tommy Gun”, etc.), the 2nd Amendment AFFIRMED the RIGHT (not privilege) of “keeping up” with the arms of the day. Point in fact, the Tommy-gun, so popular with soldiers in WWII was primarily made for pre-WWII Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico ranchers, to intimidate Bandits along our remote border areas with Mexico, which were constantly being raided. Hmmm. Sounds kinda like today?

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Even if we have military style arms its never equitable. We can’t have tanks or mini guns or surface to air missiles or any missiles for that matter. We can’t have fighter jets or military helicopters or drones or nuclear weapons. An individuals arsenal was never intended to be ones defense against bad government. In terms of weapons of war the defense was intended to be a well regulated militia.

        • DevilDogVet

          The Viet Cong would disagree

      • eddie47d

        You mean the war where the Thieu government instilled taxation without representation by taking every thing the Viet Cong and the general populace grew as a tax . Leaving the citizens to rebel against the government we supported? Maybe where Thieu had 138,000 more votes in just Saigon than there were eligible voters.

      • momo

        DevilDogVet says:
        January 10, 2013 at 12:38 pm
        The Viet Cong would disagree

        As would the Taliban.

    • Bill

      Jeremy,
      No, we do not need to do any of things you suggest. We need to eforce the existing laws and be tough on criminals. Instead of trying to make honest citizens into criminals

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Bill we need to be tough on criminals. But that is not enough. I do not want to make anyone into a criminal. But simply strengthening existing laws will not do enough. You do not have to do all I suggested. And I am not the only one who can propose ideas. Propose some ideas yourself Bill. I am sure they might work in addition to mine and others.

        • DevilDogVet

          Here is my proposal, an eye for an eye, treat criminals how they treated their victims, obey the Constitution, what part of shall not be infringed isn’t clear to you, jail any and all politicians who support anything contrary to the Constitution, end career politicians by passing term limits on all offices. make a federal shall issue law for concealed carry…….etc

      • eddie47d

        Laws can and do change. We once had slavery in this country authorized by our Constitution and that was repealed by Amendment 13. Our Founding Fathers got most things right but not everything and even they had a variety of opinions on all the Amendments.

      • Bill

        Jeremy,
        I did make suggestions, But making it hard on the honest citizens to obtain guns is not one of my ideas and I do not agree with any ideas that do

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Okay Bill I do think they should enforce the laws. But if you disagree with making it harder for citizens to obtain guns legally I have to ask do you support back ground checks and waiting periods.

      • CZ52

        “I have to ask do you support back ground checks and waiting periods.”

        I cannot speak for Bill but as for myself, I can live with background checks (note I did not say support but live with) but I CANNOT support waiting periods in any form or fashion beyond the time it takes to do the background check which in my experience is usually 30 minutes or less.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        CZ52 Background checks are a way of determining if a person is a convicted felon, is on parole, has a history of mental health issues and if that person has ever owned a gun. Such a process should take more than 30 mins.

      • CZ52

        Jeremy if the records are kept up to date then 30 minutes is more than enough time. If the records are not kept up to date then 2 or even 4 weeks would make no difference.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        CZ52 If the records are not up to date we need longer times. We can’t let just anyone get a gun.

      • CZ52

        Jeremy how naive can you be? If the records are not kept up to date then it does not matter what the waiting period is they will NEVER be able to prevent someone who should not be allowed a gun from eventualy getting one legally and those who should be able to get one immediately will NOT be able to do so and will only be deprived of their right to purchase, posess, and use their firearm in a timely manner.

    • gunner

      Waiting to read the official report on the Sandy Hook massacre detailing which guns were used. Initial reports said handguns only and the semi-automatic gun was found in his trunk after the shootings. What is the truth?

      He didn’t use a grenade launcher or a bayonet or a flash suppressor yet that’s what they want to ban. As Rahm Emmanuel said, “Never let a crisis go to waste.”

      • Jeremy Leochner

        What person in their normal life or even for personal protection needs a grenade launcher or a bayonet or a flash suppressor?

        • DevilDogVet

          What person in their right mind thinks that they have the right to tell someone what they can or cannot have. Why do you need to eat chocolate, I’m allergic, so surely you should not have any either.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Well I am pretty sure everyone has a right to tell someone they cannot have something that does not belong to them. Evidently no one is in their right mind.

        • DevilDogVet

          It was obvious that the intent of my comment was not aimed at theft, but good effort at deflection.

      • eddie47d

        So Dog if you have a child that is allergic to peanuts and could die you can’t restrict his right to eat peanuts? Easy access to guns make killing much easier and yes we do have the right to restrict anything that does harm to us.

      • Dennis48e

        “So Dog if you have a child that is allergic to peanuts and could die you can’t restrict his right to eat peanuts? ”

        Bad example eddie. The child is a minor so you have control of what he/she eats to the best of your ability. Once the child turns 18 they can eat all the peanuts they want. Hopefully if they are allergic they would have enough sense to not do so but it would be their right.

        • DevilDogVet

          The idiocy of people like eddie is why we are where we are.

      • eddie47d

        I see that mirror is working well Devil Dog!

    • Meteorlady

      How about we talk about this:

      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.

      How about we talk about this, from the FBI’s own website:

      In 1992 there were 757 per 100,000 violent crimes committed. 9.3 per 100,000 murders.
      In 2011 there were 386 per 100,000 violent crimes committed. 4.7 per 100,000 murders.

      Further on the FBI website you will find exactly WHERE THESE CRIMES are committed, right down to the neighborhoods. Most happen in cities over 250,000.

      Why aren’t politicians taking responsibility for a 54% decrease in violent crime? Why aren’t they asking why these particular neighborhoods have such violence? Why aren’t they trying to improve schools and jobs in those areas?

      Home Office is another source for when people tell you about England and it’s laws. England and Whales have a population of about 66 Million yet in 2011 they had 1,361 per 100,000 violent crimes committed. Their murder rate was 1.3 per 100,000. Granted their murder rates a less than our, but population to population are they really?

      • Walt

        Information about the link between anti-depression drugs and school shootings and other similar mass murder violence can be found here:

        http//:www.ssristories.com

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Your right. We need to look at the medical system and prevailing idea that a drug will cure any ill.

    • TML

      Jeremy Leochner says “However I do not see why a person would need a gun with either a muzzle capable of acting as a grenade launcher or a magazine capacity of over ten rounds for personal protection or hunting. I would imagine a handgun would be decent enough protection for the home or person.
      Personally I think magazine restrictions might be a good thing to add to any plan. Make the bad guys have to reload a little more often might just by time for someone to stop them or at least get away. Of course any such magazine restrictions would also need other things to help.”

      You should listen to someone who has actually been in a situation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis

      Jeremy Leochner says “Now at the same time we need to talk about our countries mental health system and our media culture of attention glorification.”

      There can’t be any laws that restrict free press. It would have to simply be the personal responsibility of the news.

      Jeremy Leochner says “Gun bans like prohibition do not work. They violate the constitution and make us less safe not more. What we can do is try to set reasonable limits on how to legally obtain a gun while simultaneously putting in every effort to stamp out the illegal gun trade.”

      The most glaring problem with even the so-called ‘reasonable’ limits is that such limits are what have created an illegal gun trade, and that gun trade would increase as the restrictions increase.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        TML

        1: I watched the video. I understand. That women should have been allowed to have her gun. I never said that magazine restrictions should be the end all fix. They need to be implemented with other measures as well.

        2: I do not want to restrict free press. But people should speak out and encourage journalists and pundits to exercise personal responsibility. And if all else fails people can stop watching the networks that do stuff like that. Than maybe they will stop doing it.

        3: I disagree with this idea that “such limits are what have created an illegal gun trade”. To me that’s like saying its a bad idea to make heroin illegal because it creates the illegal drug trade. If we make it easier to obtain something legally it will simply encourage people to do so. If there were not background checks or waiting periods or registry of gun owners I would imagine the number of bad guys who obtain weapons legally in order to commit their crimes would go up. We have to attack from both sides. We have to make it difficult for bad guys to obtain guns either legally or illegally.

      • TML

        Jeremy Leochner says “To me that’s like saying its a bad idea to make heroin illegal because it creates the illegal drug trade.”

        It is a bad idea, for a lot of reasons. You just express how much of a failure prohibition has been, so it would seem you are contradicting your own argument. The demand doesn’t diminish simply because it becomes illegal, thus creating the black market for whatever it is that has been prohibited. Heroin being made illegal is exactly what created the illicit drug trade by definition.

        Jeremy Leochner says “If we make it easier to obtain something legally it will simply encourage people to do so.”

        So, would you go out and do heroin if it were legal tomorrow? I doubt it, as I doubt for most of the population.

        Jeremy Leochner says “If there were not background checks or waiting periods or registry of gun owners I would imagine the number of bad guys who obtain weapons legally in order to commit their crimes would go up. We have to attack from both sides. We have to make it difficult for bad guys to obtain guns either legally or illegally.”

        All this without any idea of who the bad guys are, is exactly problem. You’re promoting the idea of treating all gun owners as criminals. Do you think murders and crimes would stop? Even if you were somehow successful in eliminating the illegal gun trade, what is to stop the criminals from using legal guns to carry out their deeds? Obviously none, thus your reasoning leads perpetually toward complete and utter prohibition of all guns. Which is of course, totally unacceptable to the law-abiding American for many legitimate reasons.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        TML countless people use drugs because of peer pressure. They do so because they think they can get away with it. Making drugs like heroin legal will only make it easier for those who want to use it to get it. And just because someone wants something does not mean we as a society should just give it too them. Its not just the individuals using heroin who would be affected.

        As for guns I do support treating all gun owners as criminals. We need to turn the screws on those who obtain weapons illegally. And if as you said we were able to weaken the illegal gun trade criminals may try and obtain weapons legally. Which is why we need to either maintain or strengthen some gun laws to make it difficult. The laws regulating guns are meant to keep them from the hands of bad guys. I admit it also hurts innocent people but what can be done other wise I ask. Do we simply assume that everyone should be armed so as to prevent people from being attacked while unarmed. Do we give up on any sort of societal effort or legislative effort to combat the problem. I have no desire for honest people to have a hard time obtaining a gun. However I cannot forget the fact that making it easier for a good guy to obtain a gun legally also makes it easier for a bad guy to do so as well.

        • DevilDogVet

          You and your type are the problem in America, not guns.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Just wondering. Are you talking to me DevilDogVet?

    • eddie47d

      So Vickie apparently this means that a potential criminal should have free reign in buying a weapon because we have no idea of what he is up to. In other words do nothing which will allow these “events” to keep happening. Like in the James Holmes case where he bought as many weapons as he wanted and from several different places. He had no criminal record and even bought 6,250 rounds of ammo to compliment his trophy hunting. You should listen to the family members who lost loved ones who are now testifying in front of Holmes and they think he is acting as normal as can be in what he says. Very coherent but manipulative in how he plotted out his deed. That is why mental illness can’t be the only issue to deal with because they say there is no way he is mentally ill. They say he is matter of fact about what he did and almost like he would do it again. So far two of the victims or family members say they are demanding stronger control on semi-automatics and another wants a total ban.

      • DevilDogVet

        Ahhhh……eddie…AKA eddie the ignorant….I say again…..criminals do not obey the law. Laws and bans will not prevent criminals from harming others, but it will affect the law abiding from protecting themselves from criminals, including government criminals. Do you really think that the government cares about the rats and roaches that we are from being exterminated? Abortion kills over 3000 children daily, our wars across the world kill children and other innocents as well. Get a clue, gun control is about control, plain and simple.

      • gunner

        Mental health IS the issue – or should be. More gun laws aren’t the answer although it might make some of you feel all warm and fuzzy. Crazy people and criminals intent on committing crimes involving guns will find a way to get guns: Straw purchases like the gal that bought the guns for the lunatic that shot and killed firefighters responding to a fire on his property, Stealing guns from law abiding citizens as Lanza and Columbine shooters did, etc. Taking constitutional rights away from law abiding citizens is not the answer. Mental health is the problem.

        All the recent theatrics are an effort to diminish the 2nd amendment by liberal Democrats taking advantage of recent tragedies to promote their agenda. Don’t allow them to direct the conversation to gun control. Demand that the mental health problems receive the attention they deserve so we don’t have to endure any more of these mass shootings.

      • eddie47d

        Devil Dog the “ignorant’! Then Dog if you want no restrictions on the buying and selling of weapons then I give you full responsibility for legally arming James Holmes which allowed him to commit his carnage. As far as those wars go and I believe you hinted that you served then you are also guilty of perpetuating those wars. That makes you a useful idiot for the government. If you insist on name calling then expect return fire!

      • eddie47d

        Mental health is only part of the problem Gunnar although one that needs to be addressed. They now think James Holmes is coherent and not mentally unstable. Either way he legally obtained his weapons and at this time doesn’t regret what he did. Easy access to his weapons is a much bigger concern. That makes guns at the bulls eye of the problem.

    • Capiralist at Birth

      Dolt.

    • Michael

      Your watered down arguments are exactly what the gun control groups want to hear – a “rational” agreement for control. What part of “…..shall not be infringed…..” do you not understand?

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Michael Criminals cannot have guns. Mentally ill people cannot have guns. Children cannot have guns. So there are reasonable limits to the second amendment that everyone can agree on. As for me I was talking about waiting periods and background checks which in no way infringe on peoples rights to keep and bear arms.

    • JUKEBOX

      Jeremy, three of those features you listed have been on many guns since the late 1800′s, long before anyone called any gun an assault weapon.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I did not know that. So maybe we need to be more careful on how we define an assault weapon.

