Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

In Wake Of Shooting, Arizonans Head To Gun Stores

January 14, 2011 by  

In wake of shooting, Arizonans head to gun storesThe deadly shooting involving Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) happened only last Saturday, but there are already signs that many Americans worry that their gun rights will be limited. 

News media are reporting that sales of guns — in particular the Glock pistols like the one used by the shooter in Arizona on Jan. 8 — went up both in the Grand Canyon State and across the country. While some people may be motivated by the desire to protect themselves, many commentators believe the buying frenzy may be caused by the fear that access to guns will be restricted in the coming weeks or months.

"We're at double our volume over what we usually do," said Greg Wolff, who owns two gun shops in Arizona, quoted by Bloomberg News. The news provider cited FBI data, which suggest that handgun sales in the state rose by 60 percent on Jan. 10. That day, 263 items were sold compared to 164 on the corresponding Monday of 2009.

The agency also noted a spike in gun sales in Ohio (65 percent), Illinois (38 percent), New York (33 percent) and Florida (16 percent).

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said that while concern over stricter gun laws was likely the reason behind the surge, he hoped elected officials will move in that direction, according to

Already, several lawmakers announced they will present relevant bills, including Representatives Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) and Peter King (R-N.Y.). 

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “In Wake Of Shooting, Arizonans Head To Gun Stores”

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

  • Bill

    Lawmakers can introduce the legislation, but I doubt it will go anywhere with GOP in control.This is another flagrant attempt to curtail our second amendment rights. The Tuscon shooter was influenced by demented viewpoints. I believe that even with strict gun control in place he would have accomplished his goal of killing innocents by using another method. It is not the gun that needs to be the focus here,but the pattern of mental disease that was so conspicuous, prior to this tragedy, and the failure of the mental health community and law enforcement to deal proactively with it.

    • Mick

      Bill…..The way our society’s moral values have dropped the past few decades anything is possible when it concerns wrong doing.
      The old saying ” If there is a will there is a way ” stands when it involves fraud, theft, deceit and even murder as we saw last Saturday , too bad it seldom applies for, ethics, work, responsibility and just plum human trait.
      If someone is determine to kill they won’t necessarily use a gun and even if the law or many laws forbid the buying and ownership of guns the nut and evil will always find a way to get one, guns have been invented , they always will be around but the rights of the law abiding citizens should never be denied, they need to protect themselves against the rot infesting our country.

      • wayne

        I blame this on the available drugs in our society, and the way this deranged man was raised by his family. It is obvious that some folks can handle illegal drugs better than others. We never know which folks are going to turn out the way this man did. A person like this should have been institutionalized instead of being out in society. Take the guns away from the insane and the criminals, but leave the rest of us with firearms so we can protect ourselves from the nuts. Let’s vote against the Congress Members who want to take our firearms away fro us. Guns don’t kill people, its the nuts that kills people using guns Those who do this insane act should have been in an insane society anyway. Lock all the nuts up.

        • Robin from Arcadia, IN

          Wayne… I agree with most your post, but I hadn’t heard that he was on drugs or that he came from a ‘bad’ family. It is a sad tragedy and guns didn’t kill these people, a warped individual did. He only used a gun to do it. He could have used different methods; he could have used a car to run over people. It can be as deadly as a gun. I have had relatives killed in car accidents, but none by a gun.

          • wayne

            Robin, I heard on the news, I hope it’s accrate that he did se illegal drugs. I can tell you from experience that the majority of folks like this that commits these heinous

          • wayne

            Sorry Robin, I did not mean to end that post so quickly. From my experience, most of the folks I dealt with while I was in law enforcement in the seventies and eighties that committed crimes were in the drug culture. I started in law enforcement in the early sixties. Back in the early sixties our area did not have an illegal drug problem. We had very little crime. Of course, you are always going to have a certain element of people who committ crime without the use of drugs. Mostly it was due to the the environment they were raised in. The crime rate soared once the illegal drugs came into use in our area. Working with many people committing crimes, I can assure you that a lot of these folks came from bad home with bad parenting. I worked with this for around thirty years. I do believe that I have a good handle on what causes crime. I came from a home with good parents who raised us, and taught us right from wrong. If a child is raised in a good home, and his parents teach him the way my parents did, I don’t know how a child could do bad things. First of all you have to have a conscious. Having a conscious, knowing when your doing something wrong, comes from good parenting. End….

          • ted

            He was not allowed to join the Army as he failed the drug test.
            And, the sheriff did call the family “disfunctional.”

          • Robert Smith

            Waune, Wayne, Wayne…. (sigh) You really don’t get it, do you?

            You posted: “If a child is raised in a good home, and his parents teach him the way my parents did, I don’t know how a child could do bad things.”

            I’m sure that Mr. & Mrs. Dich Chaney might disagree with you when the found out that they daughter was gay. No, I’m not comparing being criminal to being gay but it is an example of how things can go way differently than parents want them to.

            You said drugs cause crime. Bzzzzz, WRONG.

            In fact MONEY and POWER are what are at the root of crime. Take the money out of drugs and nobody will care about them except the user. Remember with alcohol there were machine gun battles in the streets. Alcohol is legal and those battles pretty much stopped. It wasn’t until the drug trade kicked in that the violence became common.

            Consider: If there is no money involved in pot (it’s a weed that can be grown in the back yard) how much violence would there really be?


          • Carlucci

            Robin, people interviewed who knew this guy all said he was a pothead.
            I believe I read somewhere that he suffered from insomnia, and probably took all kinds of psychotropic drugs like sleeping pills, prescribed to him by his friendly drug pushing allopathic physician. It has been shown that people under the influence of these pharmaceuticals cannot distinguish between reality and being asleep. Look at the people who get up and drive a car or gain lots of weight from getting up and eating in the middle of the night, yet they are actually asleep from sleeping medications prescribed to them and have no memory of doing these things. It has happened to two people that I know personally.

            As far as his parents, I have to ask what were they thinking? They were contacted by the community college their son was attending a few months ago, and informed in person at a conference with school officials that their son scared students and teachers because it was presumed that he was mentally ill and needed psychiatric help. He was kicked out of school and the parents were told he could not return until he was given a clean bill of health from a licensed mental health care professional.

            Just like the Columbine murderers (both on anti-depressant psychotropic drugs), where were the parents when these kids were making bombs and hiding firearms in the garage?

          • http://?? Joe H.

            They interviewed some family friends on the news today and they said they saw him at least a hundred times as a kid and he was not like this. they said he came from a very good family and he was treated well! there are times when no matter what you do, the offspring turn out bad! Quit trying to put the blame off this jerk! PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY! There is no excuse for his actions so don’t look for one!

        • Robert Smith

          wayne says: “I blame this on the available drugs in our society,”

          Are you willing to make the worst drug of all illegal, alcohol? Oops we tried that and all America got out of it was organized crime.

          Why don’t you learn from the past and decriminalize pot like alcohol is? THEN we won’t have the organized crime and pushers moving folks to more dangerous substances.


          • wayne

            Robert, what kind of a society would we have if we let people do anything they wanted to do. Now come on, you can’t really mean this, do you? We have child molesters, like NAMBLA (North American Man boy love association) we have thieves, we have cold blooded killers out there that enjoys what their doing. Bob, I have experience working with these criminal elements. What experience do you have giving others information on this?

          • wayne

            Robert, if we legalize pot, then what next, LSD? Maybe we could legalize everything, and let people do what ever they want to do. I want to live in a civilized society where they are some rules. People use LSD because they want to use it. From what your saying you would not care. These kind of people are not only dangerous to themselves, but are dangerous to everyone aound them. I have seen the result of folks who use drugs, and it is not pretty. How many suicides have you investigated, how many domestic calls have you investigated, how many murders have you investigated. A lot of this is caused by a legal drug called alcohol and you want to legalize yet another drug in society. We do not need any more mind altering drugs. We have too many legalized now. People who has to use these mind altering drugs for a high has problems, believe me.

          • Robert Smith

            Let’s watch wayne go off the deep end.

            From wayne who asks: “Robert, what kind of a society would we have if we let people do anything they wanted to do.”

            Used to be that way. Then societies built themselves, some came through some fell. But I imagine you want to push the extremes, like someone saying that a little nuke in the back yard is fine for home defense. Take my word for it, it isn’t.

            “Now come on, you can’t really mean this, do you?”

            No I don’t, but you seem to be doing a fine job if making stuff up. Let’s see where it goes.

            “We have child molesters, like NAMBLA (North American Man boy love association)”

            Yup, supported by some of the finest catholic priests around. Molesters are criminals. It’s that simple. Why? Because of a universal thing called a “social contract.” You don’t kill me or my kin and I won’t kill you or your kin. We agree? Good, it’s a social contract. No god, no police, nothing except that we agree. In America we call them laws.

            In America we also have some responsibilitys in those cases some in our society need protection. We all agree that we will potect kids, even from priests. It’s that simple.

            “we have thieves,”

            Review “social contract”. And if there are those in society who we don’t think should be stolen from then we can help them out. Rather than just agreeing between you and me that we won’t steal from each other we agree that stealing in general is bad for the society. Then to make sure that works out we create a body to enforce that. We call that body police, sharrif, martial, etc.

            “we have cold blooded killers out there that enjoys what their doing.”

            We sure do. I enjoy Criminal Minds and Dexter as entertainment. And in that context it can be concluded that they are sick minds that need treatment because they have violated the social contracts and have no respect for the group, society. It would be nice if we could help them be productive. I really don’t like the solution of shooting them just after they kill someone else. Let’s see what we can do before.

            “Bob, I have experience working with these criminal elements. What experience do you have giving others information on this?

            Your “experience” doesn’t reflect reality. Your enthusiasm to make grand claims to comdemn what isn’t your agenda builds some very false “arguments.”

            Situation: Kid on pot with a few other kids. How many had guns?

            First, I don’t approve of kids on pot. Nor do I like kids on booze.

            However kids in most of Europe have grown up with alcohol at the table and drink it regularly all their lives. Europe does NOT have the same degree of alcohol problems that America does. I suspect that the same would be for pot.

            The responsible thing for our American society would be for parents to introduce kids to dangerous (alcohol and pot) substances as each reaches age appropriate levels to understand what is going on, the effects, and how a responsable person should handle it.

            If they had grown it in the back yard rather than going to a street corner that has been faught over it would be a lot less violent.

            And parents have the leeway to bring their kids up they way they want to. How can you deny parents the ability to teach their kids they way they want?

            BTW, because some parents won’t be responsible doesn’t mean that all parents won’t be responsible. Like has been said around here several times: Why should the majority be penalized in freedom for the actions of a few?


          • Average Joe

            “Robert, what kind of a society would we have if we let people do anything they wanted to do.”


            Under the Constitution, that is precisely what we are supposed to be able to do…as long as we do not infringe upon the “rights” of another person. What a person does with their own body, in or on the privacy of their own property is nobody else’s business….Period!

            The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.
            Robert A. Heinlein

          • Robert Smith

            Hmmm, was that Jubal Hershaw or Lazerous Long? It’s been awhile.


          • TIME


            I agree with Robert, what he has posted in LOGICAL. I can say with out question that POT had nothing to do with this persons actions.

            That being said, Wyane, perhaps you should read the Constitution and Bill of Rights again. This time understand that we were set up on the very edge of {Anarchy,} just enough control that keeps us from self destruction as a nation.
            Thus Freedom is just that a vast amount of “Responsibility.”
            When Government makes laws that act as controls over its citizens lifes we end up the way we are now $14 Trillon in debt, Crime in the halls of congress at all time highs, people asking the Government to fix problems the government created, by the citizens being apathetic and not wanting to take Responsibility for themselfs.
            Kinda like there should be a LAW, {ever hear mindless remark that?}

            Now let me be clear the young man was troubled all his life he is 22 years old so he would fit the time line of a young person who would have been perscribed Psychotropic drugs in school.
            His actions clearly indicate that. His behavior is what happens to persons who go outward as noted in the Other shootings by school kids, rather than inverted self destruction.