    • nabiru

      Once and for all to every one who ask me the question of what I need and why I need.
      None of my rights are depending of the showing of need. OK ?!

    • BobF

      The need for more than 10 rounds does exist. I listened to a former SWAT officer on the radio the other day; he was talking about an incident he was involved n during his days as an officer. There were three SWAT sharpshooters and two FBI agents after a criminal who had guns. They fired more than 60 shots to get the bad guy. If a group of people break in or atttack you on the street 10 shots may not be eniugh, and you do niot want ti find out the hard way; face it, they will not let you call time out so you can reload. A person does not know how many shots they will need until it is over. We all hope we wll never need even one shot, but “hope is not a method”, we need to be prepared. This is why we have to have car insurance. The government is making us buy heath nsurance for the same reason; if they were consistant we would be required to have guns for protection as well, and have trainging on using them. We cannot rely on someone else to protect us; the SWAT officer also talked about people trespassing on his property with guns; he called the police who arrived two hours later. We have a need for as much as the attacker has, and the attacker is someone who does not follow the rule of law. It’s like war, if someone attacks you, why should you go by rules that the enemy will not go by? It’s stupid to refuse to do what it takes to survive. Patton said to not die for your country, but make the other poor SOB die for his country. If you are not prepared to survive, you die. There are things worth dying for, but they are worth living for as well.

    • http://itsootsme.wordpress.com sootsme

      Um, what part of “…shall not be infringed.” do you not understand? By law (remember the Constitution?) not one single existing or proposed gun law is in fact a law at all! The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that anything, even though it looks like or is in the form of a law, is in fact not a law and is null and void if it in any way contradicts our Constitution. Period. It is the job of each and every county sheriff to enforce this exact state of affairs, as they are the top law enforcement officials in their respective jurisdictions (counties), and they trump all others, including local, state, and federal officers/agents. See http://www.sheriffmack.com for details on some of the Supreme Court’s rulings on this issue. Also, anyone who is deputized by a county sheriff has the same authority. Seems to me that the most effective strategy is for millions of American Patriots to join their local Sheriff’s Auxiliary and then proceed to arrest anyone who violates the Constitution acting “under color of law” and pressing charges of treason. It really is time for the gloves to come off, and to start being effective beyond typing on the web and protesting. Putting the clowns/tyrants in the slammer will actually do some good. Short of this, they do not give a rip what anyone says or thinks, because it does not impede their game. We need to dump lots of sand in their gears already. Think Sun Tzu, folks…

  • Tom Cook

    Ben you are as usual exactly right. Some patriots will die in an early effort to steal guns from private ownership, but rapidly the slaughter of copthugs and other criminal agents of the government will ensue, and if some of us survive the early effort, we’ll be going after the criminals in D.C. They had best have really good places to hide; because we’ll hunt them down like the vermin they are.

    • mark

      Another appeal for the assassination of elected government officials. Should we congratulate you for your treason? For your ugly, bullying, and so typical hatred?

      • John R. Howell

        The criminals in government in D.C. hate us, so what are we supposed to do, just cry and pray?? John R. Howell

      • Hedgehog

        Mark:
        Elected officials who do not uphold their oath to defend the Constitution, are by definition traitors. Assassinating traitors is not treason,QED. Could it be that you are a government agent provocateur? Are you unaware that the traitors in your government declared war upon you the people years ago? Willful ignorance is no excuse for treason!

      • 2bvictorius

        I would bet if someone ask you to spell, wordsmith, you would reply, my name is not Smith. it is Mark?

      • Flashy

        “Elected officials who do not uphold their oath to defend the Constitution, are by definition traitors.” <— hedgehog doing looney tunes on us

        Errrr…and who decides if their acts are, or are not, Constitutional? Let me guess..those with the most guns. right?

      • mark

        Under the American system, treason is determined in a court of law with a prosecutor, attorneys, certifiable evidence, and a sober judge and jury – not by a bunch of angry paranoids who feel they have the right to kill anyone who wants to apply background checks at gun shows, limit multiple-round ammunition magazines, and semi-automatic assault rifle ownership.

      • Steve E

        Mark, you and your kind are the ones that are enabling treason.

      • Meteorlady

        Mark… people like you that so easily give up freedoms make me think I no longer belong in this country. We were once free, now we are slaves to a government that takes care of itself and not it’s people.

        I was attached in a Mall parking lot by three street thugs with knives. I am 5’7″, weight 135LBS and am a woman. They wanted me to drive them to the nearest ATM and after that I’m pretty sure what would have happened to me – either beaten, raped or dead. I conceal carry so when I reached in my pocket for my “car keys” I pulled out my gun. They ran and the police showed up 15 minutes after my 911 call. Not one single person stepped up to help me even though two MEN witnessed what was going on.

        So my gun has an extended clip and I can shoot numerous times over what the gun originally was designed to carry. That’s called an automatic weapon, once I cock it, by some that would ban my gun. I have passed background checks and have complied with all the laws. So with that said why would you deny that I have the full and complete right to defend myself against the nutcases and thugs on the streets in urban areas today?

        I would die for the freedom to protect myself, my family and my property. Would you?

      • sheep dog on patrol

        Response to Steve. You are spot on. But, don’t try to use logic nor reason with these morons. They just don’t get it. The reason I own a Semi-automatic AR-15 and a multitued of ammo and hig cap mags is for the time when I will need to defend my family, and my home against these same morons when they realize that the government and the economy has collapsed and they come to my home to try and get what I have worked for and saved. They think they are protected by this government. If they or anyone thinks the government is going to protect them, they need to take a hard look at the American Indians. Today’s new reservations are called FEMA camps.

      • eddie47d

        We have taken a hard look at the American Indian sheep dog. Its those with guns who used their firepower to slaughter those Indians from coast to coast. It was Conservative pioneers who demanded that those “heathen savages” be slaughtered so their land could be stolen. One Indian killing a settler equaled the killing of 100 Indians so they were firmly put in their place by the almighty gun. The majority of Indians still live in those “FEMA” camps which were created by Conservative businessmen and Conservative politicians. Now show me anywhere where a “new” FEMA camp has been used against you because it is not happening.

      • eddie47d

        Canadian Hedgehog and American Tom Cook; Why are you advocating for assassinations when they always cause more turmoil than positive change? I can answer that myself because you don’t want real change but are drooling for chaos. If what you say is a true feeling then you would have shot Joe McCarthy who arrested and jailed hundreds of Americans without any proof of guilt. He was the precursor of the Patriot Act and anyone to him was fair game. You sound eerily familiar!

      • mark

        Meteor Lady, the legislation in mind involves a ban on magazine clips of over 10 bullets. So you would be fine with your pistol. Also just showing your pistol detered the crooks obviously. If it was revolver rather than a semi-automatic, they would have fled just as quickly. No one in Washington is talking about taking away your gun but rather imposing a ban on the future sales (not affecting those who already own them) of semi-automatic assault rifles. Don’t you follow the news?

        • DevilDogVet

          Don’t you follow history. Gun confiscation and disarmament is the goal. Keep drinking the kool aid

      • eddie47d

        You need to stop fooling yourself Devil Dog or at least stop arming anyone who comes along and waves the American flag. Those rouge gun dealers in Texas,Arizona and the Carolina’s spout patriotism all the time while selling under the table. They are a part of the problem too and they need their tales snipped! Our government has been the number one arms dealer in the world also yet is the world safer because of the millions of weapons put on the market. Heck no! We have propped up brutal dictatorships all over the world with gun sales so maybe that’s how we learned all our bad habits.

        • DevilDogVet

          Eddie I will take care of myself and my family and friends, you can keep the illusion that the government will take care of you along with your “change”. Bad people will always be bad, you can’t legislate an individuals will.

      • CZ52

        “Those rouge gun dealers in Texas,Arizona and the Carolina’s spout patriotism all the time while selling under the table.”

        Another BS remark from eddie. He constantly makes this claim but has yet to provede any sources, links, or other evidence that rogue gun dealers are a pervasive problem in the states he mentioned or anywhere else in the US.

      • eddie47d

        The problem with you CZ52 you just don’t want to believe it so you go into denial!

      • CZ52

        No eddie my problem is I expect you to back up your spurious claims and accusations with sources and/or links that back up your claims.

  • FreedomIsNotFree

    Jeremy,
    Your thinking is the result of decades of liberal propaganda and the incremental brainwashing of the American society.
    The 2nd amendment states: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
    The constitution was written to establish boundaries for the federal government. The 2nd amendment gives the people the right to stand against a tyrannical government. It is not talking about the need for guns for self-protection.
    Let’s not forget why the constitution was written and why the 2nd amendment was included.
    History is full of tyrannical governments…why do we think it could never happen here?

    • RivahMitch

      Freedom: You wrote “The constitution was written to establish boundaries for the federal government. The 2nd amendment gives the people the right to stand against a tyrannical government.”

      You’re absolutely correct that the Constitution was written both to grant limited power to and establish absolute boundaries for the federal government. Let me suggest, however, that the 2nd Amendment did not “give the people the right to stand against a tyrannical government”. (The Declaration had identified that as an unalienable right). To “secure” that right, the 2nd Amendment was written to keep the government from denying the people the means by which they could exercise their pre-existing right “to alter or abolish it” should it (as it has, IMHO) become tyrannical.

      • JT

        RivahMitch:

        An excellent and well-stated point.

        It’s important for people to realize that the Second Amendment is NOT about “granting” any rights, because rights don’t come from any government authority. It IS about specifically prohibiting any infringement of a basic HUMAN RIGHT.

        So, even if the Second Amendment were eliminated (or somehow circumvented), the right to keep and bear arms would not cease to exist. It would remain, despite being violated by the government, just like any other basic human right.

        This is something our ambassador to the U.N. needs to remember when dealing in matters relating to U.S. sovereignty and individual liberty.

    • Jeremy Leochner

      1: The founding fathers never intended an individuals personal arsenal of weapons to be that individuals defense against tyrannical government. They intended a militia.

      2: The reason we think it could never happen here is our country has a history, a tradition and a culture that is against rulers and against tyranny. Any hint of anything even remotely seen as tyrannical is jumped on and condemned in no uncertain terms. Considering the history of tyrants like Hitler and Stalin and how they came to power it seems unlikely that such a tyrant could achieve power here. That is not liberal propaganda.

      • Capiralist at Birth

        You obviously have not read the writings of Madison and Jefferson. It is definitely what they intended. If you are so ignorant, why don’t you leave this country and go live somewhere else? Please I will contribute $ 100, and I am sure there are enough like minded people in this country to finance yours and people like you one way ticket to Cuba or Venezuala.

        • DevilDogVet

          I will contribute too.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Let me get this straight Capitalist. You believe that the founding fathers considered a personal arsenal to be enough to stand up to the government by yourself. You think the founding fathers put faith in a collection of muskets which is what people had access to in those days. You think that the founders believed that someone armed with a few muskets could stand up to an army of many with muskets, rifles, cannon and cavalry. And regardless of the era the balance remains the same. Do you honestly believe that the founders intended the lone or few people on the block who may have a few handguns or rifles to be able to stand up successfully against a military apparatus like that which the United States has. I believe that is an illogical argument. I believe that the founders wished for organized and regulated militias to be the peoples defense against tyranny. And I believe the individual right to bear arms was geared more towards hunting and personal protection.

        • DevilDogVet

          You should read what the founders said before spouting forth your opinion on what you think they meant. They were very clear, the Constitution is worth fighting and dying for whether you win or lose. Without it we have nothing, in addition the Vietnam war teaches us that our superior military can be fought against with inferior weapons by applying tactics specific to what you are fighting against.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I have read the constitution and I try to consider what I say carefully. I am not spouting anything. Unless you consider it spouting to question the premise that an individual armed with a few guns can standing up to a tyrannical government all alone is what the founders intended. I am simply stating what I believe to be a more reasonable position. That the founders saw the press and the freedom of speech and assembly to be the peoples first and best line of defense, hence why they made them the first amendment. And that the founders saw militias as the next line of defense hence putting them in the first portion of the second amendment. And that finally the founders wished for all Americans to have the right to protect themselves and to hunt as many Americans relied on hunting for sustenance. I do not see how anything I have said is not in keeping with the constitution.

      • JUKEBOX

        Jeremy, evidently you are completely consumed with rectal/cranial inversion, because any intelligent person, who knows history, can see the parrallels between Obama and Mein Kampf.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Please explain how JUKEBOX. Explain how Obama in any ways represents the ideas expressed in Mein Kampf.

      • Average Joe

        “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately

        Benjamin Franklin
        At the signing of the Declaration of Independence

  • roger gunderson

    Men have had and need weapons since pre stone age. Nobody
    can take mans weapons away.

    • Warrior

      And when the lawsuits ensue and they come before john roberts court, john will decide are they “arms” or “weapons”. Of course, john will deem them to be “weapons” and therefore not covered by the 2nd.

  • Jeff

    Jeremy Leochner, are you aware that a woman in GA (this week) protected her kids used 5 rounds to stop ONE home invader. What if there are multiple assailants that are armed?

    Subjecting a law abiding citizen to a magazine limit puts law abiding citizens at a disadvantage compared to bad guys that already ARE NOT playing by the rules.

    Next, do you know how many magazines are out there? Take the number of guns and multiply it largely by a factor of 3 to 5 at a MINIMUM. How do you think you prevent these magazines from falling into criminal hands?

    Then the language of “high capacity” magazines drives me crazy. Most of what guns are talked about are utilizing “standard capacity” magazines. AR’s were designed originally around a 20 round magazine and the military later adopted the current 30 round configuration. Here’s another example, Glock 9mm’s were originally designed as a 17, 15, or 10 depending on the frame size (full size, compact, sub-compact). 10 round magazines are neutered in anything other than the “sub-compacts”. They are “REDUCED CAPACITY”!

    You have proposed nothing that takes away the access from criminals of obtaining weapons. Be that fertilizer, guns, knives, etc. What concerns me is that there is no regard for the common citizen. All these hypocrites proposing these laws have bodyguards or have carry permits themselves. There is the ruling class and everyone else. Do not take away or impede my ability to protect my family!

    P.S. That grenade launcher feature that the gun grabbers write of is specifically targeted at the SKS which is a semi-auto that pre-dates the AK-47. It was developed in Russia and is a military surplus rifle. There are thousands out there in the US. No one uses that feature. Care to guess why? Grenades aren’t legal.

    • Bill

      Good comments, Jeff

    • Jeremy Leochner

      Yes I have heard that story Jeff. And I respect your points. I never said magazine restrictions will fix things on their own. I only meant them as a piece of a larger plan. A person with two six shot capacity hand guns can be just as effective against a home invasion of a single or even two people as someone with a single 10 or more shot capacity rifle. And not for nothing but home invasions are far less likely than a burglary or break in.

    • JUKEBOX

      If you ask anyone who has ever been in a firefight about how big a magazine they needed, they will not be able to tell you until the firefight is over.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I understand Jukebox. But what does that mean. Do we give everyone a gun with a large magazine capacity on the off chance they will be in a fire fight. I do not see that as reasonable.

  • Brenda Foulks

    Found last night in Obamacare, pages 2037 to 2039, Harry Reid put in the 2nd Amendment stating that it can not be touched. Guns and ammo cannot be taken or registered. Look it up, Obama should have read his own bill before passing it…

    • Bill

      Great research, Brenda
      See if you can find a link so we can post it

    • JT

      Brenda, that’s not exactly true. What those subsections state only pertains explicitly to the disclosure of use, storage or ownership of firearms and ammunition in relation to the Affordable Care Act. The provisions do not extend beyond the scope of healthcare, and only protect against discriminatory practices of insurance providers towards those who own firearms. Basically, it prohibits insurance providers from collecting (or requiring) information of gun ownership and use, in order to prevent denial of coverage or rate increases based on that information.

      It does not prevent the government from confiscating arms from lawful citizens, or maintaining records of ownership. The Bill of Rights already does that, by protecting the right to keep and bear arms, and the right to privacy.

      • Kate8

        JT – Yes, and besides, it is not something that government has the authority to allow or disallow. They can write up all of the legislation and provisions they want, but they carry no weight…other than with the use of deadly force on us.

        We do not have to register guns just because they say so. We do it voluntarily, because we believe that we have to always comply with everything they say, even if it is unlawful.

        How did we get here? The Constitution is to protect US from THEM, and its restrictions are on THEM, not US.

        Further, any move toward violating our Constitutional Rights is an ACT OF TREASON, and we have the right to remove and arrest everyone who is complicit in this, and that includes citizenry. It’s sedition.

      • JT

        Kate8:

        We are in COMPLETE agreement.

        Thanks for your insight.

        …………..-jt

      • Kate8

        JT – I addressed my remark to you because I am in complete support of your comments, and I do understand that you are aware of these things.

        My comments are directed more toward any readers who may be waffling about this issue. I was just elaborating on your post.

        Blessings.

    • JUKEBOX

      Don’t forget, Nancy Pelosi said they had to pass it quick, so they could find out what is in it.

  • By George

    The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution, the right to keep and bear arms, absolutely grants American citizens the right to be armed, particularly prohibiting the Federal Government from preventing it. No specifics weapons are mentioned either by limitation or approval. This has been confirmed by the US Supreme Court in several opinions.

    Any limitations to possessing a gun must therefore devolve to the individual states as provided for in the 10th Amendment. What’s so difficult to understand? The media directs our thoughts to “gun control” when gun control is not the problem. Fifty years of encroaching Liberalism is the problem.

    It’s the mentally ill, especially young white males who have been drugged in government schools for years and are still wandering around in our society, from whence these brutal type of attacks have come; except for the Islamic Jihadist’s of course, who do their own thing for their own reasons.

    The media suggests that with gun possession, we can’t, or shouldn’t, really trust each others judgement. Well, basically, yes, we can! What we do not trust is the growing power of this Federal Government and there is the crux of the gun owner possession question and where the focus of attention should be directed.

    • dan

      mentally ill or just on medication…. the mass murderers have been on prescribed drugs:
      http://www.naturalnews.com/038616_John_Noveske_mysterious_death_car_crash.html

    • AZ-Ike

      Article VI. …This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

      The only ‘Authority’ the United States Government has comes from the Constitution–granting the limited powers and responsibilities to it (by the people) as stated. If the Laws and Treaties made and agreed to by the United States are within the parameters of the constitutional Rule of Law, they become the “supreme Law of the Land” and all of the States are also bound by them. If the Laws and Treaties made and agreed to by the United States are outside the parameters of the constitutional Rule of Law, then the laws and treaties are UNCONSTITUTIONAL and neither the States NOR the people are bound by them.

      The 2nd Amendment which became a part of the Constitution when ratified and is, therefore, the supreme Law of the Land guarantees “…the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

      As I see it, neither the federal government NOR the State governments have the constitutional power or legal authority to limit gun (or weapons) ownership (including ammunition, etc.) in any way without violating the ‘supreme Law of the Land.’

      The only real criticism I have of Ben’s article is his statement that Obama and the Democrats are consistently attacking the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is members of BOTH political parties in ALL Branches of Government and at every level of government, including State and local, that are intent on ignoring, violating, and eliminating the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. If the concentration stays on the Democrats, the efforts of GOP traitors (like Sen. John McCain) will succeed in their efforts of unconstitutionally eliminating more of our guaranteed Rights.

      And, Ben doesn’t really have to worry about military personnel violating ‘posse commitatus’ when the feds have Napolitano’s Homeland Security thugs, the Regulatory Agency armies, and the gestapo state and city police forces at their disposal before calling in the UN troops.

  • Idiotproof55

    As a retired Navy guy, who has studied this stuff, I don’t think Obama is smart enough to even care about how many ppl in America have to die, just so he can play penny ante dicktater. The world elite want WWIII and for 6.5 Billion ppl to die. Thats why they chose idiot Obama. Just sayin’.

  • http://www.cindynel.co.za peter

    My problem is that I fail to understand why this guy wants to disarm American citizens, but is happy to sanction the sale of guns to Mexican drug cartels and other rebels worldwide. Maybe there is a hidden agenda here that I am missing? The problem for me is that none of the so-called leaders of the world seem capable of telling the truth. That is disturbing as lying tends to complicate matters so much more. Maybe they are just incapable of being truthful? Maybe we should be very very careful about whom we choose to idolize. Killing folks is one thing which I find totally abhorrent, either in war or in anger, but persecuting folks is quite another matter. It seems though that the American folks are quite happy there, as they live daily in a state of persecution. I thought slavery was abolished in the USA long ago. Seems I was wrong. Sorry, need to run, seems there is someone at my door – the FBI maybe? Just send a drone instead, its easier.

  • Bill

    The Newtown/Sandy Hook and Aurora shootings have all of the earmarks of false flag ops by rogues in our own government. Most Americans have a hard time believing that their government is capable of committing a heinous crime just for the purpose creating support for the disarming of it’s citizens. But history has examples of such. They usually precede a genocide. (think Russia, China, Germany, Cuba, WWII Croatia etc.). Our government, in partnership with the mainstream media whores have been conditioning the American people for decades. Non military government organizations now have 5.3 rounds of hollow point ammo for every man, woman and child in this country. It is my suspicion that they will, as a last resort, try to provoke an uprising with all of this draconian gun legislation so they can declare Marshall law, suspend all constitutional liberties and pound us into submission. All of this with a sociopath of a president make for a dangerous cocktail. The way I see it, the second amendment is the last tattered thread holding what’s left of it together. But hey, I’m just a paranoid conspiracy nut job.

    • Bill

      Hi Bill,
      It is great to know that the other Bill shares my views. If you wanted to really get everyone so upset so that they were not thinking reasonably and would do anything you wanted, what better medium than killing a bunch of young school kids. Makes you wonder, doesn’t it

      • Andy

        I’m in total agreement with you 2 Bills!

    • eddie47d

      I’m glad Bill number 1 labeled himself so I can save myself from doing it! Unfortunately there are two other nuts that are cracked! If you don’t have an inkling of proof of that being possible then please turn yourself in to the nearest insane asylum.

      • momo

        eddie47d says:
        January 10, 2013 at 12:35 pm
        “I’m glad Bill number 1 labeled himself so I can save myself from doing it! Unfortunately there are two other nuts that are cracked! If you don’t have an inkling of proof of that being possible then please turn yourself in to the nearest insane asylum.”

        eddie, you’re already in that insane asylium.

      • eddie47d

        Now we have a fourth who apparently agrees that either the government killed the kids at Sandy Hook or it never happened! I’ll order your straight jacket right away MOMO!

  • JT

    Keep in mind that Feinstein’s bill amounts to government confiscation of privately owned firearms.

    This is because, along with the creation of a national database registering all gun owners, and an “ownership tax” of $200 PER FIREARM OWNED, the bill prohibits ANY transfer of banned weapons already owned, and REQUIRES said guns to be surrendered to the federal government upon the death of the owner.

    So, while they attempt to minimize any pushback by claiming that the law would exempt currently owned firearms, the truth of the matter is that those guns will eventually become the property of the government. No more passing down your guns to your kids and grandkids if Feinstein, Schumer, Lautenberg, Bloomberg, etc. get their way.

    And once they convince the mindless masses that this is “reasonable” and necessary for public safety, do you REALLY believe they will stop with semiauto long arms?? Of course not. They WILL be back for the rest of your guns….count on it.

    This whole steaming pantload of Feinstein’s proves once and for all that the ONLY reason for requiring lawful citizens to register legally-owned arms is to provide the means for eventual confiscation. Those of us paying attention have known that for a very long time. Here’s to hoping that many more people see the truth in the very near future. To that end, please tell every Second Amendment supporter you know.

    By exploiting the victims of lunatics, the gun grabbers are beginning to sway public opinion back in their favor. And, while the existence of the Bill of Rights is SUPPOSED to protect those enumerated rights from even an overwhelming majority of public opinion to violate them, we cannot fully rely on the power of that document to do so. It will require all those who value liberty above all else to disallow mob-rule and once again protect this basic human right.

  • trp878

    There is no need for talking. The 2nd Amendment says we can own them. No discussion. The libs all read into it what they want. They are wrong!
    Biden suggests White House could act without Congress as part of gun control
    plan Executive action … can be taken,” Biden said, adding “we haven’t decided what.
    that is yet.” Again THEY ARE WRONG!
    MAYBE THIS WILL CAUSE ANOTHER REVOLUTIONARY WAR!

    • Flashy

      “The 2nd Amendment says we can own them. No discussion. The libs all read into it what they want. They are wrong!” <— TRP

      Ummm…and you say this with what supporting your claim? Throughout our history, the 2nd has been deemed burdenable in time, place, manner and type and by group. All of a sudden…you're saying we should ignore history and re-interpret the 2nd to be absolute for all and everywhere at all times and all other Rights second place?

      An armed police state is your desire?

      Come on…use common sense.

      • Bill

        Flashy,
        Make sure that you do what you are advocating and turn in all of your guns. You liberals are so emotional that you can’t be trusted with guns.

      • Average Joe

        Flashy,

        For your personal edification:

        As passed by the Congress:

        A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

        The statement: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state,”
        is often misunderstood to mean that you need to be in a militia in order to own firearms. Well, point in-fact, every male of draft age who is of sound body and mind is considered a member of the “unorganized militia” according to the law, but that’s irrelevant, because the second statement:
        “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
        is the important part. This statement is the crux of the amendment and ensures that the individual right to bear arms is not infringed upon. Now, the way this sentence is constructed (in total), the right of the people allows for the well-regulated militia. The militia is a byproduct of the right to bear arms, not a prerequisite. Here is the grammatical break down from the prof:
        [ Copperud:] The words “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitute a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying ” militia,” which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject “the right,” verb “shall”). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.
        In reply to your numbered questions:
        [Schulman: (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to "a well-regulated militia"?;]
        [ Copperud:] (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.
        [Schulman: (2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right "shall not be infringed"?;]
        [ Copperud:] (2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.
        [Schulman: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and void?;]
        [ Copperud:] (3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.
        [Schulman: (4) Does the clause "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," grant a right to the government to place conditions on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms," or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?;]
        [ Copperud:] (4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.
        [Schulman: (5) Which of the following does the phrase " well-regulated militia" mean: "well-equipped," "well-organized," "well-drilled," "well-educated," or "subject to regulations of a superior authority"?]
        [ Copperud:] (5) The phrase means “subject to regulations of a superior authority”; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.
        [Schulman: If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written two-hundred years ago, but not to take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.]
        [ Copperud:] To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: “Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.”
        [Schulman:] As a “scientific control” on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,
        “A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.”
        My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,
        (1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence, and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment’s sentence?; and
        (2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict “the right of the people to keep and read Books” only to “a well-educated electorate” – for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?]
        [ Copperud:] (1) Your “scientific control” sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.
        (2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.
        Got it? Good.