            Just so you better understand why I say this 1 out of every 3 kids is on Psychotropic drugs mandadted by the “DOE” to all states who take “Federal aid” to keep the children under control.
            This has been going on now since 1990, this alone would have placed this young man right in the center of this ongoing School druging policy.
            Also suicide rates of these kids have gone up nearly 70% since 1990, thus the inward form of self destruction.

            Again by all outward signs as my intel guy in Tucson tells me this kid was a problem kid, his legal team have had his records pulled, so I am sure that will be his defence of what will open the whole can of worms about how YOUR Government Drugs school kids to keep them under control.

            I say this to you there is far more here than meets the public eye, and much of it will be held back from public view so as to keep the School kids druged.
            Again POT is not the reason, thats so bloody absurd to even bring it up.
            Where as psychotropic drugs retard the brains growth, thus making kids seem like they are not bright and or not quite all there and do what seems like mindless things to the casual observer who can’t grasp what these Hard Core Mind altering drugs can do.

          • Robert Smith

            wayne says: “People use LSD because they want to use it.”

            Yup. From what I’ve heard it can be quite interesting. The fact is that there were plenty of theraputic uses for it.

            Cary Grant was quite open about his experience. He wrote about it at “And so, together with a group of other interested Californians — doctors, writers, scientists and artists — and the encouragement of Betsy, who was interested herself, I underwent a series of controlled experiments with Lysergic Acid, a hallucinogenic chemical or drug known as LSD 25. Experiment is perhaps a misleading word; to most people it signifies patronization and objectivity. For my part I anxiously awaited their personal benefits that could be derived from the experiences, and was quite willing to be less than objective. Any man who experiments with something that cannot benefit himself, or add to his happiness, and that of his fellow man in turn, is a fool and a menace to society. I’ve heard that a man here and there died during LSD25 sessions; but then I’ve heard that men died during poker games and while watching horse racing; but that didn’t seem to stop such occupations…”

            Those theraputic uses are LOST because of simple misinformation and government going to the “war on drugs.”

            Way presumes: “From what your saying you would not care.”

            Generally I don’t care. It’s THEIR business what they do, not mine.

            “These kind of people are not only dangerous to themselves, but are dangerous to everyone aound them.”

            Sometimes that is true.

            For such experements there can be a certified “trip meister” on duty to assure that people don’t hurt themselves or others. It’s that simple. At least make it available in a hospital setting. For amny it was useful.

            BTW, it isn’t that difficult to make. If the demand picked up it would be on the market quickly.


          • Dan Burke

            You want to legalize those mind altering drugs?

            I would be fine with it on one CONDITION. You must enforce the laws! If they break the law “under the influence” of drugs, then they must be punished just AS IF they were as sane as you think you are. If you are going to allow them to get a lighter sentence due to being “under the influence” (such as sending them for treatment instead of jail), then I stand by Wayne. For if they get special treatment for violence under the influence of drugs, then there must be something about the drugs that increase their likely criminal behavior. For surely the drugs are mind altering substances or they are not. Either they are safe, or they are not.

            Why such a harsh stand? Well, if you want to give everyone the right to these substances, then I am actually for you. And you are right that as long as they don’t infringe upon someone else’s life and properties that what they do is their own business. So what is to discourage the use of potentially dangerous drugs? Overdose? Well, that doesn’t work with them being illegal. People still use the drugs despite that danger. Personal destruction? People still use the drugs despite that danger. Criminal incarceration? We’ll give them special sentences throwing them into rehab instead. I am not saying that mercy doesn’t have a place in society. What I am saying is that you are not doing any service to future drug users by making the results more pleasant for them.

            Personally, I like what they do in some countries. They don’t have the age requirements and such that we for alcohol. But if you do have a DUI or other such incident with drunk driving, then you will lose your driver’s license for LIFE. In other words, they treat driving as the privilege it is–it is not a right to drive a car. So would you be willing to do similar to that extreme for people driving under the influence of mind altering drugs? If they hit another car, tree, or so forth while under the influence of any of the drugs you want to legalize, are you willing to mandate that they not be given the privilege to drive a car again for LIFE??? I suspect not. I suspect you want the rights we should give each other in this nation without really taking the responsibility for our choices. And that includes our responsibility to be willing to deny privileges (not to be confused with rights) to those who violate the rights of other people.

          • Robert Smith

            Don said: “I would be fine with it on one CONDITION. You must enforce the laws! If they break the law “under the influence” of drugs, then they must be punished just AS IF they were as sane as you think you are.”

            I’m sorry. I thought that went without saying. You are most certainly correct.

            But, please keep in mind the distinction between that and an undiagnosed condition. Then it’s off to treatment ASAP.


        • Ellen

          I had heard that the shooter was supposedly on pot. This is about as ludicrous as it gets. If he was, indeed, on pot, he would have been home vegging out, calm and relaxed. One thing that pot does not do is incite to ANYTHING !!

          I would bet my bottom dollar that this individual was drugged all through school (the gold standard that ruins the kids’ brains) and was on or just coming off SSRIs when he shot all those people. This has been a very common theme with these individuals involved with such shootings.

          • Robert Smith

            Sadly there is much truth to what you post Ellen.

            The issue is there are folks around here who want folks to proclaim themselves upright and correct when that doesn’t work. Mental illness is an ILLNESS and it isn’t “cured” by proclimation or will.

            What is needed is universal health care to make sure those who need treatment have it available. But there are selfish folks around here who would rather shoot them when the cimmit a crime rather than prevent a crime, maybe get a productive person in society, and have peace.

            Looks to me like selfishness power are running the right, not common sense. I wonder if that’s curable.


          • wayne

            Ellen, I agree with you on this. A few on here will just not accept the truth of what these drugs, illegal and legal, does to the mind. I pity them. I have seen the results of what drugs does to the mind, and the violence it causes. Just one example, I seen a 17 year old college kid jump off of a three story building on a parking lot head first. It turned out that his parents knew that he had been using LSD since he was 13 years old. I know of many, many instance such as this. We have people on this forum wanting to compare these illegal drugs to alcohol. I don’t have to guess what these drugs does to our society. I have seen the results first hand.

          • Robert Smith

            Wayne says: “I have seen the results first hand.”

            You’ve seen the results of the worst as their end game goes bad.

            You didn’t see the majority who quietly enjoy a joint in front of the fireplace as part of a romantic evening. You didn’t see the athlete who unwinds from the physical strain with a joint. You didn’t see granny coping with authritus with a joint. You didn’t see a cancer patient coping with nausia and the thoughts of death with a joint. You didn’t see the bus driver settling in with some Spider Robinson with a joint on a Friday evening.

            You really didn’t see anything except the exceptions.

            Yes they are tragic. What society needs to learn is how to derail these express trains to self distruction with treatment and understanding, NOT going in with guns drawn, putting their faces in the dirt, and putting them in jail. If I ever faced something like that I suspect I might go to another level or two. Did you ever think that YOUR actions in dealing with the prohibition may have driven some of those people over the edge?


        • For Freedom247

          Wayne, I can appreciate your point of view, however, because you have seen repetitiously unfortunate and tragic examples of peoples inhumanity to each other and because many of those people where on a substance of some kind, (because the were in pain themselves of some kind)respectfully, your mind naturally comes to the false conclusion that it is the substance and we need to control theses substances and infringe on the rights of the MAJORITY because of a small fringe MINORITY. In this REPUBLIC neither the majority nor the minority has a right to violate anyone else’s rights as we a all sovereign individuals with INALIENABLE rights including to pursue Life, Liberty and Happiness UNOBSTRUCTED by government so long as we do not violate anyone else’s rights. The only LEGITIMATE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT is one that PROTECTS the RIGHTS of INDIVIDUALS and the Sovereignty of our State from foreign enemies.What matters is how someone behaves and treats their fellow human beings and being personally accountable for when they violate someones else’s rights and that includes when you interfere with someones right to ingest whatever they want into their body. I do believe that you are well meaning, but you also seem unaware of the FACT that MOST people who ingest any kind of substance from alcohol to cannabis, etc, are law abiding good and decent people with a moral compass. For example George Washington grew and smoked cannabis. was he a bad guy? I Think Not. When a sick individual commits tyranny against a few people as bad and horrible as that is, when you then use that as reason to commit tyranny against an ENTIRE society that is a much much worse form of tyranny and a much greater crime believe it or not. From there you then force people to finance this war on drugs for example against their will which is taxation without representation which is also a much greater form of tyranny as it affects and damages many more people then these very unfortunate and tragic acts of insanity that directly affect only a few. Also, many of these people are actually suffering from pain of some kind and many times a lack of LOVE. I do agree with you that if this kid had at least one mature and devoted parent, friend, mentor,etc. that this very well may have been prevented. All around it is a tragedy and we should pray for and do what we can for those directly affected.

          • wayne

            For Freedom247, when you drive a vehicle in an intoxicate state, by alcohol or an illegal drug, and by you intoxicated condtion you wipe out a complete family with you car, due to you intoxicatd condition, you have infringed on some else rights. Like I have tried to explain to you folks, I have seen the results of this first hand. I wasn’t born yesterday. I have had the experience in working with all kinds of people, under all conditons. I rest my case. Where does your experience come from, a book? Or have ou lived it like I did?

          • Robert Smith

            Hi Freedom,

            I’ve seen proof that Jefferson smoked “hemp” along with some specific strains mentioned. I also know for sure that Washington grew hemp and was a successful distiller. That in fact was where much of his wealth came from. It is still at Mt. Vernon.

            HOwever, I haven’t been able to get absolute proof he smoked, except through some indirect quotes from others. I’m sure he did because it was common at the time, but I just don’t have that “got it” really nailed down quote.

            BTW, I’ve been to the George Washington Masonic Memorial in Alexandria, VA, and I’ve seen in George Washington’s own hand some of his writings. It was a powerful experience and I highly recommend it.


          • Robert Smith

            From Wayne: “when you drive a vehicle in an intoxicate state, by alcohol or an illegal drug, and by you intoxicated condtion…”

            DUI is Illegal ALL the time. One can even be DUI on Contac (a legal cold medicine) in some enlightened jurisdictions. Even sleep apnea can get your license suspended until you undergo successful treatment. It isn’t the substance that is the problem it is DRIVING WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE.

            I won’t go to the extreme of having them shot beside the road as has been reported from some countries but sometimes that idea does get more sympathy than I’d like to admit to most folks. Only sympathy. I can look at Playboy and still love my wife. We need to get them off the road.

            Note the period at the end of “We need to get them off the road.” There it is again.

            What I think will be most effective in this one aspect of our law enforcement is a very fast sure process that IF one is DUI they will be held accountable immediately.

            First is the stop. A direct violation to pull someone over would be cool, but erratic driving is also a big clue. Video in the police car could easily document that Due Process at the site of the stop is correct. Then observe and record behavior, smell, horizontal gaze nystagmus test, Romberg Balance test, etc. There are a bunch of tests than can prove impairment.

            If these are failed the car is towed to impound and the perp goes to a central point where a proper authority (Judge for example) is waiting. Immediately a blood test (by a qualified person) is taken to back-up the breathalyzer. If it proves to be above the limit there are NO excuses. Go to jail, do not collect $200. Immediate sentence. First offense is 7 days in jail. Call someone to take care of the kid(s) or feed the dog. Second offense 30 days. Third offense one year. Fourth offense two years and you are off the road for a minimum of 5 years of documented sobriety. (sometimes people do change) If you hurt others while DUI anyone steps one and two are deleted. The penalty goes up from there depending on the severity.

            The one thing I would make as an exception would be an undiagnosed medical condition. If sleep apnea, diabetes, or a bazillion other conditions are already diagnosed it’s off to the slammer. It they ain’t it is off to immediate treatment. If a patient is under a doctor’s care they must be warned by the doctor that some scripts can have an impact on driving. If they MUST drive they must have time on the script to prove that it isn’t going to impact their driving. Programs are already in place for pilots.

            One seminal change in our legal system would have to occur that lawyers in DUI situations would have to accept that they are officers of the court and that they are there to assure that the rules are followed, if the perp elects to have a lawyer. This idea of “get ‘em off the road no matter what” if they are DUI must have some common sense such that the really guilty have to get a time out.

            That’s what I think about DUI.

            Wayne continues: “Like I have tried to explain to you folks, I have seen the results of this first hand.”

            There are lots of “results” that lots of folks have seen firsthand, and experienced. The issue isn’t the drugs or driving. The issue is combined drugs (or any bad influence) and driving.

            Wayne, Wayne, Wayne… You say: “I have had the experience in working with all kinds of people, under all conditions. I rest my case.”

            Anyone can be anyone they want in cyber-space. I could claim to be Bat Man or Super Man and you couldn’t argue against it. Please don’t claim they are any less fictional than that god that raped Mary and then turns into lunch.

            And There’s More! “Where does your experience come from, a book? Or have ou lived it like I did?”

            Experience isn’t needed. Common sense is what is needed. What you are doing with your “experience” is advocating oppression in America. That isn’t American. Do you really believe that sending an adult to jail for years and years is the right, or even christian, thing to do? For kids it’s flat out tragic.

            If you want to find police as experienced as you are you can go to:

            LEAP Statement of Principles
            1. LEAP does not promote the use of drugs and is deeply concerned about the extent of drug abuse worldwide. LEAP is also deeply concerned with the destructive impact of violent drug gangs and cartels everywhere in the world. Neither problem is remedied by the current policy of drug prohibition. Indeed, drug abuse and gang violence flourish in a drug prohibition environment, just as they did during alcohol prohibition.

            If you have more experience than they do…

            Generally the war on drugs is lost and we need to try new ways to address the problem. My first suggestion is to remember that this is America. It used to be free until jack booted thugs started putting people in jail for pot. If you are unremorseful and proud of that you are part of the prohibition problem and not living the spirit of freedom in America because you are oppressing generations of people who wanted to do nothing but be happy. How can being happy be a sin? Yes, one needs to be responsible, but just for being happy means going to prison. That just ain’t American.


    • Daniel from TN

      In case you haven’t noticed the GOP is already starting to cave. The bill in question already has two Republican co-sponsors.

      • wayne

        If they are in your district, keep them in mind the next time you vote.

    • Dogma-Free

      Yeah, that’s logical…not.

      In the wake of someone killing innocents with a GUN that he bought legally (because, hey…not selling a gun to someone just because they’re deranged, would be considered unconstitutional…and besides, the deranged gun-buyers are one of the biggest lobbying forces – it’s called the NRA), Arizonians go out and buy *even more* guns…and not just any guns, but the ones deranged people like to buy to shoot innocents with…the Glock.

      Good thinking, Arizona…way to use the old melon…you know, since your brains don’t currently have bullets lodged in them.


      • independant thinker

        Put a sock in it Dogma if you ever had a clue you lost it long ago.

      • Robert Smith

        Hey Dogma…

        You posted: “you know, since your brains don’t currently have bullets lodged in them.”

        Really? James Brady used to be part of the NRA. Then he got shot in the head and his wife got he brain damage.

        I hear that the NRA is turning around a bit BTW. I quit before George Bush Sr. did. It was during the time when the extreme right took it over like they did the Boy Scouts of America. They screwed both organizations. The NRA seems to be turning around, the Scouts are still a hateful oroganization at the top but in the local ranks they seem to have figured it out in some locations.

        Did you know that the NRA used to be one of the major souces for scholarships in America. Many schools had ranges. Mine did when I went to high school. I don’t know how many local public high schools have a range, swimming pool, and a planitarium but this one did. I was able to pick up an old Mosberg and a box of cartridges and shoot during some study halls and over luch sometimes. I’d police the brass and carry it back right through the lobby. Nobody thought boo about it.


        • Bill

          Robert ,
          where the hell do you get off calling the Boy scouts a hateful organization? Do you draw you opinion from their stance against homosexuals? If the is your rationale, better think again they are just exercising their rights to avoid the infiltration of a pathological lifestyle into their midst. I applaud them vigorously in their endeavors !!

          • Robert Smith

            And Bill is another hateful country heard from about gays.

            I’ve heard of Scouts of Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000), was a case of the Supreme Court of the United States.

            That decision made it so private organization is allowed, under certain criteria, to exclude a person from membership through their First Amendment right to freedom of association in spite of state antidiscrimination laws.

            Essentially it gives BSA a license to exclude others who are “unclean.”

            That has cost BSA dearly. Was it worth it to lose all those locations like court houses, some churches, schools, etc.? Suddenly BSA had to pay rent. And! They lost a bundle from United Way, and other organizations that used to support them. Of course without spaces being available suddenly urban locations were dumped. That left scouting generally to the “right” kids from suburbia. What a hateful thing to do.

            Sheesh, Have you heard of Lord Baden-Powell and his collection of nude photographs of boys? Did you know he recorded his dreams? Allegedly most of them were about young boys. Of course he worked with them a lot as FOUNDER of the Boy Scouts. Powell enjoyed watching naked boys swim and got upset when swimming naked was banned. He disdained female nudity.
            When Powell was staying overnight at the school with his old friend A. H. Tod… Oh my they both appreciated the pictures.

            Speaking of “morality” did you know that William Dickson “W. D.” Boyce (June 16, 1858 – June 11, 1929) the founder of scouting in America was married 3 times? A rather racy life, including violence.

            I’m simply waiting for some repressed “leader” to rape a few kids like went on in the catholic church to happen and the whole hateful thing is going to explode.

            I’d like to thank some of the local Troups that haven’t put up with the nonsense and take kids who’s qualification is an interest in the skills the BSA has to offer. Whe it ain’t busy being hateful it really is an excellent organization. I suspect they will get over it like the NRA did.


          • wayne

            Just ignore Robert, Bill. This man’s brains has been fried, most likel,y due to too many drugs. I have seen a lot of this type over the years and this is how they act. From now on I am ignoring him since he thinks he has all the answers.

          • Robert Smith

            There goes wayne again: “From now on I am ignoring him since he thinks he has all the answers.”

            Looks to me like wayne is one of those cops who figured out that by stirring up fear in the American public about drugs he can continue to build his department empire, continue to put his jack boot on the necks of the American public who are just trying to have a little fun without hurting anyone, and then suck of the “retirement” spickit and brag about how much he kicked those poor druggies.

            I’d be willing to place a bet that wayne was quite the bully in school.


      • JC

        My God, but you are a moron.
        Move to Sweden for heaven’s sake…there’s a socialist outfit you can “rock” with.

        • Claude

          I usually do not comment on this subject drugs, and the use thereof, but I have to aggree with Wayne, I to have seen the results of what drugs, and alcohol can do to the lives of the users, and sometimes the people that surround them. As Robert so eloquently state more than once he is for Law enforcement to get them off the street, but Big Brother can not be every where at once can he. I have a question for Robert: have you ever tried to contain a person on LSD, and if so what were the results, well maybe two questions: have you seen a person on LSD rip out thier own eyes, no Well when you have then tell me its OK for this to be used on your own property ? and where might that property be, most do not have enough money for the next fix, thats where the problem leads to, going someplace to get the money. Maybe Seden would be a good choice for you, or Holland, they are both pretty liberal, although I have heard they are having a little problem with Islamists.

          • wayne

            Thank you for the post Claude. I knew there had to be some one on this forum that had some common sense that would agree with me. We certainly know that a few, not mentioning any name, of course, do not have any common sense. I also have seen the results of the use of all these drugs. I worked aound those fools that used these drugs. It would take me to long to describe all the blood and gore that I have seen over the years that was contributed to drugs. I don’t know how Robert got so smart. He has all the answers, but he does not share his experience, or his expetise, so therfore I am going to ignore any more of his post.

          • Robert Smith

            From Claud who claims like wayne to have see the end result of drugs: “I have a question for Robert: have you ever tried to contain a person on LSD, and if so what were the results…”

            No, I have not. I have met many people who have tried a wide variety of drugs (some legal and prescribed, some not) who have had a variety of experiences. Some had an excellent experience and continue. Some had an excellent experience and under the supervision of a doctor tapered off when behavioral modification kicked after the chemicals helped make the change. Some had a bad experience and for some dumb reason continued, and some had a bad experience and quit. What I learned that it was all up to the individual in the context of their own lives and circumstances that pop up.

            Again, what you saw to match wayne relates to the end stages of what was most likely a long decline. Not always to be sure, remember the Celtics pick from MD, Len Bias, who died at 22 on his alleged first hit of crack.

            Still with POT the horrors you point out are extremely rare. I just did a quick search (I don’t let claims come back to bite me easily).

            Most people like pot because it is safe. It is pretty much impossible to overdose. The only way a lab rat can be killed by it is to drop a 20# bail on it. There is NO hangover. That’s a huge advantage over booze. Quite frankly I would rather have a pilot fly a plane after a few joints the night before than have one with a bad hangover. Which pilot would you pick? One without a hangover or one that has a lot of bad publicity that is false?

            Claud asks: “have you seen a person on LSD rip out their own eyes”

            Nope. Did you or are you relating an anecdotal story? Here is a FACT…

            Houston Edward Summers IV, an R&B singer gouged his own eye out after a thwarted suicide attempt. Let’s see: Suicide attempt then he maimed himself. You know I’ll bet that there was something more than drugs going on there. Don’t you think that with a red flag like a suicide attempt that it might be time to get the guy into treatment?

            My point is that such extremes attributed to drug use usually have a much deeper rooted mental condition and there were signs way before the specific incident you may have witnessed. You see the drugs and immediately attribute causality when they may be coincidental. That simple minded analysis is what has dug the war on drugs hole much deeper than it should have been if folks on the front lines had taken a moment to think about it.

            The fact is that the war on drugs is just like any other war. It is an excuse to get money out of the hands of the people, intimidate the population, and line their own pockets. IOW, you and millions of others got duped, or worse.

            Of the confiscated cars did you ever get to drive a nice one? How much overtime did you rack up? Did you enjoy that extra commendation in your jacket because of a drug bust? Did you enjoy pounding all those “druggies” to the ground? The rush of going in gun drawn…


          • http://?? Joe H.

            I’ll give you one that isn’t anecdotal. I was in the 114th Assault helicopter Company in Vinh Long. We had a guy come to our unit from Bear Caht who was hooked on hard drugs. When he transfered, he lost all of his contacts to buy from so he tried to ease his pain with barbituates and failed.
            One day as I was coming around the hootch to get dressed for guard duty, I heard three shots from the bldg. I walked in the front door and there was the guy laying on the floor in a pool of blood. He had taken an M16 on full auto, put it under his chin and pulled the trigger. It fired three rounds before it stopped. When i picked up my fatigues later to put them on, a piece of his skull dropped from them!! Fact! Ask anyone that was in the unit in 1971 and they will tell you about it. Victimless you say? His mother and father had to have a closed casket and couldn’t even tell their child goodbye!! I also heard later that he left a 3 year old kid behind as well!

          • Robert Smith

            Posted: “We had a guy come to our unit from Bear Caht who was hooked on hard drugs. When he transfered, he lost all of his contacts to buy from so he tried to ease his pain with barbituates and failed.
            One day as I was coming around the hootch to get dressed for guard duty, I heard three shots from the bldg.”

            Like I said, END STAGE.

            From what’s posted it appears that many knew he had a problem. You know, I’ve heard all this screeching about how gays in the military will screw things up and how they can’t be trusted. Well, FOR SURE, a druggie couldn’t be trusted and he probibly screwed up several times. I’ll bet the unit carried him so he wouldn’t get into trouble. Or if he did it was passed off because it wasn’t a big incident. That’s just… (the guy who eventually shot himself in the head).

            I blame those in the unit. WHY DIDN”T YOU DO SOMETING?