        Roy Herman Copperud, a professor of journalism and an authority on the use of the English language.

        Education is a wonderful thing…get one…..

        AJ

      • Average Joe

        “All of a sudden…you’re saying we should ignore history and re-interpret the 2nd to be absolute for all and everywhere at all times and all other Rights second place?”

        The above post disproves the first part…no ” re-interpret the 2nd” here…at all.
        As for the second part of your statement…without the 2nd Amendment, no other rights will exist. Without some way to enforce those other rights…there can be none. Government is force…period.

        AJ

      • Flashy

        AJ…in your cut and paste..who is Copperud and Schulman?

        I have at length and in several past articles stated why the 2nd can, may, and should be burdened to allow all the People to enjoy all Rights. Justice Scalia..that well known rabid liberal, has stated the 2nd being able to be burdened in time, place, manner and groups.

        I pointed out that of all the Amendments, the 2nd is the only one to be qualified as to why it exists. We have justice Douglas in his writings about the ninth and those Rights contained therein. We have only two SCOTUS cases which addresses the 2nd head on. he first limits the 2nd by type of weapon, the second affirms the Right to own a gun and keep it in the home.

        Common Sense AJ…try using it.

      • TML

        Flashy says, “Throughout our history, the 2nd has been deemed burdenable in time, place, manner and type and by group.”

        Argumentum ad antiquitatem
        Assuming that some policy, behavior, or practice is right or acceptable because “it’s always been done that way” does not justify continuing the policy.

        • DevilDogVet

          I think Flashy is really Piers Morgan.

      • eddie47d

        “the right to bear arms CONDITIONED upon whether or not a well regulated militia in fact is necessary for a free state”. There is ample proof that a militia is no longer needed because of the National Guard for States and a strong standing army which exists for the defense of our nation. The general populace or people no longer have the obligation to be ready or to bear arms in defense of this nation.

        • DevilDogVet

          Wow……you truly are a complete idiot. You need a history lesson. It is the people’s duty at all times to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.

      • Jimmy The Greek

        Just like a jew that dam Schulman is trying to twist the words to what he wants them to say !

      • eddie47d

        Then Devil Dog abolish the standing army and you may have a more valid point.

        • DevilDogVet

          The founders warned against standing armies, that is why individuals have the responsibility of being armed so that tyranny cannot destroy what they created for us, no matter how much many folks take our freedom for granted.

      • TML

        Eddie47d says, “the right to bear arms CONDITIONED upon whether or not a well regulated militia in fact is necessary for a free state”. There is ample proof that a militia is no longer needed because of the National Guard for States and a strong standing army which exists for the defense of our nation. The general populace or people no longer have the obligation to be ready or to bear arms in defense of this nation.

        On the contrary, there is ample proof that there will never be a time when the militia is no longer needed. And because the 2nd unquestionably asserts that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the 2nd Amendment thus also protects the existence of the militia as well as an individual right to keep and bear arms.

      • Average Joe

        Jimmy The Greek ,

        “Just like a jew that dam Schulman is trying to twist the words to what he wants them to say !”

        It is obvious that you have a reading comprehension problem. You may wish to address that issue before opening your mouth and removing all doubt about you lack of intelligence.
        Schulman quoted Mr. Copperud . You may want to look at Mr. Copperud’s credentials before spouting off once again…with no clue as to the subject matter at hand.

        Anti semitic ?….. Thanks for showing us…who and what you are….

        AJ

    • Average Joe

      Flashy,

      “AJ…in your cut and paste..who is Copperud and Schulman? ”

      From my original post:

      “Roy Herman Copperud, a professor of journalism and an authority on the use of the English language.”

      Reading helps…try it sometime. I even placed this at the end of the post…so it couldn’t be missed…oops…..

      As for Schulman:

      The following is reprinted from the September 13, 1991 issue of GUN WEEK

      THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT

      by J. Neil Schulman

      If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you’d ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwartzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?
      That was the question I asked Mr. A.C. Brocki, Editorial Coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers — who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus. A little research lent support to Brocki’s opinion of Professor Copperud’s expertise.
      Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished seventeen-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.
      He’s on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster’s Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud’s fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publishers’ Humanities Award.
      That sounds like an expert to me.
      After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:

      “July 26, 1991
      “Dear Professor Copperud:
      “I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.
      “The text of the Second Amendment is, ‘A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’
      “The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
      “I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary.”
      My letter framed several questions about the text of the Second Amendment, then concluded:
      “I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance.
      “Sincerely,
      “J. Neil Schulman”

      After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the following analysis (into which I’ve inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):

      The analysis was printed above…doing a bit of research helps…try it sometime.

      AJ

  • Chuck

    I will never register or surrender my firearms.
    Am I the only one who feels this way or am I just a “gun nut”? I would love to hear what others have to say about the matter.

    • Flashy

      Trust me…you’re a gun nut.

      • Average Joe

        Flashy ,

        Trust me when I say…you are still an idiot….btw, I’ll be practicing a bit of civil disobedience myself…deal with it.

        “From my cold dead hands.”

        AJ

      • Andy

        You’re the nut. Chuck bears the burden of being a rational thinking person whose feet are firmly planted in realism….something a great many Americans will have to learn the hard way.

      • DevilDogVet

        Trust me…….you are in ignorant moron with no common sense.

    • Steve E

      I will never surrender or register my guns either. I have a God given right to posses them. No man or law has any authority to infringe on that.

      • Flashy

        Steve E.who’s god are you speaking of? And if my gods say your’s is a lunatic, and they can be…

        See what occurs when bringing religion into this ?

        Common sense. use it.

        no one is saying take away owning a gun. What everyone is talking about…the vast majority ….is using common sense. And common sense is not having an armed camp where the gun rules. one only has to look at Beirut and the militias there to see where that will bring us.

      • Steve E

        Flashy, you are not the one who should be talking about common sense. There is no way to prove to anyone that there a God. Just like you have Hope and Change in your savior, Obama. I have faith in God.

      • Flashy

        But my gods outrank yours.

        Or are you taking the stance everyone has to kowtow to what you state is your god’s position?

      • Steve E

        Flashy, I respect you belief that your god (who’s name is government) out ranks mine.

      • Flashy

        Steve E. What i am trying to hammer into your skull is that your god is no better or high authority than any other. When you demand and say it is your “god given right”…you are demanding your god be placed above anyone else’s. Now if i said it is my Right as given by my Gods” that we ban guns … what are you going to say?

        Nobody’s god or gods are superior to any others in our system of government. Why is it the christian sect, is the one insisting their god be the only one which has any say ? The American Taliban…be wary of their preachings.

      • eddie47d

        If guns are a God given right (which I highly doubt) then you are saying that God approves of all the killing at the hands of a gun. The apparent right to use any means necessary to do harm to someone or for them to do harm to you. Heck even criminal “defend: themselves. Our Civil War was a prime example of two professed Christian fronts killing each other in the name of God. The British and the French used the same God to kill each other on several occassions. The 10 Commandments are meaningless if Thou Shall Not Kill is obeyed because it contradicts His words and He says its okay. I don’t care much for those who use God as an excuse to justify killing or that he gave you this particular right by using a gun or any other method. You do have a right to defend yourself but don’t use God as a justifiable excuse.

      • http://www.sweetsalesgirl.com/Kuurus/ Charles Johnson

        This statement is to all the leftist nut cases ,that seem to think that taking guns away from individuals is going to be as simple as writing a law. How many of the takers, themes that you sent to steal my weapons, are going to die in the? I am a normally peaceful and law-abiding citizen but if you try to take away my weapons, the freedoms, the few freedoms that I have left I will strike at those you send to steal the.

      • eddie47d

        Is Charles trying to prove that guns are for killing?

    • ReconRanger

      Chuck you are NOT a gun nut !!, Unless of course I Am, butof course a well trained one!!

  • jopa

    That Ben is almost Hilarious with his comedy.Such a funny guy,watch out Miller.I forgot his first name.

    • http://www.sweetsalesgirl.com/Kuurus/ Charles Johnson

      Loons are out in full force today.

  • http://www.facebook.com/brtexan Victor Landry

    I would not recommend trying to confiscate Texans’ guns. Not unless you want to die from lead poisoning.

  • Gene Lashinski

    Ever wonder why U.N. troops are training in St. Louis and other large cities. O’Bummer wants a revolution. Our troops would not attack our own population.

    • Steve E

      The first time the U.N gets it’s butt spanked by the real patriots. They will turn and run.

    • http://www.facebook.com/raymond.hodges.5 Raymond Hodges

      didn’t they show themselves at Kent State?…

    • eddie47d

      Gene says “O’Bummer” so its appropriate to mention that the Governor of Ohio who ordered the guard to shoot was a Conservative Republican and backed up by Conservative Republican Nixon. So Raymond aren’t you wearing the same sheep’s clothing?

  • Pamela
  • ibcamn

    Obama will try to find a way to get what the progressives want<he will but sooo many stipulations in his gun bill it will choke itself out!he will try to put too much in this bill and it will die!i was wondering where the UN would be popping up in all this because i'm thinking Obama is blowing smoke up someones skirt and using all this as a smoke screen for more?or to cover up some more mistakes(fast n furiouse) he and his henchmen have made?

  • Jonathan

    “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

    “Well regulated” means well ordered, able to do that which is required of it on an equal footing with the current and contemporary military force(s).
    “Militia” is the whole people able to bear arms.
    “Arms” means weapons of common use by the military, carried by a single person. So an M-16 is an arm, whereas a mortar or a tank or a fighter plane or a tactical nuclear weapon is not.

    Why we have a Second Amendment:

    “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

    “Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.” President George Washington

    This is their plans:

    “Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn’t matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.”
    Sara Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum
    The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3

    “This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!” Adolph Hitler, Chancellor, Germany, 1933

    “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face! It is just a goddamned piece of paper.” George W. Bush, during a discussion on the merits of renewing certain provisions of the Patriot Act, 2005.

    “[T]he Constitution allows for many things, but what it does not allow is the most revealing. The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned…While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy.” President Barack Obama, from his college thesis ‘Aristocracy Reborn’, Columbia University

    We need to remember:

    “To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association — the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” President Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6th, 1816

    “The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution.” President Thomas Jefferson

    “When the people decide that conditions in their town, county, state or country must change, they will change them. If the leadership has been wise, they will be able to do it peacefully through a secret ballot which is honestly counted, but if the leader has become inflated and too sure of his own importance, he may bring about the kind of action which was taken in Tennessee.” First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, in an editorial to the Daily Post-Athenian, Athens, TN., August 7, 1946; pages 1, 6 (The former First Lady was writing in response the the Battle of Athens.)

    “The government, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.” Abraham Lincoln

    Well, I don’t know about you all, but I am pretty weary of the existing government, and amending it hasn’t been very successful. So where does that leave us?

    • Meteorlady

      Thanks for the thoughtful comment and the research.

      • Flashy

        You really have to wonder about the research. This one attributed to Sarah Brady is totally fabricated…proven to be and there is no record of her saying this..anywhere, anytime. It is nothing but a lie repeated many times o now the extremists take it as gospel…
        .. ““Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn’t matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.””

        Common Sense folks…did you throw it out the window ?

      • eddie47d

        Only when it serves their purpose to fib on a grand scale!

      • Average Joe

        Flashy,

        “Our main agenda is to have ALL guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn’t matter if you have to distort facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.”

        -Attributed to Sarah Brady, President of Handgun Control, Inc., to Senator Howard Metzenbaum – The National Educator, January, 1994, Page 3.
        This appears to be accurate to the extent that National Educator ran the quote. The nature and accuracy of their source is a matter of some debate. However, neither Brady nor Metzenbaum appear to have denied the statement or accused the National Educator of libel.

        AJ

  • http://www.facebook.com/raymond.hodges.5 Raymond Hodges

    people have already turned in their WEAPONS (freedom)… surrendered by the thousands… we as Americans need to… “stop, look, what’s that sound… everybody look what’s going down”… standfast therefore within the liberty that has been given… and DO NOT be yoked with the bondage again…

    • http://yahoo.com shade101

      You may be to young to remember Sir, but the Nazis took guns away from people and they killed millions of Jews, the Viet Cong took weapons away from their Countrymen and killed 100′s of thousands, The Bosnians took guns away and they commited genocide on their own people! You don’t think that is possible here? What rock have you been hidding under? I suggest you find a bigger badder rock to hide under, because it’s coming!

      • http://www.facebook.com/raymond.hodges.5 Raymond Hodges

        if you read what was written you will see that I WILL NOT turn in my weapons… everyone needs to understand the importance of the Frontiersman in the American Revolution War… and as far as my age… I am an Veteran of a Foreign War… (Viet Nam)

      • eddie47d

        Its nice to be nostalgic but let me know when reality sets in for you Raymond. Our glamorized frontiersman slaughtered hundreds if not thousands on their way West by the use of the gun They may have endured hardships I can’t imagine but they knew it was someone elses land. I suppose you could say our government gave them permission but then you’d have to acknowledge that our government gave them that opportunity and they couldn’t have done it on their own. Another way to look at it is that the government gave them permission to kill and to steal for personal gain. Darn! I think that is still going on today! Thanks for your service but by now most Americans know that Vietnam was a false flag war (Gulf of Tonkin incident). and they weren’t exactly fighting for freedom but helping the French to preserve their colony. Then we took away the right to vote for the Vietnamese and the rest is history. What I’m getting at is that too many Americans glamorize guns in the defense of freedom when they are also used to take away freedom.