            Medical care doesn’t cost the soldger anything in the military. He could have gotten treatment.


  • Brent

    Look guns don’t kill people. People kill people. If that boy would have stoned that girl to death would we create a ban on rocks? The boy was a nut case he had already made threats against other people. The police didn’t do their job, or he already would have been in jail. They didn’t follow up on those threats. They are the responsible ones. Look at Texas they have the fewest gun bans and the least amount of crimes. Mexico no one is allowed to own one and one of the most dangerous places to go to. They are using guns as a way to cover up their incompitance and take away are rights as free people. If we let this happen what right will they take next?

    • http://Hotmail Steve

      They are already working fast and furiously against the first.There is the fairness doctrine, internet regulation, moves to restrict undefined hate speech, etc.

    • AnhydrousBob

      I agree with most of what you say, Brent. However, be very careful when wishing the police to take people out of society that are “crazy”. While this guy was obviously a nutcase, where to draw that line will creep until everyone who is not like some standard will be considered looney. We dont’ want that, either.

      When you think about it, in a nation of 300 million, how many are actually killed each year by crazy folks? We cannot create a utopia, or remove all risk from living. Otherwise we’d be banning automobiles, motorcycles, fast food, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.

      Not that I’m diminishing the lives that were lost, on the contrary, I hate that these deaths happened.

      • Robert Smith

        IF the right decides to have a “war on crazies” they will have on trouble puttnig a bunch of people away. They already have over a MILLION “driggies” put away. The best guess I’ve seen is that about 15% (that’s only a guess if someone has solid information I’d appreciate it) anyhow… 15% are actually criminals who should be there.

        The rest are kids and adults who got caught up in the police web. One might want to look at the life of Tim Allen and see how “Tool Time” was almost killed before the first episode. All because of a drug bust.

        Tommy Chong was busted and spent a couple of years in jail for selling glass.

        Montel Williams was busted for having a pipe.

        Note, those were for drugs but drug stuff.


    • wayne

      Brent, don’t blame the police. Put the blame where it belongs. It’s the lawmakers, and the judicial system that is to blame here. Police officers don’t like these insane people running around with guns either as it is dangerous to them as well. The liberal courts have tied the hands of police officers since the early to mid 1960′s. I was in law enforcement myself for nearly thirty years. I really got disqusted with the liberal courts. Even though you knew that the person was guilty of a crime, the court would either let them off on some stupid technicality, or even if they were found guilty, they would get off with a very light sentence. We had a very liberal US Supreme Court back in the sixties with Earl Warren being the Chief Justice. This as you know, filters all the way down to the lower courts. I am glad I am out of that rat race. Of course to go on a more broader base here, we can blame our society we live in for producing this type of people, the liberal courts and the Lawmakers.

      • Robert Smith

        Shucks wayne, what a concept…

        The people get the lawmakers and courts that they want.

        What part of “We the PEOPLE” don’t you get?


        • wayne

          Robert. good golly, it must be nice to know everything there is to know. I’ll bet you so smart you work on your televisions, do you own mechanic work. and program you own computer. How many years did it take for you to get all this knowledge?

          • libertytrain

            Wayne, you may be onto something. It is a very strong possibility da Vinci has been booted off the list of number one genius of all time. Oh lamentable day.

          • Robert Smith

            You would win that bet wayne.


        • wayne

          Bingo, Bob.

          • Robert Smith

            Wayn appears to be appears to be resentful of those of us who can be self sustaining and have the knowledge to get things done.

            In the last year I’ve replaced some of the power supply caps (because of the capicitor plague) on a Samsung big screen and the CFLs on a Sony screen. Although it takes a steady hand to do the soldering it isn’t particularly complicated. BTW, I’m also a Ham.

            Car stuff… My my. I spent my youth part time at a local Sunoco station where I learned a bunch of stuff. I helped with a Corvair into a VW engine swap, helped on a Jag into an Austin Healy engine swap. I bought my own AH BN-6 and converted it to 12 v. myself. When I graduated from High School I went to work for a Mercades dealership. I did that for part of a summer not getting much farther than “hold this” for the real mechanics, and changing oil once in awhile. I went to Nationals (drag racing)at Indianapolis with a friend of mine as part of his pit crew. We ran H-Automatic in a Comet. We were beat by a girl in a Chevy Nomad. With my newer cars I’ve let the dealer do most stuff but I still dabble most recently changing the clutch (not much in the way of propriatary electronics there) in my ’86 4-Runner several years ago. I just wanted to see if I could still do it.

            I have to admit that I’m not much on programing. I took a year of Pascal in college. The professor told me I was brilliant at the top-down concepts but with dyslexia I would never make it as a programmer. Too bad, it was really fun figuring out just what the problem was.


    • Robert Smith

      Brent says: “The police didn’t do their job, or he already would have been in jail.”

      What would the charge have been?

      Nutty thoughts?

      Being a skin-head?

      Oh! Maybe he yelled at someone?

      Just what do you want to send someone to jail for if a crime hasn’t been committed?

      Are you into Orwellian thought crimes?


      • wayne

        Robert, this is one where I am actually going to agree with you. You know, this does not happen very often. You cannot arrest a person until they commit a crime. Being nuts is not a crime. A lot of these insane people never commit crimes.

        • Robert Smith

          wayne says: “A lot of these insane people never commit crimes.”

          MOF these kinds of extreme crimes are very rare.

          What about getting them into treatment BEFORE they go off the deep end? We have the knowledge that if it is concluded that they are a danger to themselves or others. And we know how to put them away for treatment if due process determins that they are a danger.

          The problem with that is that Reagan emptied the places where folks were and it is almost impossible to find a “bed” (place) for treatment these days. Now they are in jail.

          We need to spend money on these people BEFORE they go off. Unfortunately that immediately gets labled “social work” and gets deep sixed by the right long before anyone can get any treatment.

          I suspect it would be way less expensive in the long run to get folks productive rather than the horror we saw Saturday.

          Rather than putting ALL our chickens (actually cash) into law enforcement that has failed in the war on drugs, why not go to really end the violence by putting the dealers out of business. Let people grow pot in the back yard rather than dealers bringing it in from Mexico.

          Then we can begin treatment.

          BTW, the bogus claim is often made that pot is a “gateway drug.” It is, but it isn’t a gateway to higher drugs. I know folks who grow their own (medical in Calif.) and they aren’t seeking anything more than what they have. When pot is illegal it is a gateway to the PUSHER who has a vested interest in getting the kid hooked on something much worse. In countries where there are no pushers (where pot is mostly legal) the use of the harder drugs is much less than in America.

          BTW, are you aware of LEAP? Go to:

          I’m sure you will find active and retired law enforcement officers with as much credibility, experience, and passion for the law as you have there. They want to get rid of the prohibitions. Check it out.


    • http://roadrunner jim

      they will never take our guns peacfully..they continue to widdle away at our rights such as smoking bans and seat belt laws now texting, nest eating while driving cameras in every car standard to keep an EYE on you evertime you get in a car…before we know it the big bad govt will tell us what when and how much you can eat or consume..People will become so dependant on the govt hand outs that it wont matter to them except when they say sorry you abuse that we no longer allow you to eat thi9s food or drive this car or buy this insurance which when the govt takes it over it will be the only game in town and very costly…jd

    • Dogma-Free

      But he didn’t use a rock, or even several rocks…now did he?

      No, of course not.

      Because carrying *that many* rocks would be cumbersome, and he would have been stopped by several women before he could have done any real damage.

      What an idiotic argument you just made…or rather, tried to make. Honestly.

      No, he used a GUN…because guns make it easy to kill other people.

      That was, and is, the very purpose of their design.

      Eliminate the guns, and you eliminate the shooting of innocent people. End of story.
      It’s just that simple.

      • independant thinker

        “Eliminate the guns, and you eliminate the shooting of innocent people. End of story.”

        If you have even one functioning brain cell you know that will not happen. If you could somehow remove every privately owned gun from America tomorrow the day after tomorrow the black market would be flooded by guns from outside the US plus guns being sold by or stolen from police and the military. 99% or more of these guns would end up in criminal’s hands while the rest of the population would be helpless to defend themselves.

        • http://?? Joe H.

          This is proven by the fact that in all big cities you can go to town, buy an illegal gun, almost any time!

      • Robert Smith

        Dogma says: “But he didn’t use a rock, or even several rocks…now did he?”

        But look at what David did with a single rock if you believe the story.

        How’s that for butting their “but” (as in “however”) in a sling?


  • Patticake

    More gun control legislation will only cause crime rates to increase. Criminals are not going to abide by new laws and restrictions – only law abiding citizens will, and those citizens will be led like sheep to the slaughter. If we don’t learn from history, it will repeat itself. Are people so blind and ignorant as to believe we have no right or need to defend and protect our families, our property, and ourselves? If not we, then who? The police cannot be everywhere all the time, and the government only wants to disarm the public so they can have more control over us.
    Give me a break – does anyone really think the law makers in DC care about us? The same law makers that did the dirty deals behind closed doors in order to cram obamacare down our throats? I’m sure congress will exempt themselves from gun control laws, just as they’ve exempted themselves from Social Security and Medicare – they’ll continue to allow themselves rights and priveledges not afforded to the general public. Trust them with our security? Not on your life!

    • Terry

      You are so Right!!!

      • Dogma-Free

        Yes, she’s FAR-right…

        • http://?? Joe H.

          In the twenties the gangs killed hundreds of people without firing a shot! know how they did it? with an ice pick!!! This mindless jerk could have killed several the same way by walking up, shaking hands and stabbing! he could have killed two or three before anybody would have reacted! I suggest you get a clue!!!

          • Robert Smith

            That pick idea has a point…


    • ValDM

      Congress has been exempting themselves from the laws that govern you and me for the last 40+ years. Do they have to participate in SS? Obamacare? IRS invasion? Just to name a few.

  • eddie47d

    Hooray for Second Amendment rights but I think it’s more about that shiny new toy. Guns are in the news and everyone wants one. If your neighbor comes home with a spiffy new car you think you have to find a way to get one. We are a consumer nation and will consume whatever the in thing is for the moment. I-Phones anyone or how about a Kindle? At this moment it is guns and we see this happening every time there is a shooting.

    • ValDM

      You couldn’t be more wrong. I’ve owned guns for almost 40 years; it’s not a “new” thing. BTW, I dpn’t need any of those fancy new gadgets, so I dpn’t buy them . I’m certainly not into “faddism”. But you sound like you know a lot about it.

    • independant thinker

      Speak for yourself eddie. I have no need for the latest gadgets. My cell phone is used for guess what……….phone calls nothing else. My computer is my original one that was purchased 6 or 7 years ago. I have no plans to up-grade unless I decide to run some design programs that need more memory space or this one gives up. I have not run out and purchased a new firearm because of this if I do purchase a new one it will be one I have had my eye on for some time and have not decided I wanted to spend money on yet. As for vehicles, I do have a fairly new pickup (3 years old) that was purchased when it became more cost effective to purchase a new one than continue to repair my old one.

      • http://?? Joe H.

        Amen! I bought my 9MM last year after about 4or 5 years of thought. I don’t have an I-phone and I don’t have a kindle, I (gasp) read books! I happen to like the feel of the paper between my fingers as I read! I just bought this lap top after my other went too far bad to be worth fixing!

        • Dan az

          Joe whats a kindle?

          • http://?? Joe H.

            Dan az,
            i only know because I seen them advertised on TV as my kids watch!

          • wayne

            It is for reading booksg. You download them, I believe from Amazon, and store them on the kindle to read them at your leisure. My daughters have them.

  • Bitter Libertarian

    Natural Reaction to the events IMHO. The difference is that now more people are fearful of their rights being restricted/removed.

    If there was a way the “bean counters” could evaluate this against past incidents/sales events, you could use this as a sort of “fear meter.” I’ll bet its at least 15 to 20% higher these days.