  • DevilDogVet

    Posse Comitatus no longer exists. And if you research military opinion on action against US citizens, you will find that more and more members of the military would follow such orders. They have been polled beginning in the 70′s and the results are scary. I am a Marine combat veteran and sadly many of the folks that I served with do not know the Constitution let alone the Posse Comitatus act. Furthermore the upper echelon wants to brainwash the troops into following any orders or be charged and thrown into the brig. The military will swing both directions, hopefully, if an event occurs the majority will swing towards the supporters of the Constitution.

  • Meteorlady

    If we are going to have a serious discussion about arms and weapons, they why not finished the investigation into Fast and Furious, Bengazi and drone strikes? Or… is this just another crises that the government can use?

    Why not investigate what medications these people were on? Why not investigate the fact that involuntary commitment has been done away with by the liberals and that the crazies are now walking among us because of it? In every single case there were signs that the person was unstable, but no one single person could commit these people until the crime was committed.

    Because the crazies are walking among us and because crime in urban areas is high, I carry a gun for protection and I will not give up that freedom.

    • http://yahoo.com shade101

      I absolutely AGREE! Never will I give up my protection!

  • http://yahoo.com shade101

    On the Famous FBI website, they list deaths by catagory! It was amazing to see how many people are killed each year by hammers, kitchen knives, and other meaningless tools! It also amazing to see, and I don’t know why others cannot see it, that over 50,000 people are killed each by a weapon of mass destruction, “the automobile”, and only 12,000 are killed by hammers, knives and yes even GUNS! All totaled, the automobile should be banned IMMEDIATELY! The automobile is 4 times more dangerous the guns and hammers! THE ONLY way to solve thiese mass shooting is go after the illegal guns (drug deals, drive-bys, unlicensed guns)! That is where thr trouble starts! I blame the Court system for not throwing the keys away on gun related crime, I blame Congress for not seeing that, and making the 20,000 plus gun laws we have work! I also blame the Cops, not because they are good at what they do, but for not going after the druggies, drive-bys, etc. It is easier for the so-called leader of our great Nation President Obama, the Court System and the Cops to go after the “good guys” because it is easier. Mark my words people, when all the good gun owners are gone, the bad guys will continue to kill innocent children in schools, more Cop killings, more Politiicans gone, I really hate to say it but, CLEAN THE DIRTY END OF THE HOUSE FIRST!

    • Meteorlady

      Did you also notice while on the FBI website the actual violent crime statistics?

      IN 1992 there were 757 per 100,000 violent crimes committed. 9.3 per 100,000 were murders. All with various items including guns.

      IN 2011 there were 386 per 100,000 violent crimes committed. 4.7 per 100,000 were murders.

      It has actually gone down so why aren’t they touting this fact?

      Home Office – another website cites that England and Whales have 1,361 per 100,000 violent crimes – that’s 3-1/2 times more than we have. Their murder rate of 1.3 per 100,000 is lower but given the difference in populations (66 million) I would think they are pretty close to us.

      • Flashy

        Nice use of some stats there meteor Lady. All wrong of course, but I’d give you a grade for effort at misleading.

        Have you read the recent paper on lead exposure and violent crime? Have you read the papers on age and crime? Have you considered wealth and poverty as factors/ No?

        As to your ‘violent crime’ comparison with England. try doing this. Ask anyone who has been to England. Ask them if they felt safer from violence 9especially gun bviolence0 there as compared to say …NYC, Atlanta, LA etc here. Same comparison if they were fortunate enough to go outside the London areas and down into Wales.

        Common sense meteorlady..that’s all that’s being asked of gun owners. Step up and be responsible fer chrissakes and quit behaving like petulant children avoiding responsibility for their toys …

        • DevilDogVet

          Are you aware that the vast majority of crimes are committed by illegal aliens and gang members?

      • Flashy

        “Are you aware that the vast majority of crimes are committed by illegal aliens and gang members?”

        Are you aware that by saying that you are shouting to the world ‘Hey, Look at me ! I’m a lunatic !”

        Common sense folks…ya got any?

        • DevilDogVet

          You responded to the wrong person, but if I am a lunatic prove me wrong

      • Dennis48e

        “Nice use of some stats there meteor Lady. All wrong of course,”

        Only one of her stats is wrong that being the violent crime rate in the UK. It is over 2,000 per 100,000 instead of between 1300 and 1400 per 100,000.

      • http://midcontent ridge runner

        Metorlady, Another FBI stat, in 194 to 2009 there was a 49% drop in murdeers and there was 194,000 guns. In 2009 there was 364,000 guns even though there was a 49% drop in all crimes.. Like to see what the number of guns we will have and how big a drop in crimes there will be in crimes, better blame the drop in gun ownership. Another stat is more people were killed by hammers than any type of firearm.

    • eddie47d

      SHADES is that more idiotic auto BS ? People trip and fall on sidewalks too and some even die but we’re not banning sidewalks. No one builds a sidewalk or a car to kill someone so come back when you can get your act together.

  • gunner

    Fingerprints, background checks plus whatever onerous new hurdles they want to implement for gun ownership but asking for a photo ID to vote is too burdensome. Give me a break. Photo ID, fingerprints, background checks, mental evaluations AND and IQ test (or at least a high school civics test) should be requried to vote.

    • http://yahoo.com shade101

      RIGHT ON my MAN! RIGHT ON!

    • Flashy

      gunner…as you point out..makes no sense. Restrict the very basis of our society, one person one vote…yet loosen any restrictions and validate abdication of responsibility for owning a weapon whose sole purpose is killing.

      Common sense folks, common sense is all that is being asked.

      • DevilDogVet

        Yes……common sense equals one person one vote, irregardless of citizenship.

      • eddie47d

        Almost no truth to that Dog!

  • http://Charter.net Graydon Like Sr.

    I think it is about time that We The People look closely at the 2nd. Amendment. The Gov. never bothers but one part of it… A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and top bear Arms,shall not be infringed.. (A well regulate Militia) some think a well regulated Militia is the National Guard. This cannot be ,because the Militia was never an organized government controlled entity…The Guard is Gov. controlled ,under military control and rules… So I would assume that we are still not regulated, and also the Gov. has never offered any suggestions as to what they or the State think about this or what we ought to do about it…So this is an open field for the ordinary Gun packer…(The Security of a free State), now here is another are we have been left hanging from the Supreme court down….What is our role in keeping this freedom of the State intact… The closest thing to being organized that I can see or know of is an x military person or one trained in well organized gun club, even with thin we are still scattered like a lot of lost sheep…the right of the to keep and to bear Arms,,,This is the arena that our Socialist group on both or all sides of the arena of the elected in Congress are out to get ,and that only to give them the upper hand in turning this Nation into a Socialist Dictatorship…Most of the non committed people on the streets have feelings,and ideas, but they are only running off at the mouth and sad to say are uneducated when it comes to the government at hand…the favorite saying of the day is, they have been doing this for so long, there is no need in me voting for there is no way to change what they are doing..If this were so ,those in the Colonies would never rose up against England and we would still be paying them tax on tea.
    The Gun Laws being passed in the last few years, like the Brady Law are all unconstitutional, there fore are illegal…Just like the ones they are trying to scare the gun owners with today… allowed to continue the people are going to lose all they have got now.It is time that the legal dept of the Gov . is forced to come to the table with subpoenas ..for any all who have had part in this illegal activity and charged with breaking their oath before God and man to keep and protect the Constitution…Then bring Impeachment charges against all of them and carry it out to the limits of the law… Now this is my thinking, I am 77 years old, have had a FFL license, , Certified as a Law Enforcement Firearms Instructor and general public Instructor in firearms, home safety, Shotgun, Pistol and Rifle…I may not be alleged smart ,but I am not stupid…I would say more about the crisis in the shootup of the school but this is.. the Governments fault also for not doing something years ago to protect these in this system…The school system should be taken back by the States ….. .

  • Bill

    Common sense, well reasoned arguments and serious discussions have very little to do with anything anymore when the end in view is a world-wide totalitarian government with no middle class. And make no bones about it, that is what the agenda is and it is so close they can smell it. Whether our leaders are complicit criminals or just useful idiots, we are approaching the end game, friends. All of us are going to have to decide how we are going to conduct ourselves, to make a last stand for liberty and quite possibly lose our lives or accept the jackboot. I wish to God it were not so but here we are.

  • Bon, From the Land of Babble

    Wait until 0bama has one more Supreme Court pick…

    Bon

  • Jimmy The Greek

    Any one that thinks the people today cant fight off obongo and the us military and the police just needs to look at what is happening in syria right now or egypt , or labia ,, The people could not win fighting toe to toe , however hit and run works fine ! We should learn from what is going on in the middle east it well be the only way to get the government back in its cage .

    • Jimmy The Greek

      I am starting to think the zionist done something to my spell check , LOL

    • Jeremy Leochner

      Except the government in our country is not like the ones in the middle east. How do I know. Because I still see people in broad daylight with Obama Hitler signs and see people on news shows saying they believe the President and his cabinet and Congress are everything from fools to criminals.

      • Jimmy The Greek

        So what does that have to do with fighting the government them people you speak of well not be the ones fighting you can bet your rear end on that ! When the chet hits the fan and our cities look like baghdad with army at every intersection we the free people well be doing to the army what the afghan people are doing to the Americans over there .we the ones fighting for our freedom well be called the terrorist we well have to resort to using the same tactics that the people of Gaza are using on the Israels , it’s the only way to fight a superior force . Think about it .

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Its relevant because it shows how our country is in no ways like the ones in the middle east. Our government has not reached the point or is it anywhere near the point where we the people need to use tactics like those used in gaze. We are not in a fight over the freedom of Americans citizens. We are in a discussion over precise limits on gun control.

  • KimV

    Does anyone realize that the shooter did NOT use an assault rifle. He used 4 handguns.

    http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2013/01/mass-media-sucks-sandy-hook-media-myths/

    School Shooting Prozac WITHDRAWAL 2008-02-15 Illinois
    ** 6 Dead: 15 Wounded: Perpetrator Was in Withdrawal from Med & Acting Erratically

    School Shooting Prozac Antidepressant 2005-03-24 Minnesota
    **10 Dead: 7 Wounded: Dosage Increased One Week before Rampage

    School Shooting Paxil [Seroxat] Antidepressant 2001-03-10 Pennsylvania
    **14 Year Old GIRL Shoots & Wounds Classmate at Catholic School

    School Shooting Zoloft Antidepressant & ADHD Med 2011-07-11 Alabama
    **14 Year Old Kills Fellow Middle School Student

    School Shooting Zoloft Antidepressant 1995-10-12 South Carolina
    **15 Year Old Shoots Two Teachers, Killing One: Then Kills Himself

    School Shooting Med For Depression 2009-03-13 Germany
    **16 Dead Including Shooter: Antidepressant Use: Shooter in Treatment For Depression

    School Hostage Situation Med For Depression 2010-12-15 France
    **17 Year Old with Sword Holds 20 Children & Teacher Hostage

    School Shooting Plot Med For Depression WITHDRAWAL 2008-08-28 Texas
    **18 Year Old Plots a Columbine type School Attack

    School Shooting Anafranil Antidepressant 1988-05-20 Illinois
    **29 Year Old WOMAN Kills One Child: Wounds Five: Kills Self

    School Shooting Luvox/Zoloft Antidepressants 1999-04-20 Colorado
    **COLUMBINE: 15 Dead: 24 Wounded

    School Stabbings Antidepressants 2001-06-09 Japan
    **Eight Dead: 15 Wounded: Assailant Had Taken 10 Times his Normal Dose of Depression Med

    School Shooting Prozac Antidepressant WITHDRAWAL 1998-05-21 Oregon
    **Four Dead: Twenty Injured

    School Stabbing Med For Depression 2011-10-25 Washington
    **Girl, 15, Stabs Two Girls in School Restroom: 1 Is In Critical Condition

    School Shooting Antidepressant 2006-09-30 Colorado
    **Man Assaults Girls: Kills One & Self

    School Machete Attack Med for Depression 2001-09-26 Pennsylvania
    **Man Attacks 11 Children & 3 Teachers at Elementary School

    School Shooting Related Luvox 1993-07-23 Florida
    **Man Commits Murder During Clinical Trial for Luvox: Same Drug as in COLUMBINE: Never Reported

    School Hostage Situation Cymbalta WITHDRAWAL 2009-11-09 New York
    **Man With Gun Inside School Holds Principal Hostage

    School Shooting Antidepressants 1992-09-20 Texas
    **Man, Angry Over Daughter’s Report Card, Shoots 14 Rounds inside Elementary School

    School Shooting SSRI 2010-02-19 Finland
    **On Sept. 23, 2008 a Finnish Student Shot & Killed 9 Students Before Killing Himself

    School Shooting Threat Med for Depression 2004-10-19 New Jersey
    **Over-Medicated Teen Brings Loaded Handguns to School

    School Shooting Antidepressant 2007-04-18 Virginia
    **Possible SSRI Use: 33 Dead at Virginia Tech

    School Shooting Antidepressant 2002-01-17 Virginia
    **Possible SSRI Withdrawal Mania: 3 Dead at Law School

    School Incident/Bizarre Zoloft 2010-08-22 Australia
    **School Counselor Exhibits Bizarre Behavior: Became Manic On Zoloft

    School/Assault Antidepressant 2009-11-04 California
    **School Custodian Assaults Student & Principal: Had Manic Reaction From Depression Med

    School Shooting Prozac Antidepressant 1992-01-30 Michigan
    **School Teacher Shoots & Kills His Superintendent at School

    School Shooting Threats Celexa Antidepressant 2010-01-25 Virginia
    **Senior in High School Theatens to Kill 4 Classmates: Facebook Involved: Bail Denied

    School Violence/Murder Antidepressants 1998-05-04 New York
    **Sheriff’s Deputy Shoots his Wife in an Elementary School

    School Knifing/Murder Meds For Depression & ADHD 2010-04-28 Massachusetts
    **Sixteen Year Old Kills 15 Year Old in High School Bathroom in Sept. 2009

    School Stabbing Wellbutrin 2006-12-04 Indiana
    **Stabbing by 17 Year Old At High School: Charged with Attempted Murder

    School Threat Antidepressants 2007-04-23 Mississippi
    **Student Arrested for Making School Threat Over Internet

    School Suspension Lexapro Antidepressant 2007-07-28 Arkansas
    **Student Has 11 Incidents with Police During his 16 Months on Lexapro

    School Shooting Antidepressant WITHDRAWAL 2007-11-07 Finland
    **Student Kills 8: Wounds 10: Kills Self: High School in Finland

    School Shooting Paxil [Seroxat] Antidepressant 2004-02-09 New York
    **Student Shoots Teacher in Leg at School

    School Threat Prozac Antidepressant 2008-01-25 Washington
    **Student Takes Loaded Shotgun & 3 Rifles to School Parking Lot: Plans Suicide

    School Shooting Plot Med For Depression 1998-12-01 Wisconsin
    **Teen Accused of Plotting to Gun Down Students at School

    School/Assault Zoloft Antidepressant 2006-02-15 Tennessee
    **Teen Attacks Teacher at School

    School Shooting Threat Antidepressant 1999-04-16 Idaho
    **Teen Fires Gun in School

    School Hostage Situation Paxil & Effexor Antidepressants 2001-04-15 Washington
    **Teen Holds Classmates Hostage with a Gun

    School Hostage Situation Antidepressant WITHDRAWAL 2006-11-28 North Carolina
    **Teen Holds Teacher & Student Hostage with Gun

    School Knife Attack Med for Depression 2006-12-06 Indiana
    **Teen Knife Attacks Fellow Student

    School Massacre Plot Prozac Withdrawal 2011-02-23 Virginia
    **Teen Sentenced to 12 Years in Prison For Columbine Style Plot

    School Shooting Celexa & Effexor Antidepressants 2001-04-19 California
    **Teen Shoots at Classmates in School

    School Shooting Celexa Antidepressant 2006-08-30 North Carolina
    **Teen Shoots at Two Students: Kills his Father: Celexa Found Among his Personal Effects

    School Shooting Meds For Depression & ADHD 2011-03-18 South Carolina
    **Teen Shoots School Official: Pipe Bombs Found in Backpack

    School Shooting Threat Antidepressant 2003-05-31 Michigan
    **Teen Threatens School Shooting: Charge is Terrorism

    School Stand-Off Zoloft Antidepressant 1998-04-13 Idaho
    **Teen [14 Years Old] in School Holds Police At Bay: Fires Shots

    School Shooting Antidepressant WITHDRAWAL 2007-10-12 Ohio
    **Teen [14 Years Old] School Shooter on Antidepressants or In Withdrawal

    School Threat Antidepressants 2008-03-20 Indiana
    **Teen [16 Years Old] Brings Gun to School: There Is a Lockdown

    School Suicide/Lockdown Med For Depression 2008-02-20 Idaho
    **Teen [16 Years Old] Kills Self at High School: Lockdown by Police

    School Threats Prozac Antidepressant 1999-10-19 Florida
    **Teen [16 Years Old] Threatens Classmates With Knife & Fake Explosives

    School Stabbing Med For Depression 2008-02-29 Texas
    **Teen [17 Year Old GIRL] Stabs Friend & Principal at High School

    School Hostage Situation Prozac/ Paxil Antidepressants 2001-01-18 California
    **Teen [17 Years Old] Takes Girl Hostage at School: He is Killed by Police

    School Knife Attack Treatment For Depression & Strattera 2009-03-10 Belgium
    **Three Dead in School Day Care: Two Children & a Caregiver: Happened Jan 23, 2009

    School Shooting Plot Antidepressants 2009-09-22 England
    **Two English School Boys Plot to Blow Up High School

    School Arson Incident Paxil 2002-04-12 Michigan
    **Unusual Personality Change on Paxil Caused 15 Year Old to Set Fires inside High School

    School Bomb Threat Med For Depression 2009-06-29 Australia
    **Vexed Father Makes Bomb Threat Against Elementary School

    School Violence Antidepressant 2005-11-19 Arizona
    **Violent 8 Year Old GIRL Handcuffed by Police at School

    School Violence Celexa Antidepressant 2002-01-23 Florida
    **Violent 8 Year-Old Boy Arrested At School

    School Threat/Lockdown Lexapro 2008-04-18 California
    **Violent High School Student Shot to Death on Campus by Police

    School / Child Endangerment Antidepressants 2008-02-27 Canada
    **Wacky School Bus Driver Goes Berserk: Also Involved Painkillers

    School Violence Paxil 2004-10-23 Washington DC
    **Young Boy, 10 Year Old, Has Violent Incidents at School

    School Threat Wellbutrin Antidepressant 2007-04-24 Tennessee
    **Young Boy, 12, Threatens to Shoot Others at School

    School Hostage Situation Med for Depression 2006-03-09 France
    **Young Ex-Teacher Holds 21 Students Hostage

    School Shooting/Suicide Celexa 2002-10-07 Texas
    **Young Girl [13 Years Old] Kills Self at School With a Gun

    School Hostage Situation Paxil 2001-10-12 North Carolina
    **Young Man Holds Three People Hostage in Duke University President’s Office

    School Murder Attempt Med For Depression 1995-03-04 California
    **Young Woman Deliberately Hits 3 Kids with Her Car at Elementary School: Laughed During Attack

    Does anyone else see a pattern here? HINT: It’s not guns, it’s not even the US!

    • eddie47d

      Kim; You are only bringing up another major problem in the US. That Big Pharma owns and controls our lives where just about any drug product was pushed onto the market and once its out there no one wants to reel it back in. The side effects of drugs are quite often more harmful than the original ailment yet the drug companies had to make their billions. Who cared if millions were duped and even harmed? Who cares if millions of investors made thousands and even millions of dollars off these products for that is the American way. Right? That is were I part company because as more and more guns are pushed onto society greater numbers of civilians have access to guns. Including drug users and non drug users alike.So guns are also the problem because I could say most drugs actually help people thus a few bad people who abuse them shouldn’t take away the law abiding rights of legitimate drug users. Its hard to make Big Pharma become responsible and its equally as hard to make gun dealers responsible. At least you can sue the drug companies in class action lawsuits. But thanks for bringing up the other tragedies of what handguns can also do!

  • http://awkingsley.wordpress.com awkingsley

    Piers Morgan and Obama are misrepresenting the gun problem in America. Our gun problem doesn’t exist except as a general homicide problem. We do have a larger homicide rate than in the U.K., but here is the reason: While the U.K. has a population that is only 7.9% Non-White and a mostly stable population, the U.S. has a 35.14% Non-White or Hispanic population with far greater population instability. Far be it from Socialist Piers Morgan to tell the truth about our homicide problem. Our homicide problem is due to a large Non-White and Hispanic population, vast numbers of unassimilated recent immigrants, illegal aliens, and illegal drugs (Mexican Drug Cartels and other illegal drug activity). The rest of North and South America are not as civilized as Great Britain’s neighbors in Europe. Look at the homicide rates in Africa, Mexico, and South America on the map at Charts Bin, then tell me our problem is about gun control. http://chartsbin.com/view/1454

    The CIA Fact Book provided the figures on the percentages of Non-White population. Before Socialists like Piers and Obama blame the U.S., they need to be honest about the relationship between diversity in America and out homicide rate. The Socialists wanted diversity; they got it; it backfired. Our problem is not guns, it is the Socialist’s own irrational game of diversity. The problem is that Socialists cannot face the fact they made a mistake, whether about gun control or about diversity. Take your pick about which is the problem, or is it both? The problem is that Socialists cannot face the fact they made a mistake, whether about gun control or about diversity. Take your pick about which is the problem, or is it both? Socialists in the U.S. want control, but when they get control the homicide rate is a problem in comparison to mostly White European countries. If the Socialists were honest, they would be trying to ban diversity to control the homicide rate instead of banning guns. I’m just sorry Alex Jones is not equipped with this information, and Piers does need to be deported back to his mostly White country – the one he understands. He certainly doesn’t get it about the one where he currently lives. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

  • Bill

    To Kim. Thanks for that information. I do see the connection and it is astounding.

    However, there were references to Sandy Hook in the Dark Knight Rises (a map of Gotham on a table with the words “Sandy Hook” clearly marked on as Commissioner Gordon points to it and says “Get a GPS on so we can figure out how to bring it down”) as well as “Aurora” in a movie preview for “Skyfall” (a building with a large neon sign saying Aurora) aired right before the batman movie in the Aurora theater. Also, in both cases there were early reports of multiple perps. It seems the only time you will get any resemblance of the truth in reporting are in the first few moments of the drama unfolding before the liars can spin it.

    To make matters even more intriguing, earlier maps of Gotham in other batman movies and comics show the same portion of Gotham city named South Hinkley, not Sandy Hook. So it was changed for the Dark Knight Rises. Now, logically, one would ask who made the decision to change the name of South Gotham? Here’s where it gets very interesting;

    (This from an article from Jon Rappaport http://www.nomorefakenews.com)

    “And now, by way of an article at BeforeItsNews.com, we have a new tie-in. The unlisted author of that article cites a story from a newspaper in Connecticut, The Stamford Advocate. Dated April 7, 2012, it has so far flown under the radar. It reports a death in an automobile accident, on the Merritt Parkway. The victim was Scott Getzinger.

    Mr. Getzinger was the property master on The Dark Knight Rises. As such, there is a chance he, in fact, selected that map with the words SANDY HOOK printed on it. The property master is responsible for all props used in a film.

    The Stamford Advocate story mentions that Getzinger’s injuries were, at first, called non-life threatening by the police. But then he died.”

    I really believe that these shootings were conspiratorial in nature as well as deeply nefarious. We are dealing with psychopaths in government, here. These monsters will stop at nothing, even the murder of it’s own citizens.

    We are living in dark times.

  • Charlie R

    The fed will never let a crisis go to waste.
    This time the politicians will try to enact stringent laws capped off by eliminating the right to transfer firearms. That means that the firearm will ultimately be confiscated upon death of the owner … “confiscation of private property” will be in violation of our constitution and once enacted with firearms can apply to what ever you government deems appropriate for confiscation . No matter, because Obama is “considering mandating laws” to curb and or eliminate firearms, so you are seeing the tip of the dictatorial iceberg as “his Supreme Court” will go along with anything he dose. Obama and his legislators are emulating Germany of the 1930′s and as a point in fact, Americas current gun laws are modeled after Hitler’s Germany and introduced by Chris Dodd SR.(D) back in the 1960/70′s.

  • Average Joe
  • bob colt

    Crazy article. At the end of the day you do not need military-style weapons in the hands of mentally unstable people. We need much tighter laws on guns – it is not an attack on the constitution but a victory for common sense.

    • APN

      it is not an attack on the constitution but a victory for common sense.

      Yep! Only a progressive FOOL would make such a comment.

    • Average Joe

      bob colt ,

      Another uneducated, uninformed miscreant..who woulda thunk?
      I am guessing that you were adopted…. after being dropped on yer head?
      Sam Colt is rolling over in his grave….what a disgrace to the family name…you must be….

      AJ

    • Rock Savage

      Right, tighter gun controls will work — what are you smoking? Mexico has some of the toughest gun controls in the world and they also rate number 1 in firearm violence. It ain’t working in Mexico!!!

      And, how about the largest number of children being killed. Let’s see, where would that be, I’m sure somewhere in the USA where there are at least 300 million firearms residing! Oh – no – I’m wrong – it’s not the USA, it’s Norway where a nut, on July 22, 2011, shot and killed 79 people which included 54 children in the Labour Party’s youth camp on Utoya Island. By the way, no private citizen in Norway can purchase, own, or possess a firearm.
      How about Derrick Bird who shot 12 people to death and wounded 11 in the county of Cumbria (in England) – the headlines in the London Times read: “Toughest laws in the world could not stop Cumbria tragedy.”

      And there’s more death in Europe — The worst one occurred in a high school in Erfurt, Germany, in 2002, where 18 were killed. The second-worst took place in Dunblane, Scotland, in 1996, where 16 kindergartners and their teacher were killed. The third-worst, with 15 dead, happened in Winnenden, Germany. The fourth-worst with eleven murdered, occurred in Emsdetten, Germany.

      So gun control works? Explain that to all the murdered adults and children and their living but grieving relatives.

      Your opinion isn’t based on facts but founded on pure emotion.

    • gunner

      EXACTLY: “we don’t need military-style weapons in the hands of mentally unstable people.” The answer is in your own argument. MENTAL HEALTH IS THE ISSUE.

  • Steve Thomas

    The chances of BHO and the liberals stopping with a ban on “assault rifles” is about as good as BHO balancing the budget. Give them an inch and they will take a mile.
    Sure gun control works.-:)-:) Just look at Mexico. There is only 1 gun shop in the country because guns all public ownership on guns is banned. How many murders have there been in Mexico in recent years?????????