  • Teresa

    Barack Obama gave the authority for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) to register guns—if you buy too many in too short a period of time. If you buy two guns in a five-day period, you must register them. Here is the real deal: the ATF does NOT have the Constitutional or Congressional power to register guns. A Secretarial Order gave them the right to do so… even though Congress never gave the ATF the right to make, or enforce, such a regulation.

    Obama recently gave the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the “power” to REGULATE carbon dioxide emissions. Let’s be perfectly clear: The United States Constitution and the United States Congress does NOT give the EPA the authority to regulate anything!

    YOU, as an American citizen, must realize that Mr. Obama has decided to extend the tentacles of federal government over ALL of US. His plan is to rule the United States of America through regulations, and not by law.

    • James

      Teresa, the President didn’t ‘give’ the BATF authority to have guns registered, he asked them to try it. I’ve asked this question before, to avail, so I’ll ask it again: Does anyone here believe the Second Amendment’s “shall not be infringed” applies to the federal government?

      • Teresa
        • Dan az

          Can you say unconstitutional?That will not fly in this state as long as Jan Brewer is guv.We voted on this very issue and its not gunna happen period.

      • Teresa

        But James I will respond to you…NO I absolutely do NOT believe my rights should be infringed upon, but I will also call out Obama’s dismantel of OUR RIGHTS!

        • Robert Smith

          From Teresa: ” I absolutely do NOT believe my rights should be infringed upon,”

          But you sure are willing to sentence a woman to 9 months of YOUR will if she has sex you don’t approve of.

          You sure are willing to deny the persuit of happiness through pot.

          You sure willing to deny Rostifarians THEIR religious chemical (THC) while approve of the christian drug, alcohol.

          You sure are willing to deny American Indians their drug of choice payote.

          Don’t demand “your” special rights until you are willing to give ALL Americans their freedom.

          BTW, that “right to life” is a lie everytine you deny health care to another American.

          BTW, I don’t think you are christian. I think you are abusing a perfectly good religion to your own selfish ends.


          • Teresa

            Robert, sometimes your childishness even amazes me. I DO NOT DENY ANYONE the right to do anything. People CHOOSE to do what they want and will be accountable for THEIR OWN actions! What I do wish is that people would follow the Constitution, something in which you obviously care nothing for. As far as my religion, like I said I am accountable to OUR God for MY actions and YES Robert I am a Christian and proud of it. What you fail to realize is that OUR God is stronger than Your Chosen and our government and this NWO you obviously push for.

          • Robert Smith


            So you will allow abortion to remain safe and legal?

            What about pot for the Rosterfarians?

            What about pot for health users?


          • Teresa

            Robert….is there something in my response to you that you did Not understand??? Do I need to repeat myself??? The Constitution you care nothing for is being broken by your chosen and congress….I want that to change, (wishful thinking but it IS THE LAW remember). As far as what you or others CHOOSE to do….WE WILL ALL be accountable by law and GOD. That is the problem I fear, those whom feel superior and Above mans laws feel they will never be held accountable. Do you feel that way Robert? The day of reckoning is coming Robert, for all of us and yes we WILL stand judgement for our actions.

          • Robert Smith

            taresa says: “The day of reckoning is coming Robert, for all of us and yes we WILL stand judgement for our actions.”

            I don’t believe your god is real so I don’t worry about it. I need more than your word as evidence. Since I can’t see him, I can’t hear him, and I don’t like some of the things christians claim he has done (raping a virgin, killing first sons) I just can’t get into it.


          • Average Joe

            Yes to all of your questions….so long as all are paid for by the person using the services…Pay for your own abortion, your own weed, your own medication….As long as you do those things….. I have no problem with it.
            Just don’t expect me to subsidize it or approve of it in any way…..

            I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.
            Robert A. Heinlein

          • Teresa

            robert says: I don’t believe your god is real so I don’t worry about it. I need more than your word as evidence. Since I can’t see him, I can’t hear him, and I don’t like some of the things christians claim he has done (raping a virgin, killing first sons) I just can’t get into it.
            Tell me Robert, can you see the air? You do know it’s there though right? First of all Robert I feel sorry for you if this is what you think of God. NO MAN, Christian or not can give you peace w/God. That is for YOU to find. You expect everyone to research the facts of man but you are so ignorant to Gods will and word, you blame everyone around you for your ignorance of God. You purposely try to discourage people of faith yet when someone mentions God you act as if they are shoving it down your throat. If you choose to be atheist, that’s your choice…but I would encourage you to at least put blame where it belongs Robert, on yourself, not others.

          • Robert Smith

            Taresa asks: “Tell me Robert, can you see the air?”

            (Puff) There it is. You can see it anytime you see someone smoking, etc. I could feel it under myself as I plumited to Earth during free fall. Air is real.

            I know it’s there. I’ve seen it, I’ve felt it, I’ve even measured the weight of it as I go up and down in an airplane. I also hear sounds because it is there. From the sweetest guitar to the harshest shrill of an abortion protester.

            T says: “First of all Robert I feel sorry for you if this is what you think of God.”

            Just that nasty version of the christian god that rapes vergins, blows up cities, and inspires his followers to shoot doctors.

            “NO MAN, Christian or not can give you peace w/God.”

            So? I don’t need or want such a god around me, just as I don’t want any other rapist around me. And for his followers, because of that transsubstantion thing I don’t want his canabals around me either.

            “That is for YOU to find.”

            Don’t care. Ain’t looking. And please don’t include me in your religion in any way. I consider that to be spiritual rape. If your religion isn’t strong enough to get along without me tough cookies. I’m not available.

            “You expect everyone to research the facts of man but you are so ignorant to Gods will and word, you blame everyone around you for your ignorance of God.”

            Would someone let me know when she is making some kind of sense? You have absolutely NO idea what I expect. Quit trying to speak for me. As for the above you are lying.

            “You purposely try to discourage people of faith yet when someone mentions God you act as if they are shoving it down your throat.”

            Let’s see…

            You prey for my soul.

            You want me to “learn”.

            You want me to accept that your god is more powerful than anything when in fact I can move my keyboard to anywhere I want it to be, yet your god can’t even push one key.

            You claim that America is your personal god’s place. It ain’t. It was born of the blood of those who had a vision. Where was your god? Oh, that’s right the Brits had him on their side too.

            “If you choose to be atheist,”

            I don’t. Why are you projecting what you believe about me? Let’s see, you believe in god, and you believe I’m an atheist. Bzzzz, at least one wrong for sure. Maybe the other one too?

            I blame you for hijacking America for you and your christian cronies who want take freedoms away from the rest of us. That’s un-American. Go off and believe what you want, leave the rest of us alone.


          • http://?? Joe H.

            first of all, you have to penetrate to rape! What don’t you understand about immaculate conception? God never touched the Virgin Mary! don’t believe it’s possible? Try not putting human limitations on a being that created this world!! Were you there when America planted the American flag on the moon? Why do you believe that? you saw pictures? I can show you pictures of a half man half goat, but that doesn’t mean it exhists! you can’t see love or pain, but believe me, I know they exhist! I feel sorry for you when the judgement day DOES come as you are going to have to attone for your denial of God!

          • Robert Smith

            Joe says: “God never touched the Virgin Mary! don’t believe it’s possible?”

            She got pregnant by him. Using her reproductinve organs withut her permission is rape.

            “Were you there when America planted the American flag on the moon?”

            Naval Photographic Center. When the film arrived it was my job to make the internegatives and get prints out fast.

            “Why do you believe that? you saw pictures?”

            I PRINTED the pictures.

            “I can show you pictures of a half man half goat, but that doesn’t mean it exhists!”

            Don’t know about that but if you google “Oberon Zell & Ringling & Unicorns” you can see pictures of them. You can also visit them at the circus.

            Posted: “you can’t see love or pain, but believe me, I know they exhist!”

            Actually they are finding amazing things on MRIs these days. In a few more years I suspect they will have hard evidence.

            “I feel sorry for you when the judgement day DOES come as you are going to have to attone for your denial of God!”

            Don’t worry about me. Worry about yourself. All that hate and oppression. ROFL, what if your god is really about love and caring and those who hate gays, etc. just got it wrong. ROFL, that’s going to be a fun one to watch.


          • Robert Smith

            Thought I remembered that one and I looked it up to confirm it. Found it!

            “I am free…”

            The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. The context is Prof. Bernardo de la Paz speaking to Wyoming Knott.


          • independant thinker

            “She got pregnant by him. Using her reproductinve organs withut her permission is rape.”

            But Mary gave her permission. “And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the lord; be it unto me according to thy word.” Luke 1:38

        • James

          Teresa, that wasn’t what I asked. I asked if you believe the Second Amendment’s restriction “shall not be infringed” applies to the federal government?

          • Teresa

            James, No…the Federal gov. “should not infringe” restriction upon our 2nd Amendment

          • James

            Teresa, You’re missing the point. The Second Amendment isn’t the source of our right, the right to bear arms in unlienable, it isn’t dependent on any document for its existence. The amendment simply says “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Do you believe that restriction, against infringing on the right, applies to the federal government?

    • wayne

      Teresa, bingo, you are absolutely right on.

      • Robert Smith

        Really wayne?

        Will you stop the assault to keep women pregnant when they don’t want to be?


        • wayne

          Robert, since your the expert in everything under the sun, I guess there is not any use in anyone else expessing their opinion, or expertise with you. Regardless of what it is, you are going to have you own belief, and I have mine.

          • Robert Smith


            And in America land of the free we shouldn’t be imposing those beliefs upon another.


          • http://?? Joe H.

            Then, robert, why are you trying to instill your belief in abortion on me? Even to the point of wanting my tax money to fund them? go write another check dude!!

          • Dan az

            So Robert abortion again? Why dont you get it off your chest man? Come on you know it and we know it there is an issue there so spill it!

          • Robert Smith

            Joe asks: “robert, why are you trying to instill your belief in abortion on me…”

            I’m not. I’m trying to point out that there are different points of view that other Americans have.

            Others think that it is a 9 month assault to keep a woman pregnant against her will.

            Others think that there are many valid medical reasons to abort early and that such a decision should be made by the woman and her doctor, NOT the guy at the gas staion because he “believes,” not a priest, not a cop, and not someone from the government.

            Others think that it ain’t a baaaaaaaabbbbbbeeeeee and it doesn’t matter what she does with it until it is born and others can take care of it.

            Others have their own personal beliefs like Catholics for a Free choice, but understand that others believe differently outside their faith.


          • http://?? Joe H.

            And there are still others, some in government that believe a woman should be able to kill their kid up to age 3, but that doesn’t make it right!!

          • Robert Smith

            From JoeH.: “And there are still others, some in government that believe a woman should be able to kill their kid up to age 3, but that doesn’t make it right!!”


            If she is carring it, particularly during the first trimester when most abortions occur, she is the ONLY person who can carry it if she chooses.

            Later in the pregnancy it becoms more debatable but the later the abortion usually the more the medical reason becomes valid. Almost 100% of later term abortions are of a WANTED pregnancy where something has gone wrong. Certainly the anti-abortion mongers want to cite the few horror stories, but thousands of women have had their very lives saved by a later term abortion.

            Anyhow, AFTER it is born THEN someone else from society can take care of it. That is YOUR choice. She doesn’t have to do anything.

            Then society’s rules kick in.

            It’s as simple as that.


        • ValDM

          Your rationalizations are just that: rationalizations. If a woman wants to have sex, far be it from me to say anything about that. BUT, if she has UNprotected sex and there are results, such as pregnancy, then my voice will be heard. Everyone pays a price for the things they do in this life. It’s not my problem, financial or otherwise to pay for someone else’s “mistakes”. With sex education as it is, in schools, I find it difficult to beleive that anyone would have UNprotected sex, and then say “I didn’t know I could get pregnant.” Additionally, I see you don’t say anything about the young men who contribute to this predicament. Abortion is WRONG. Abortion as a means of birth control is even MORE WRONG.

          • Robert Smith

            YOU think it is wrong ValDM. I don’t. It’s a simple medical procedure that fixes an accident.