    • Jeremy Leochner

      Steve I am a liberal. On the subject of assault weapons I suppose it depends on what qualifies as an assault weapon. Depending on that I will decide whether or not I support not allowing them. I do not want to take away anyones guns or anyones rights. If Obama or one of his supporters puts out an idea for gun legislation I will look at it and decide if I support it. The issue of gun control is not a liberal versus conservative one. Its one between various points and various levels of gun control.

      • Steve Thomas

        There is only 1 level of gun control. That is why the 2nd amendment says “shall not be infringed”. It is a slippery slope once you start taking away Constitutional rights. Have you been to the airport lately? Why do we put up with children being molested in the name of airport security?? I refuse to stand still for any subrogation of my rights.

        • http://itsootsme.wordpress.com sootsme

          “The Second Amendment means what serious people with guns say it means.”

        • http://www.musingsbymarian.com MusingsbyMarian

          Subjugation of your rights is what Democrats are about. That is why New York’s mayor Bloomberg has banned Big Gulps and has started on pain medication. Once you let the grabbers of liberty get their toes in the crack of your front door, you have let them into your house to rob you of all the freedoms you hold dear. MusingsByMarian dot com

  • kdr2013

    THE NEWS THAT HAS BEEN HAPPEING TO ME IN MY IMMEDATE AREA IS THE INTANGIABLE FIGHT FOR MY OWN FREEDOMS. NOT WITHSTANDING THE UNLAWFUL METHODS SOME HAVE COOPERATELY USED TO ENSLAVE ANOTHER BASED ON COUNTLESS ACTIONS OF FALSE IMPRIOSNMENT. IT SHOULDN’T BE A CRIME TO REPORT, ALTHOUGH ONE HAS NEVER OBSERVED .. IN REGARDS TO CERTAIN ACTS OF INQUIRY. AGAIN, NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW ARE CONSITUTION.. AND IF THAT IS THE CASE SUCH SELFISH ATTITUDES SHOULD BE KEPT TO THEMSELVES. NOT ALL SHOULD HAVE TO SUFFER BASED ON LIES AND FALSE HOODS. i SPEAK NOT ONLY OF SELF BUT OF EXPERIENCE.. AND RESPECT. IF THE OBVIOUS. IN ORDER TO PREACH ON JUSTICE AND BEATUY..ETC, ONE SHOULD NEVER INSTILL HATE, ARE PREJUDICE ..EVERYONE STORY IS DIFFERENT.. AND WHEN YOU HAVE PROBLEMS IN YOUR OWN COUNTRY.. DIVIDING TO CONQUOR SOMEONE ELSES IS KINDA BACKWARDS I THINK…. TO BE OF SERVICE HELLS YES, TO BE USED AND INFRINGED BEYOND RECKONING IS ILLEGAL..AND SENSE SHOULD BE MADE. IT APPEARS TO BE A MEANS TO NO END TIT FOR TAT.. AND ONES COMMUNITY ..SURE ISNT THE COUNTRY THEY CAME FROM…BUT TO ACT AND MAKE IT A PERSONAL ATTACK ON ANOTHER IS CHILDISH AND SHOULD BE HANDLED WITH REGARDS TO AUTHORITY AND ANOTHERS MEANS OF RESPECT. ALSO OTHERS SHOULDNT USE ANOTHER TO CARRY OUT THEIR DIRTY WORK IF AND WHEN ACCOUNTABILITY IS THEIR OUTCOME!!TRUE THE WORLD IS BASED ON FRIENDSHIPS AND SUCH BUT I EITHER ONE ASSUMES TO BREAK BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL LAW THEN THIER PRICE FOR FRIENDSHIP IS NONE EXISTENT!!

  • Roxanne A.

    The battle for America (of which the Second Amendment is a part) is an intellectual and moral battle.

    We will not be left alone to live our respective lives, unless we can demonstrate and argue that the right to one’s life is absolute and defending it is a moral act; and to take guns away from innocent individuals is an abrogation of the right to live.

    …”In particular, the government may not descend to the evil of preventive law. The government cannot treat men as guilty until they have proven themselves to be….. No law can require the individual to prove that he won’t violate another’s rights, in the absence of evidence that he is going to.

    But this is precisely what gun control laws do. Gun control laws use force against the individual in the absence of any specific evidence that he is about to commit a crime. They say to the rational, responsible gun owner: you may not have or carry a gun because others have used them irrationally or irresponsibly. Thus, preventive law sacrifices the rational and responsible to the irrational and irresponsible. This is unjust and intolerable.”…. H. Binswanger

    Two philosophers lay out the arguments against gun control:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybinswanger/2013/01/01/with-gun-control-cost-benefit-analysis-is-amoral/

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/12/26/to-protect-the-innocent-we-need-more-guns-in-the-hands-of-honest-people/

    • http://itsootsme.wordpress.com sootsme

      Simplified, all human interaction/persuasion is accomplished either by logic or by force. Armed Citizens can force others to deal with them via logic rather than with force. Unarmed subjects do not have this option. This is Liberty versus tyranny in a nutshell.

      “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.” – Ben Franklin

      As we have not yet learned from history, we are afforded the opportunity to repeat it…

  • http://www.facebook.com/georgia.p.cannon Georgia Papouloglou Cannon

    obama must impeached ,and treason with the rest of them for life,and take bacl all they stole from working peploe.

  • http://www.musingsbymarian.com MusingsbyMarian

    Ben, You state you do not think Obama would do the Tiananmen Square thing. When he was campaigning the first time, he said he wanted a domestic army bigger than out military. Then he buried the means to do this in Obamacare. Right after the bill was passed, I downloaded it and pasted it directly out of the Obamacare bill. It was not numbered sequentially, so I had to read a lot to find it. Recently our illustrious leader “graduated” his first classes through FEMA. Reckon there is a connection?
    13 SEC. 5210. ESTABLISHING A READY RESERVE CORPS.
    14 Section 203 of the Public Health Service Act (42
    15 U.S.C. 204) is amended to read as follows:
    16 ‘‘SEC. 203. COMMISSIONED CORPS AND READY RESERVE
    17 CORPS.
    18 ‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—
    19 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—There shall be in the Service
    20 a commissioned Regular Corps and a Ready Reserve
    21 Corps for service in time of national emergency.
    22 ‘‘(2) REQUIREMENT.—All commissioned officers
    23 shall be citizens of the United States and shall be ap24
    pointed without regard to the civil-service laws and
    VerDate Nov 24 2008 09:39 Dec 29, 2009 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 01312 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6203 E:SENENRH3590.EAS H3590 wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
    1313
    HR 3590 EAS/PP
    1 compensated without regard to the Classification Act
    2 of 1923, as amended.
    3 ‘‘(3) APPOINTMENT.—Commissioned officers of
    4 the Ready Reserve Corps shall be appointed by the
    5 President and commissioned officers of the Regular
    6 Corps shall be appointed by the President with the
    7 advice and consent of the Senate.
    8 ‘‘(4) ACTIVE DUTY.—Commissioned officers of the
    9 Ready Reserve Corps shall at all times be subject to
    10 call to active duty by the Surgeon General, including
    11 active duty for the purpose of training.
    12 ‘‘(5) WARRANT OFFICERS.—Warrant officers
    13 may be appointed to the Service for the purpose of
    14 providing support to the health and delivery systems
    15 maintained by the Service and any warrant officer
    16 appointed to the Service shall be considered for pur17
    poses of this Act and title 37, United States Code, to
    18 be a commissioned officer within the Commissioned
    19 Corps of the Service.
    20 ‘‘(b) ASSIMILATING RESERVE CORP OFFICERS INTO
    21 THE REGULAR CORPS.—Effective on the date of enactment
    22 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, all indi23
    viduals classified as officers in the Reserve Corps under this
    24 section (as such section existed on the day before the date
    VerDate Nov 24 2008 09:39 Dec 29, 2009 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 01313 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6203 E:SENENRH3590.EAS H3590 wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
    1314
    HR 3590 EAS/PP
    1 of enactment of such Act) and serving on active duty shall
    2 be deemed to be commissioned officers of the Regular Corps.
    3 ‘‘(c) PURPOSE AND USE OF READY RESEARCH.—
    4 ‘‘(1) PURPOSE.—The purpose of the Ready Re5
    serve Corps is to fulfill the need to have additional
    6 Commissioned Corps personnel available on short no7
    tice (similar to the uniformed service’s reserve pro8
    gram) to assist regular Commissioned Corps per9
    sonnel to meet both routine public health and emer10
    gency response missions.
    11 ‘‘(2) USES.—The Ready Reserve Corps shall—
    12 ‘‘(A) participate in routine training to meet
    13 the general and specific needs of the Commis14
    sioned Corps;
    15 ‘‘(B) be available and ready for involuntary
    16 calls to active duty during national emergencies
    17 and public health crises, similar to the uni18
    formed service reserve personnel;
    19 ‘‘(C) be available for backfilling critical po20
    sitions left vacant during deployment of active
    21 duty Commissioned Corps members, as well as
    22 for deployment to respond to public health emer23
    gencies, both foreign and domestic; and
    24 ‘‘(D) be available for service assignment in
    25 isolated, hardship, and medically underserved
    VerDate Nov 24 2008 09:39 Dec 29, 2009 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 01314 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6203 E:SENENRH3590.EAS H3590 wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
    1315
    HR 3590 EAS/PP
    1 communities (as defined in section 799B) to im2
    prove access to health services.
    3 ‘‘(d) FUNDING.—For the purpose of carrying out the
    4 duties and responsibilities of the Commissioned Corps
    5 under this section, there are authorized to be appropriated
    6 $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014 for
    7 recruitment and training and $12,500,000 for each of fiscal
    8 years 2010 through 2014 for the Ready Reserve Corps.’’.
    MusingsbyMarian dot com 

  • http://differentbugle.blogspot.com Chris Sullivan

    “If Obama and his cretins’ attempts to grab your guns give you the willies, consider this response to their best laid plans: “Taking my guns? You and what army?” Certainly not the U.S. Army. While Obama clearly believes he lives beyond the reach of the Constitution, I doubt he can convince the U.S. military to violate Posse Comitatus based on his whimsy. Despite Obama’s delusions, I suspect the overwhelming majority of servicemen and servicewomen, many of whom own firearms privately, would be loath to break down their own doors — not to mention those of their comrades, active and retired”

    I think this is wishful thinking. The military will do whatever it is told to do. That’s pretty much the history of the world and why the founding fathers feared a standing army. For a few examples in this country, just think about Shays’ Rebellion, the Bonus Marchers or Kent State. Major General Smedley Butler once said that he never had an independent thought while he was in the military.
    The essence of the military is “Do what you’re told.” There is no place for individuality or conscience over “duty.” A gun ban would almost certainly start out with a period to turn in your guns and a reward for snitches. After that it would be a process of attrition. Every time there was a burglary, fire, false alarm or whatever the reason for a government response there would be questions about and possibly a search for guns.
    You can almost always rely on the neighbor to turn somebody in even for such petty things as building a deck without a permit or finishing out a room without a permit.

  • http://www.azsdft.com Michael Appleton

    Shall we review how magazine capacity doesn’t affect didley, yeah, lets.

    It will be looked at as a time study, we who set manufacturing processes up do lots of these studies to accurately predict labor , material usages, predictions and savings.

    Response times by the police range from 2 minutes at Aurora was due to them being lucky enough to be near, most times 10 to 12 minutes from first call.
    Adam Lanza tried to open a locked door, couldn’t, so he shot the glass out to gain entry upon which time the principal and another person came from the office and confronted Lanza who then killed them both. Total elapsed time, approx 1 minute.
    Then Lanza walked down the hallway to the bathroom 15 seconds and then the 1st kinder-garden classroom about 150 ft away, max time to do so, 25 seconds, where he killed most of the victims.
    Lanza then walked across the hall 25 ft away, max time 15 seconds. Whereupon he killed the remaining victims.

    Professional shooter can change a magazine in 1.4 seconds, someone familiar with the weapon, which Adam was, can do so in 3.0 seconds.
    Since we know that he fired approx 79 rounds, using 30 round magazines, that is 2 magazine changes x 3.0 seconds = 6 seconds.
    Cyclic rate for the semi-auto rifle/pistol is 60 rounds per minute so 1 shot for every pull of the trigger per second = 79 seconds.

    Total times===
    Office killing 1min=60secs Hallway walk to bathroom =15 seconds Hallway walk to 1st room = 25 seconds Hallway walk to 2nd room = 15 seconds Shootings =79 seconds Reloads = 6 seconds……… 200 seconds total = 3.333 minutes

    Now if Lanza had been limited to 10 round magazines as antis claim would limit the ease of killing, at 3 seconds reloads, needs 8 magazines = 7 reloads x 3 seconds = 21 seconds.
    That is an additional 12 seconds to the total = 3.583 minutes total.

    Since the time from the first shooting to the time the police entered the building and approached the shooter was right at 12 minutes whereupon he shot himself, explain again how the 10 round magazines would have made a difference when there was 8.417 minutes of spare time for the shooter to screw up and take his time?

    Reality is, limiting a shooter to 10 round magazines doesn’t prevent anything and you cant prove different!

  • Zenphamy

    Ben: If you think the military will have a problem or be adverse to breaking posse comitatus, please look at the facts of New Orleans and the confiscation squads that were sent out. They will follow orders and they will shoot if necessary.

    • Jimmy The Greek

      Zenphamy you are 100% right ! trust no one in the military or police until you see them shoot the ones giving them there orders then still only trust them in front of you were you can see them .