            In America anyone is entitled to fix a mistake or accident. To not allow that is un-American.

            BTW, why are you advocating allowing another (your argument) “person” to take all they need from a woman?

            If someone comes to a party at my house and decide to stay for nine months and take all they need from me I’m going to seek the aid of the local constible to remove them from my home.

            Why would a woman’s body be any different? Can’t she decide who gets to be inside her and who doesn’t?


          • Dogma-Free

            And now you ASSume that only women having *UNprotected* sex are getting pregnant.

            So…condoms never break?

            All forms of birth control are infallible?

            If a woman…or even a young girl…gets raped, is it HER OWN FAULT for not asking the rapist to put on a condom first, before he penetrates her?

          • Dogma-Free

            And while we’re throwing around the whole ‘god’ thing…how did we ever come to the ASSumption that there is only ONE god?

            Because a book written by men WHO COLLECT MONEY FROM YOU IN *HIS* NAME, decided to tell you all that…??

            Didn’t the Indians have many gods? You know, for the stuff they didn’t really understand too…like lightening, and/or rain…

            Didn’t the Greeks have many gods?

            Didn’t the Pagans?

            And in fact, weren’t many of the tales/fabrications of the bible, borrowed from other religions?

            But yours is the *one true god*, and all the others are just make-believe…??


          • Robert Smith

            “Didn’t the Pagans?”

            Don’t the Pagans. They are still around and healthy.

            MOF it is a growing religion.

            Arlington Cemetary just accepted the Wiccan Pentical as acceptable for stones.


        • libertytrain

          I guess one can wonder how they got pregnant in the first place in this day and age if they didn’t want to be pregnant – And I’m not talking about rape victims they didn’t have a choice in the matter.

          • Robert Smith

            Fortunately women in America do have a CHOICE in the fatter to fix a mistake or accident.

            After all, won’t your god judge anyhow? Why should YOU mess with her free choice? She may not worship your god.


          • libertytrain

            I don’t recall bringing God into this discussion. I do think that with there being so many of these “mistakes” folks ought to have figured it out in the last 30 plus years that abortion is not another word for birth control which it has sadly become. Perhaps the ease of obtaining an abortion has lessened personal responsibility.

          • Robert Smith

            libertytrain says: “Perhaps the ease of obtaining an abortion has lessened personal responsibility.”

            Actually it is Planned Parenthood that has prevented more abortions than any other organization. They talk about birth control way more than some crazy schools and religious organizations and their abstinance. We all know how that worked out for Sara’s kid, don’t we.


          • libertytrain

            What’s wrong with her child. That she gave birth instead of opting for an abortion? Sorry don’t follow your logic and fortunately I don’t need to.

          • Robert Smith

            Sex rather than abstinance. Follow along, you will catch on eventually, maybe.


          • libertytrain

            So far the left went in pointing fingers at her dastardly deed that I believe if Hawthorne were writing today, he would have used the name Bristol Palin instead of Hester Prynne to symbolize his heroine.
            “It may serve, let us hope, to symbolize some sweet moral blossom that may be found along the track, or relieve the darkening close of a tale of human frailty and sorrow.”

        • http://roadrunner jim

          you talk as though these woman didnt know what they were getting into…robert it is high time every individual in this country to be accountable for thier on actions and deal with the choices they take..i dont need govt telling me how to solve my own problems..or to make choices for me..i do it myself and take full responsibilty..jd

          • Robert Smith

            Jim says: “i dont need govt telling me how to solve my own problems”

            And in America we don’t need our government forcing women to remain pregnant against their wishes.

            We DO have an example of when government gets involved in pregnancies. It’s called China where abortion is heavily encouraged.

            What if someone in America after you got the govenment invovled in keeping women pregnant decided that the shouldn’t be pregnant.

            The best solution is to keep government out of abortion, except to assure that it is safe just like any other medical procedure.


          • wayne

            Jim, save your breath in trying to talk to Robert. He isn’t thinking too clearly. He has apparently had to much wacky weed. You might as well go some where and find yourself a mighty oak tree and talk to its nuts hanging on the tree. You will learn just as much.

          • Robert Smith

            Hi wayne!

            I see you’ve gotten puffing your “experience” off your chest and now you are offering personal attacks.

            Kinda demonstrates how bankrupt your “arguments” about drugs are.

            Been to the LEAP sight yet? They are at:
            Here is one of their articles: “NEW FBI NUMBERS SHOW FAILURE OF “WAR ON DRUGS”
            WASHINGTON, D.C. — A group of police and judges who want to legalize drugs pointed to new FBI numbers released today as evidence that the “war on drugs” is a failure that can never be won. The data, from the FBI’s “Crime in the United States” report, shows that in 2008 there were 1,702,537 arrests for drug law violations, or one drug arrest every 18 seconds.

            “In our current economic climate, we simply cannot afford to keep arresting more than three people every minute in the failed ‘war on drugs,’” said Jack Cole, a retired undercover narcotics detective who now heads the group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP). “Plus, if we legalized and taxed drug sales, we could actually create new revenue in addition to the money we’d save from ending the cruel policy of arresting users.”


    • wayne

      This is why we must get rid of Dictator Obama in 2012. If not, he will most likely get rid of Congress completely, and set himself up to be the King. Remember, when ever he hires his Czars he circumvents Congress as if they are not even there. I think he is up around 35 Czars now. Maybe the Czars will take the place of Congress, who know what this free thinking dictator is thinking. What ever it is, I certainly do not like it.

      • Robert Smith

        Hey wayne, I see you are trying to offer a fact.

        Check this out: “Bush had a total of 36 positions (many temporary) filled by a total of 46 different individuals over the years, of which 21 were confirmed by the U.S. Senate.”

        That’s from:

        Did you know that some of Obama’s “Czars” have been mandated by Congress too?

        BTW, why were less than half of Bush’s appointments for Czars confirmed by the Senate?


  • Smitch

    I live in Arizona and have many guns in my gun safe and yes I do carry a firearm on me at all times with in my rights. The lawmakers in DC should really concern themselves with the issues in DC and thier own States. Also they need to remember this past Novemember and Americans that elected them to office.

    Arizona Law Makers speak for the majority in Arizona…so Bloomberg, McCarthy, King, and Mr. Helmke don’t tread on my God Given Rights of the the US Constitution

    • James

      Smitch, Well said, but our rights don’t come from the U.S. Constitution or any state constitution, they’re inherent inalienable rights we are born with, they are not dependent on any document for their existence. The Bill of Rights is restrictions the states and people placed upon the just-created national government. Just as the First Amendment’s “Congress shall make no law” applies to the U.S. Congress so does the Second Amendment’s “shall not be infringed.” Asking Congress to defend our rights invites them to regulate them, the very reason for the Bill of Rights restrictions.

    • bob wire

      Exactly, each state has different needs.

      It’s no different with the cars and cloths each state prefers, the demand vary per state.

      As for this increase in gun sales and what it means, demographic results would best answer the question as to why and I would think it unwise to speculate much without them.

      Arizona is a unique state, a frontier state, while Tucson might wish to represent the flavor of Arizona, I fail to see how it could in any real way other then it’s flat and very spread out. But Arizona has mountain communities as well.

      I would want to think a nice long barreled S&W wheel gun more suited for the area. But what do I know whats in these buyers minds.

      FEAR ~ would be my guess, ~ with all the crazy talk about government take overs, internment camps, attacks by NATO forces coming from the radical right and how this death event in their town, it comes as no surprise.

      • wayne

        Bob, I don’t agree with you. Everyone, regardless of where they live have basically the same needs. Living in different states dos not even enter into the picture.

        • Robert Smith

          A carry permit should be exactly like it is for driving.

          If you can drive at home you can drive anywhere in America.

          Af you get a permit at home you should be able to carry anywhere.


    • Robert Smith

      Awww Smitch, you are so wrong: “God Given Rights of the the US Constitution”

      Ain’t some god made America. It’s “We the PEOPLE…”

      BTW, it is alleged that the christian god gave folks free will. Who is anyone on Earth to take that away? I want to be free to carry a gun. I want to be free to smoke pot. I want to be free (if I were female) to have an abortion. How do any of these things impact YOU, and why do you claim the right to stop any of them? After all, isn’t your god going to judge?


      • wayne

        Yep! you are one of the liberals that most of us are talking about. At least you admit it. A lot of the people who are now in government are the flower children from the sixties. Is it any wonder the country is all screwed up? It hasn’t always been this way Robert. It all started sometime after the sixties.

        • Robert Smith

          Hi wayne… Here you go again: “It hasn’t always been this way Robert.”

          Correct. Pot was mostly legal in America before the 30′s and “Reefer Madness” that was primarily a law against Mexicans and the Bebop scene.

          MOF, most drugs were completely legal most places before the 1900′s. Throughout most of history drugs were mostly legal in most places. There was some resistance from clergy who saw patients getting relief from herbal remadies whe prayer didn’t work but that was completely religious based as a control device, not what was best for the patient.

          We didn’t have drug wars (with the exception of the Opium Wars that wasn’t about violence in the streets but a British effort to control another nation).

          Druggies and drunks were usually allowed to “sleep it off”. They were shamed enough to do enough to subsist. The sharrif would put them in a cell so thy wouldn’t hurt themselves or others. The cop was a good guy then, not someone coming to take years away from their lives if they had a few grams in their pocket.

          BTW, which would you really rather be? A cop that would toss someone in a cell to keep from from hurting anyone that night and give ‘em a cup of coffee on the way out OR a jack booted thug who rounds ‘em up, gets ‘em to court, and puts them away (at taxpayer expense) and ruins their lives with a felony wrap sheet?

          What do you really think would be the christian way?


          • http://?? Joe H.

            your freedom of choice thing is a little one sided. If a woman gets pregnant and decides to have the baby, the guy pays for 18 to 21 years. If she gets pregnant and decides not to have the kid, the father has no say there as well. Talk about taking what you want. My best friends ex wife has three children by three different men and collects over 500 a month from each! she is also a manager and makes more than two of the men!

          • Robert Smith

            Joe is upset about support issues: “If a woman gets pregnant and decides to have the baby, the guy pays for 18 to 21 years.”

            I think that is a very bad thing. It is HER decision to remain pregnant or not. If they are not partners in the ongoing effort to bring the kid up he shouldn’t be held to pay. If she decides to bring a baby into the world and not take care of it the father should able to.

            It would be even worse if society forced her to keep it and then told the guy he had to support it. If society keeps a woman pregnant against her will it is the responsibility of SOCIETY to pay for it.

            Watching individuals I’ve always been amazed that some seem to get so upset about their sacred sperm. If one gets into an egg then the declair that egg to be half theirs. OK, let THEM gestate it if the girl doesn’t want to. Let them support their belief with action. After all if Arnold and Danny can have a baby those who “believe” so strongly should be able to also.

            If a couple divorces and he wants to come back for a quickie without her permission that is called rape and he should go to jail. Permission is a real time thing, not forever. So, if he wants to contiune using her reproductive organs on behalf of his sacred sperm without her permission it is still rape.

            “Support” is one thing that certainly needs an overhaul in our court system.

            BTW, I am aware of one case where the father has the kid and the mother pays support. She volunteered to help out so the kid could have things a little better. The courts had absolutely nothing to do with the way things are set up. They are actually quite friendly. They just shouldn’t be married and they realize that.


        • Dogma-Free

          Actually, Wayne…it’s started in the 50′s…or maybe even right after WWII.

          It was Conservative FEAR that led to the American government trying to stay ahead of the Soviets, through power and control.

          Thus began the arms race, but also, the birth of the CIA, who was so busy trying to control every other friggin’ country on earth, that they let their own country go steadily down the crapper, and caused further problems as well.

          That is why we now have so-called “terrorism”.

          The far-right neo-con ‘hawks’ have done such a great job of pissing just about everybody else off, that now the militant people of those other countries are trying to send a message to the American government.

          It’s a rather simple, two-word message…and the second word of it is ‘OFF’.