  • Kdauksch

    The part that makes the LEFT and OBAMA look so stupid is how they are so attament about we need to ban these assault weapons to protect the children, which by the way there were just under 12,000 people envolved in shootings last year ( out of 365 million people in America. While at the same time supporting abortions which KILLED over 800,000 children last year! It’s NOT about the children, It’s about the CONTROL! Now STOP! You look stupid, you sound stupid and chances are , you are stupid!

  • Ranchman

    My AR15 match grade rifle has never hurt anyone, yet Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass) has used his car to commit murder. I have never threatened to kill anyone with a concealed carry pistol, yet Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Cali) has threatened to “take out” whatever bad guy might threaten her, with her concealed carry pistol. It would seem as if the psychological profile of these Democrats is right on the money. They are projecting their own ruthless desires on the rest of us peaceful, law abiding citizens. I guess the premise of the article is correct, it IS time to lock & load against all the crazy, homicidal Democrat Liberals in the world.

    • eddie47d

      With your analogy then Laura Bush is also a murderer since she killed someone while driving and she wasn’t even drunk. I thought Republicans didn’t like excuses unless its one of their own Hmmm! Bad things happen to good people Ranchman and they have to live with those tragedies. Now I didn’t really care for the “homicidal” Bush and Cheney getting us into 2 false flag wars but you know how those psychologically deprived Republicans are! Now are you just as Crazy as the Democrats?

      • gunner

        What on earth do 2 false flag wars or Bush and Cheney have to do with current gun control efforts? Please stay on topic and stop making everything Repub vs Dem. Gun control affects everyone in America regardless of party affiliation.

      • deerinwater

        Gunner says” Please stay on topic and stop making everything Repub vs Dem. Gun control affects everyone in America regardless of party affiliation.”

        I say; agree completely but then we have other wild statements like this

        ” Charles McElroy says:

        The left don’t mind killing kids to get their gun control. It would be nice to bring the real killers to justice.”

        Strange enough , this is on topic and in the same vein with Ben Crystal’s original posting.

        Who in the hell in their right mind would make such a claim that anybody might not mind killing children for any GD reason?

        And this sort of persons expects all rights and liberties afforded other Americans???

        Bad judgement comes from bad thinking . ~ while there no penalty for just bad thinking.

      • Steve Thomas

        Accidents happen. That’s life. But when someone chooses to drive drunk, any mishaps are NOT accidents. A drunk driver that kills someone should be charged with murder 1.

    • http://midcontent ridge runner

      Has ranchman ever used his AR-15 to hunt jack rabbits, antelope or use it as a goose gun? When I hear the socialist/communist democraps question its use as a hunting firearm, they spend too much concrete time. The marxist/communists just took another page out of the Marx hand book, Hitler’s plan, and a dictator run country, register all gun owners, then go collect their firearms, then dispose of any body not following any government mandate. Rember one of apppointees that stated the SOP for controlling citizens, shoot and slaughter a bunck and everyone falls in to the dictator’s guidelines.

      • deerinwater

        Ridgerunner, gun registration was enacted in Germany before Hither came to power. German society was full of guns. ~ The Jews and minorities were the victims of a German government gone mad much like a bunch of Tea Partiers that are attempting treat minorities here in the US today. Not only could Jews and minorities not have guns, they were not allowed property or space to live or air to breath.

        Do you see yourself as a minority today? ~ I was under the impression that the Tea Party crowd claimed to be comprised of a solid majority?

        And unless you what to be called Republican’t for the next 4 years, enough of the democraps thing.

        Be a responsible grownup and stop making childish sport of abusing labels, brands and words. Say what you mean and mean what you say, It makes life easier for everyone.

        You are giving me or someone else permission to treat you in kind ~ with every insult that you send out.

  • Art Monk

    You write like an intelligent person, but your line of thought is idiotic, retrograde, out-moded, inflammatory and dangerous. There is a new world struggling to be born. Your mind-set is the problem.

  • Siobhra

    A lot of those “Mindless Liberals” are people caught in the middle. I own guns and have a carry permit. 3 handguns and 6 long guns. One of which is an SKS. What got me started in owning guns? I am Gay and had been beaten by a group of Christian’s that had just come out of a church on a Sunday Morning. One of them knew me and that I was Gay and announced it to the others. 5 of them then put me in the hospital. The cops said it was my fault since I should have hidden the fact that I was Gay better.
    That was 40 years ago and while things have change for the better for people like me it has not been from the efforts of Conservatives. The GOP did not make it so I can sit on my front porch in peace. The GOP is not fighting for my liberty to marry.
    Yet I see the damage done by free spending on people who don’t want to work and the wild rantings by the gun grabbers who want my guns. I served in the Navy in Vietnam and was kicked out because of an unsigned letter from my hometown police department telling the Navy that I was Gay. I love my country yet have no choice but to vote for a man who hates the country. I like a lot of other liberals hope our freedom comes and our rights become the norm in time to save the country. But if the country goes and I never got my freedom what will I lose? Should I or any other liberal just give up our personal liberty just so you can push your religion on others? If that is your idea of liberty then I don’t want it.

    • BobF

      I’m sorry you went through somethng so horrible, and as a Christian I have no hates for someone who is gay; that being said, being gay is a sin. The great thing is, Christ died for sinners, and we all fall into that category. I oppose gay marriage as marriage was ordained by God as being between a man and a woman; this goes all the way back to the time of creation. I do believe you have legal rights that should not be denied, but just that marriage is not one of them. If I were to meet you on the street I would speak freely with you, and hopefully you would see love in me and not hate; as a Christian my roles is not judge nor jury, but one of showing the love of Christ. My saying being gay is a sin is not a judgement I make, but it is spoken of in the Bible.

      One core belief I have is that two wrongs do not makea right, and is spmething I try to teach to those around me as well. Making others suffer for somethng they didn’t do is one of those things that is not right. Taking away other’s freedoms because of something they didn’t do is one of those wrong thiings. Taking away other people’s liberties is a shallow thing that may cost you, and will definitely cost them. One other belief I have is that holding a grudge only hurts the person holding it; forgiveness helps the person doing the forgiving (it really does nothing for the person who committed the offense as far as we are conscerned, only God’s forgiveness overcomes sinl this too is one of Jesus’ teachings). May God bless the rest of your life.

  • David169

    Lets all get our facts strait. The term “assault weapon” was given to the Stg 44 by Adolph Hitler. He is the one who called this new selective fire rifle a “Sturmgewere”. The US standardized this definition to mean a selective fire rifle shooting a cartridge having less power than the standard battle rifle. To be an assault rifle it must be able to fire fully automatic ie. a machinegun. Diane Fienstein has so overworked Hitler’s terminology that she now has all semiautomatic weapons as assault weapons; this includes assault rifles, assault pistols and assault shotguns. Obviously dementia is a work here.
    Second item, regardless of what Joe Biden says Obamas executive orders cannot nulify any part of the Constitution of the United States. If he could nullify the 2nd ammendment, he could also re-instate slavery, abolish income taxes for select people and declare himself King.

    • Jimmy The Greek

      I have a Assault ball bat , next they well come for it .

      • deerinwater

        No you don’t and no they won’t ~ you just could not think of anything brighter to say so you reached for anything absurd, not wishing the chance to pass you by.

    • deerinwater

      ” If he could nullify the 2nd amendment, he could also re-instate slavery, abolish income taxes for select people and declare himself King.”

      He who???? We have a government. But you are right ~ Could this , could that ~ we can “could” ourselves to death.

      Ammo supplies “could” be restricted, Ammo “could” be powered down to fly swatter effect. ~

      I say, let’s have more guns and more gun controls in place ~ Gun crimes carry heavy penalties. ~

      No three strike BS ~

    • Steve Thomas

      The actual assault rifle, after which the AR15 is modeled, fires 950 rounds a minute. That is about 900 rounds more than someone that is good can fire out of an AR.

  • goodsteve

    Obama and most of the other Democratic Party desperately need to focus
    less on gun control, and a lot more on criminal and maniac control.

    • deerinwater

      I would come nearer thinking everyone should.

    • Steve Thomas

      And how about the economy, Bengazi, F-16s to Egypt, little relief to hurricane Sandy victims, etc. etc. etc. Gun control is just a smoke screen to keep us off of obama’s back.

  • moses

    ban demturds and resucklbns both are stupied working for the u n ,russia and the devil o sluefoot , we the people need too stand against this all dont pay no more taxes too the death lovers .

  • http://EnternetExplorer Joe S.

    Obama is trying to make himself a Dictator like Hitler did. First tell them they don’t need their guns then put hem on a train of death. They already fixed up all the FEMA camps in Mississippi and Loisiana to where they are now RAZOR WIRE CONCINTRATION CAMPS.Obam also brought in Russin troops when he first took office. He wants our guns so he can have an easy take over. I am a VET and I don’t plan on standinding by while some African Muslim who claims to be an American and destroys what our forefathers built for their families and their futer generations.Everyone needs to get them a copy of the CONSTITUTION and then go to a computer and look up Bilderburg Group.com and you will see what part of Obamas plan is.We have to stand together just as our forefathers did against the British only now it is our own power hungry government and a non-American president who is bent on finishing what his namesake started with 9-11. Think about it.

    • http://itsootsme.wordpress.com sootsme

      It’s not about the puppet Obama, Dems, or Repubs. They are all willing or ignorant tools of the folks behind the scenes. As always, FOLLOW THE MONEY, folks.

      “He who controls the money cares not who controls the government.”
      -Baron vonRothschild

  • Charles McElroy

    The left don’t mind killing kids to get their gun control. It would be nice to bring the real killers to justice.

    • Deerinwater

      That is an awfully sick thing to say and then demand your rights in the same breath. It makes one question your mental stability and if you should be allows shape pointed scissors.

      • http://itsootsme.wordpress.com sootsme

        How many children does our gov’t permit to be killed by abortion every year? So much for their rights, eh? I think I’d rather be in the company of a bunch of gun nuts than in a low income womb, any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. We need to outlaw assault doctors, and quickly. Don’t get me started- you know how I am…

  • Sic Semper Tyrannis

    URGENT MESSAGE FROM THE FSB (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE KGB) TO PUTIN: OBAMA HAS SO-CALLED “VIPER” DEATH SQUADS IN THE US WHO ARE ALREADY KILLING GUN RIGHTS ACTIVISTS. 800 OF THESE DEATH SQUADS HAVE BEEN RELEASED. PLEASE CONTACT THE NRA IMMEDIATELY WITH THIS INFORMATION…

    http://www.eutimes.net/2013/01/obama-death-squads-fan-out-across-america-as-rebellion-looms/

    http://www.eutimes.net/2013/01/obama-death-squads-kill-top-gun-activists-as-new-massacre-fears-rise/

  • Michael

    To those that don’t think we need 30 round clips, or even 100 round drums:

    I am a animal lover, even though I hunt. It is because I love animals that I need these items, it is more humane. I rarely kill on the first shot, or the second shot, or sometimes even on the third shot. Hell, sometimes I don’t even hit the little bunny until about the 11th or 12 shot. Now, if I only hit him in the foot on that 12th shot, it may take another 10 or 11 shots to hit him in the thigh. Now you wouldn’t want some little bunny hopping around out there wounded, bleeding slowly would you. It may take him two or three day to die.
    So, yes, I do need those 30 round clips, and maybe I should even invest in one of those 100 round drums, so that I can kill that little bunny humanely, and not make it die a cruel and agonizing death.

  • Debra

    I believe it is a mistake to call this movement to take guns a democrat thing, or the hatred of it a republican thing. I believe that the divide is for a age old purpose of divide and conquer, I think it is more a move against the middle class. I believe that to continue to use terms that make it a DvR thing is playing into the hands of those who have set it up. I have seen the most anti gun control posts made by people I know personally to be democrats. That could well be their undoing, if people are smart enough to see that and instead of continuing to divide us as many issues do, we all realize that we now have one that will unite us, as this has the potential to, thus giving the whole country a chance. As to the American militay I think they are diverse, some will do as ordered bc they always have, others never will,but I also believe that agreements have been made at least according to what I have read with both Mexico and Canada that they too would interfere if our own military refused, I am not sure if we have any concern over the Mexican military I have never even heard of it, and I also think that many in Canada may think twice about facing a angry American populace including a large portion of our own military that will not stand down. Also, before I end, recall before the Dems take all the blame who signed into office the laws like the Patriot act which were written deliberately so that a enemy combatant was not clearly defined and that with that loose interpretation anyone could find themselves in that catagory. That is just more evidence to prove this is more then just a lib vs con thing. I agree in part to one of the things anon groups do which is to stay anon, bc honestly the site that appears to be the one most against gun control, could in fact be the one used to get the people to come out and show their hands. It could be something done on purpose or simply something watched either way, the job is done. All these posts that people are making declaring they have or do not have firearms, simply are making it that much easier to find out who has what where. I mean no harm to this site, I am simply stating what is obvious or should be, to anyone who is serious, caution is never a bad thing.

  • KEN

    DEBRA: YOURS IS THE MOST INTELLIGENT POST i HAVE SEEN ON THIS OR ANY OTHER SITE ! THANK YOU

  • Karen Salokar

    I agree totally and you people have to remember that he’s not only taking our constitutional rights! He’s also taking from every hard working person in america so they can suport the people who dont want to get up off their ass’s. America was the land of opportunity for any one who wanted to work hard to get some where in life, That time will be gone and no one will have anything because they have no power to keep what they’ve worked hard all these years ….. It’s very sad times for the United States of America. Now we have a King!!!!!!

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.