          I’ll let you guess the first word.

          • Robert Smith

            I’ll bet you thought about Fire trUCKS when you a kid and maybe even thought it was funny.

            I can see some of your ideas might (they really aren’t clear so I’m not sure) have a shred of validity but you need some facts and less random noise.


          • wayne

            Dogma-Free, I am just telling you whe it started in our area. It may have started in some areas of the country before the 60′s, I was in school in the 50′s and we did not have any illegal drugs in our area. Zilch, not any, period. It started in our area some time doing the Vietnam War. The claim, which I cannot substantiate, was that the GI’s were binging it back fom Vietnam.

          • Robert Smith

            Wayne says: “The claim, which I cannot substantiate, was that the GI’s were binging it back fom Vietnam.”

            Some did come home addicts. They might bring a supply for a week or two, but eventually that would run out and they would want more.

            Wayne, the support structure was there for addicts. You just weren’t aware of it.

            They either found that supply or cleaned up their act.


      • ValDM

        You couldn’t be more wrong. God DID create EVERYTHING, including you. Because YOU have removed God from your life, doesn’t mean everyone else has. BTW, you’ll soon learn how WRONG you’ve been.

        • Robert Smith

          If you say so, for you.

          For me… Just leave me alone. If there is a god you believe in I’ll discuss issues with him directly. If there isn’t you were wrong and are completely lost.


          • ValDM

            God won’t be “discussing” anything with you. Nor will He hear your argumnents or justifications. Too bad you think so highly of yourself. From what info I can gather from most atheists, they don’t have a god. But, that’s just delusion and denial they use on themselves: THEY ARE THEIR OWN GODS.

          • Robert Smith

            “From what info I can gather from most atheists, they don’t have a god.”

            Well, something we agree on. That is my understanding of atheists also.

            “But, that’s just delusion and denial they use on themselves: THEY ARE THEIR OWN GODS.”

            I doubt that your assessment of them is worth much. BTW, with you telling us all about what YOUR god wants did he ever really say to someone that abortion is wrong or are you trying to substitute yourself for that christian god? I haven’t heard himm say such a thing.

            After all, when it is all said and done with that transmogrification thing christians ain’t nothing but a bunch of ritualistic cannibals. Oops, let me correct myself, the bread and wine actually TURN INTO the body and blood… That makes it real.


          • Dogma-Free

            Actually, Robert Smith…I was fortunate enough to meet God.

            He lives in Cleveland, and he’s a petty, mean, old man, who shouts at stop signs and telephone poles.

            Plus, he dresses funny, reeks of urine, and wears a tin foil hat.


          • Robert Smith

            Dogma, I’ve actually met someone in a tin foil hat too. Her martian boy friend, althoug none of us could see him except her, was glad to meet us.


  • LiarsMustBeDefeated

    Interesting which states were mentioned as having increased sales. Does that suggest anything to you? At least a few people are putting their actions behind their words. Please keep up the good work.

    • Dan az

      I feel that everyone that was there that did not have a gun probably thought they didnt need one until then!

  • SteveB

    Let’s face it folks….if there is a violent outburst in your neighborhood or an invasion of your home, Batt Masterson won’t be there with his deputies in a matter of minutes to rescue you. The police department isn’t right down the street….and even if it is….what are the chances there’s an officer available to respond immediatly.Take a good long look at your family, property and the things you love. Who’s going to save their lives. If they’re shot and killed by some wacko. Can the gun control politicians legislate them back to life. If they show up sympathetically at your door to offer their condolences, will that make you feel better. As bad as it may sound, I’d rather see the ambulance in my driveway carrying the attacker out on a stretcher.
    So I’ll take my legally bought handgun, and drive to the range, honing my accuracy skills….so that, if my home should come under attack my aim won’t miss. And when I wake up tomorrow morning, the ones I love will wake up too….instead of me going to the graveyard with a handful of flowers and prayer to visit them. Those are the same thoughts and feelings of the men who wrote our constitution so many years ago….to guarentee our right to bear arms and defend ourselves….against any and all aggressors. Let’s keep standing up for those rights and not allow these liberals to take them away.

    • Terry

      I believe you are Right , Its better to be Judged by 12, than carried by 6

      • Dogma-Free

        Terry, the current deranged shooter from Tucson (the one that did the most recent gun-driven slayings) totally agrees with you.

        • Robert Smith

          Tell us Dogma…

          You seem to be excited by this shooting and want to weight the laws of America based upon that impact.

          How many shootings where there are more than five people killed at a time have there been? What is their frequency?

          Please do just a little more research.

          How many incidents are there on our roads where more than 5 people killed? Is it daily, weekly…? How does that compare to guns?

          The hysteria against guns is just that, hysteria. It’s generatd by loosers like Sarah Brady who have some mental condition that compels them to mess in the lives of others. I put them in the same extremest league as anti-abortionists.


    • castaway

      Make sure you shoot the attacker dead, and in your house. Even then you can be sued,and or put in the slammer. If you kill him outside, drag him inside and run out and clean up the mess outside.

      • Dogma-Free

        Everyone! Let’s all sing together now…

        “Let the bodies hit the floor…let the bodies hit the floor…” etc.

        Hooray for gun violence!!

        • http://?? Joe H.

          if they invade my home and threaten me or my family, then YES! hooray for gun violence!! you cower in fear as they rape your wife and murder your kids, I prefere to go down fighting IF I go down!

          • Robert Smith

            (offensive comment removed)


          • http://?? Joe H.

            go write another support check!!!

    • Bob37

      You’re right on. People have been lulled over the years into complacency regarding crime. They have been mistakenly led to believe that the police exist to protect them. That idea is enforced by the fact that most people never have need for the police so they are inclined to believe that if they ever need one he will be there. Big mistake. Take the time right now to read an eye opening article about police protection. Thank God we have them but they can’t be everywhere as you will see when you click on the article below.

      • Robert Smith

        When seconds count the best the police can do is minutes.

        It ain’t no more complicated than that.


  • Beardone

    How many of our founding fathers carried firearms on their person in their daily activities in Philadelphia? Should Americans today have the right to carry RPGs?

    • Bitter Libertarian

      They were the Founders…who exactly was going to try to take their guns away?

      Thats right..ENGLAND and when that THREAT was ACTIVE and PRESENT they DID CARRY!

      • Robert Smith

        BTW, wasn’t England some sort of christian nation too? Why did their version lose to America’s?


    • Robert Smith

      Hey Beardone, interesting to see you…

      RPGs and stuff. Interesting idea except that it makes about as much sense as an anti-abortion wing nut saying that if you allow abortions you can knock off grandma anytime you want. It’s just crazy.

      Slippery slope arguments are simply invalid. There are absolutely none that have worked out that way. The Domino theory during ‘Nam was wrong. Having 500 horsepower cars on the streets doesn’t result in total carnage (all though there are some really stupid drunks out there who insist upon killing themselves and others, but that isn’t the fault of the car).

      Please, get reasonable. You might find some real middle ground that can be tread.


  • David Fields

    Listen to yourselves. You’re accusing the left of yet another attempt to curtail gun ownership, and as yet they’ve done nothing! How about at least waiting until they do?

    “News media are reporting that sales of guns — in particular the Glock pistols like the one used by the shooter in Arizona on Jan. 8 — went up both in the Grand Canyon State and across the country.”
    Anybody who is a gun collector knows that when an incident like this happens, that type of weapon, at least for a while, increases in value. It’s an investment, not a panic reaction that they’re going to lose their privileges. Note also that, according to federal law at least, that particular Glock was illegally modified, using a 27-round clip when the law limits semi-automatics to 15 rounds.

    Personally, I’m not going to run out and buy another gun just because someone went insane and shot a number of people in a public place. Good grief, people, what good is a gun going to do in your home when some insane criminal waves his around someplace where you can’t get at it? Maybe you’d like to go back a hundred years and just carry guns openly wherever you go like they do in the Middle East. You see how peaceful they are there–in fear of their lives from both the Taliban and from our soldiers. (Just because we try to avoid involving civilians doesn’t mean they aren’t afraid of us.)

    Stop the reactionary rhetoric and start working on the causes, folks.

    • SteveB

      I don’t know about you David, but the evening news in my state must have had between one and two dozen wackos in just the past year. It’s just this one that is getting so much national media coverage. Why? Because she is a high profile victim! Your head is buried in the sand my friend!

    • castaway

      THey are not peaceful in the middle east, because the are Muslim barbarians. Its in their blood. It would be much better here, if we all carried visible side arms. This latest incident would not have happened if we did carry. If it did, he would have been dispatched before he was able to kill more than two people.

    • Ellen

      Uh, David, we carry openly in Colorado, Arizona, and New Hampshire. There are probably other states as well. As some have already stated, we have the unalienable right to protect ourselves AND the right to bear arms. Period. This is not some antiquated notion. What planet are you from?

    • Robert Smith

      Shucks David: “Personally, I’m not going to run out and buy another gun just because someone went insane and shot a number of people in a public place.”

      Where is your spirit of American consumerism? Remember when Bush said after 911 that we should just go out and shop shop shop?

      Now, get that spirit and go buy a Glock endorsed by one out of one of those crazy shooters.

      IOW, anyone who buys a gun simply because it was the same kind of gun used in something they saw or heard about is nuts.

      I’m of the opinion, and have gone through the process with many people, that if you want to buy a gun for the first time get thy self to a class and hang out at a range for a bit. In any class run by a responsible instructor you will get a chance to be exposed to several guns. Hopefully you will learn about revolvers and pistols.

      Then you get into issues like, how does the grip work for you? How tight one holds a gun can make a difference about how a firearm performs in your hand. I’ve got a S&W Model 39 that I can chimney a round just by adjusting my hold on the grip slightly. That misfire was reliable enough for me that I used it to demonstrate what to do with a misfire. It was for many years also my favorite carry piece.

      Although I think laws about “instruction” are hugely misguided I am strongly in favor of such. Buying a gun doesn’t protect you much. Learning about it does.


  • Shane P.

    Yes, I want to carry RPG’s Lots and Lots of RPG’s
    and Laws, Maws & Haws.
    Ever tried to stop a Tank with a Handgun!

    • post_turtle_hunter

      Good response. Technically, there is no law that is valid when it comes to GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS

      • David Fields

        And exactly what rights are “God Given”? Is carrying a weapon a God Given right? What of the Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill”?

        SteveB, you’re right in that this was a high-profile event–does that make it any more important that we must be ready to kill ourselves? That makes us little better than they. My point is that the idea of a rush on weapons because “we’re afraid we’ll lose our rights” is totally ridiculous. I still have to ask, what good is a gun in your home if you get shot at the store? Your logic simply doesn’t exist. If you want to go back to the ‘good old days’ where everyone carried a gun openly, then say so. But the reasoning in this article and the comments afterward simply doesn’t work.

        • Robert Smith

          David asks: “What of the Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill”?

          Slight error in translation. The word is “murder.” Things like self defense are OK.

          And the other one is “celibate” should have been “celebrate.”


      • Robert Smith

        Awww post… There goes another “god” argument: “Technically, there is no law that is valid when it comes to GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS”

        What part of “WE the PEOPLE” don’t you understand?

        BTW, YOUR god doesn’t own me. I’m not accountable to him. I just can’t get up any enthusiasm for a god that knocked up a virgin so he could come and tell us what to do. Why didn’t he come himself if he’s so powerful?


        • ValDM

          “Do not be deceived: God will not be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.” Gal. 6:7-8. By this post you have mocked God. I wouldn’t want to be you on Judgment Day. In addition, wouldn’t you call abortion “destruction?”

          • Robert Smith

            Val says: “God will not be mocked.”

            Neither will I.

            Guess I’m as powerful as your god.


          • ValDM

            I guess you’re deluded.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            As long as you are here, you WILL be mocked!!! BTW, are you in good health? I would hate for a nudge from God to be mistaken for natural causes!!!

          • Robert Smith

            Another threat from the extreme riech. Thank’s Joe. Another fine example.

            BTW, I’m in excellent health. And, if I drop dead tomorrow I’ve lived a long life that has been full of fun and few regrets. The biggest regret is that I didn’t start jabbing at the right until over 20 years ago on Compuserve. They were creepy and oppressive then, and they still are.


          • http://?? Joe H.

            Having trouble decifering the written word??? there is no threat in my post!!! Just like the progressives to dicern a threat where there is none!!1

          • Robert Smith

            It’s a threat Joe.

            Oh wait a minute. Your god has no impact on me. People have been telling me the same thing you are about their god for decades, and I’m not dead, no matter how much they predicted it or wished for it.

            Your god just isn’t that powerful. Yup, I guess it isn’t a threat. Sorry.


    • Robert Smith

      Shane says: “Ever tried to stop a Tank with a Handgun!”

      There is private ownership of tanks in Appalachia. Some old clans going after each other are quite serious about their little wars.

      In her early life Dolly Parton was around some of the conflicts. Twice she was struck in the back by tank barrels. Apparently it affected her only positive ways. Bob Hope used to sing about it: “Tanks for the mammaries…”:


  • Freddie

    I guess the left hasn’t realized that former President Clinton, President Obama, and all the gun-hating Left have been the number one firearms sales people in America for the last 20 years. Anytime something like this happens, they (Bloomberg and the Brady Bunch) go after our firearms, ammo, and more specifically & most important, our rights. I guess if I were the President of Firearms Sales in America, I would give them all an award for such an outstanding job in keeping the numbers of sales through the roof as well as doubling or tripling the prices of some firearms we love. Semper Fi!

    • Robert Smith

      I object to the price increase.

      I hope all those new owners get some sort of education about their new devices. NO, I don’t want to see education itself as a law, but I might consider some sort of test like new drivers have to take. Often family can do an excellent job of educating.


  • http://BobLivingston Wild Bill

    The U.S. Government is restricted of passing any law on firearms or any related Constitutional rights, except what is shown below. These Reps are a joke. They say to go by the Rule of Law. So, do it.

    That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations, slavery, and no other crimes whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” therefore all acts of Congress which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory.

    • James

      Wild Bill, Amen! I thought I was alone here in the proper understanding of the Bill of Rights. It is not the source of our rights, it is restrictions placed upon the federal government.

      • Vicki

        You are not alone James. Several of us here have been pointing out that the Constitution grants NO RIGHTS (HFlashman: your answer of 5 in a previous thread is in error).

        ALL rights come from YOUR Creator. The Constitution is a contract between Robert Smiths “We, The People” and the entity we call the federal government. It is specifically a list of the VERY FEW powers given to the Federal Government. There is further a list of enumerated rights that remind the Government that even if We the People want to we are not allowed to give certain powers to the Federal Government even by Amendment. This of course is the Bill of Rights.

        In the Bill of Rights there are even 2 enumerations that further remind US and the Federal Government that there are a LOT of rights not mentioned that belong to the people. And finally the misnamed states rights amendment (Its proper name would be States POWERS amendment) reminds us that the Constitution limits powers that states can have. Any power not covered belongs to the states or the people as of course ALL power comes from “WE the People.”

        We the People have ALL the RIGHTS. We the People have all the powers. We the People delegate SOME of those powers to the states and to the federal government. Powers we delegated to the states can not be delegated to the federal government and belong ONLY to the states. Powers we delegated to the Federal Government are not available to the states. As stated in the bill of rights there are some powers government (at any level) is NOT ALLOWED to accept even if We, The People want to give that power to government (state or federal). Infringing upon the right of the people to INDIVIDUALLY keep and bear arms is one such example of a power the government (all levels) is NOT ALLOWED to accept.

        Of course this requires people in government who understand the oath they took and who have the courage to uphold that oath against all enemies both foreign and domestic.

        • Dan az

          Thank you its always refreshing to read the truth!

        • wayne

          I agree with you Vicki, but please tell that to our Congress and Obama. If they will not listen, we will use to vote to oust them in 2012.

          • Vicki

            They don’t read the bills. They don’t stay to hear the Constitution read aloud. I write to them almost daily ( They are not listening to me. Or us. In 2012 we NEED to sweep clean all the leftovers and any of the new that did not get the message that we DO want a Constitutionally LIMITED Republic that obeys the CONTRACT as amended.

        • James

          Vicki, Well said! If you were referring to the Tenth Amendment, I would have said that it limits the powers of the federal government to those that are enumerated in Article I, Section 8. It doesn’t limit the powers of the states, it just says powers not delegated to the United States (the national government) are reserved to the states or the people. It was a reminder to the U.S. Congress.

    • post_turtle_hunter

      Exactly! The Constitution and the Bill of Rights don’t guarantee us anything–these are GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS, and we cannot give them away, refuse them or have them taken from us (unless we act stupid and deprive another of their Liberty and Freedom by infringing upon their GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS). WE THE PEOPLE hold those rights within ourselves. The Constitution and Bill of Rights simply spell out the rights we have that are UNALIENABLE: Incapable of being surrendered or transferred. The power of the government comes from the GOVERNED. The government holds no more power over anyone than they allow the government to have…except these days this ignored detail is pretty obvious where about half the population seem content to be slaves on the plantation that Uncle Sugar is running willy-nilly.

      • David Fields

        I still have to ask: Exactly how is owning a gun a “God Given Right”? Did God put these guns in our hands, or Man? Did God give us weapons, or Man?

        Who said, “Thou Shalt Not Kill”?

        • Bitter Libertarian

          The Right referred to is the right of self defence. There is NO restriction to what degree that is, nor should there be.

          • Ellen

            Well said, Bitter.

          • post_turtle_hunter

            Thanks for the back-up. Funny how “not reading” the Bill of Rights in it’s entirety and paraphrasing our RIGHTS somehow makes up fantasy *rights* that can be argued. The RIGHT to bear arms can be exercised or not, it does NOT entitle anyone to kill for the sake of killing, but as self-defense. That I carry everyday has yet to yield me killing anyone. One good laugh: Ted Kennedy’s car killed more people than my guns and rifles have ever killed. Roughly 45,000 people are killed in auto related incidents every year, but who is protesting the innocent lives lost due to driving fatalities? Are we banning cars, restricting their use? And don’t use that licensing/legalese bogus line because there are tens of thousands on the road right now that have no license or insurance to legally be engaged in driving our roads. Does it stop them? No. Are they going to ban baseball bats, sticks, rocks, golf clubs, glass shards, pointy things, scissors, bricks, bottles, etc? Probably not. Vigilance is eternal if you wish for peace.

          • Vicki

            The Right of Self Defense (and defense of others) comes directly from the right to life itself. Your Creator gave you 2 gifts. Life and Free Will. It is your DUTY to defend those gifts against all aggressors. Hence the RIGHT of Self Defense. It is your DUTY to defend those gifts in others hence the right of community defense.

            To exercise your duty to defend your life and the lives of your community you must be able to possess the best tools for the job. Your Creator gave you the ability to create those tools.

            First they were thought to be clubs or rocks on a string like object. Now the best tools are guns though knives, swords, bows, arrows etc collectively called arms are all usable.

            To exercise your duty you must be individually able to possess these tools for the aggressor will not always ( almost never :) ) give you warning that they are coming that you might gather an army to defend yourself/community. (When SECONDS count the police are only MINUTES away. The shooting in Arizona a painful reminder of the truth of this.)

            Ergo the right to keep and bear arms (see the partial list above) is an INDIVIDUAL right. It is a fundamental right. It MUST NOT BE INFRINGED.

        • Robert Smith

          David, it came from “We the PEOPLE.”

          What more explaining needs to be done?

          Apparently they are stuck on the god thing rather than the freedoms in America that allow them to worship in their own way unmolested.


          • post_turtle_hunter

            The Rights spoken of in the Constitution of the United States are NOT given by man. For if a man gives you anything, that man can take it away. You really, seriously need some education on your Constitutional Republic. You have the same rights as I do; whether you choose who they came from or to exercise them is entirely up to you. You don’t believe the Lord Jesus Christ, and I do. Because I do believe in the Lord doesn’t mean he exists–I just believe, by my choice. I cannot tell you that he does exist, that is entirely your GOD-GIVEN right to choose! And, we are both Americans, in the same boat, that will float or sink with us both in it, unless we both agree to disagree but be civil to one another.

          • Robert Smith

            We the PEOPLE

            Some folks just ain’t never gonna get it.


          • http://! Angel Wannabe

            RS, you ain’t gettin’ it either! :)

          • Vicki

            Robert Smith says:
            “David, it came from “We the PEOPLE.” ”

            And from where did “We the PEOPLE” get it? (it as in rights I think)

          • Dan az

            You know I dont thump the Bible here but I can tell you that I have died two times and lets just say that I believe in God and Christ from experience.What I will tell you is that you do have some thinking to do on what your saying.

        • ValDM

          It’s “Thou Shalt Not MURDER”, not kill. Get it right would you?

        • independant thinker

          “Thou Shall Not Kill” appeared first in English in the original translation of the King James version of the Bible.
          At the time this translation was done to “kill” someone meant what we call “murder” today I believe the phrase translates most accurately as “Thou shall not kill unjustly” in other words commit murder. If I remember correctly what we refer to when we say “kill” today was called “to slay” then.

        • James

          David Fields, You’re right, God didn’t give us our rights. Americans are born with rights, they’re inherited from our forefathers.

          • Vicki

            Who or what gave them to your forefathers for them to be able to have you inherit them?

          • James

            Vicki, The Founding Fathers (George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc. etc.), when they fought the British for our independence (1776), and won. It was then that Americans had rights. When the federal government was created (1789), those same forefathers added the Bill of Rights (1791) to make sure the national government would exercise no power over our rights.

        • wayne

          David, according to the Bible God made man & woman. God fortunately gave most of us enough brains to spring forward and to use our ingenuity to develope things through the many years man has been on earth. Yes, God is the creator of the earth and man. We have been provided with all the necessities of the earth to fend for ourselves. With the common sense God gave man, we have developed, and learned how to function for ourselves. I have always learned that we also has another bad force besides God, who is called the devil. We have two choices, we can either be on the righteous side, or on the Devil’s side. You always read and hear about two different things. One is the good things, and the other is the bad things that happens to people. Look at all the bad things we hear, and read about that turns our stomach. We think to ourselves, how in the world could some one do something so horrible to another human being. The person that does things like this has turned away from God and has accepted the Devil. Thank God that most of us will do the right thing and help those in need instead of kicking them. I believe we all have a little of the old Devil in us from time to time. Watch the Atheist on here have a heyday with this one. However, I will choose to ignore them.

          • Robert Smith

            wayne claims: “We have two choices, we can either be on the righteous side, or on the Devil’s side.”

            Actually I’ll bet there are a lot of “sides.”

            For example there is the Swiss approach to be simply neutral.

            My choice is to be mediator if they ever decide to solve their differences.


        • David Fields

          The only weapon God put in our hands is our Spirit. The Ark of the Covenant, while used as a weapon, was nothing but the Law of God powered by the Spirits of his people. Every other weapon mankind has ever used was made by Man’s own hands.

          I’m not arguing against owning weapons for self-defense or even sport, but when those weapons are aimed at another man, it becomes an Intent to Kill–or as one commenter puts it, an Intent to Murder.

    • http://?? Joe H.

      wild Bill,
      you just mentioned another job the government isn’t doing. go to the pawn shops and coin shops and see how many fake silver dollars you can find. They are supposed to have COPY stamped on them, but since the majority lately are comming from China, they just aren’t bothering to enforce!!

  • http://! Angel Wannabe

    My husband works at a sporting goods store, he says, whenever an attack happens such as Arizona, immediatly_ weapons and ammunition fly off the shelves. It doesn’t matter if the attack is in the same state or across the country. It Puts a fear in people.

  • MOM1954



    Well thought out Carry Laws are the answer. Everyone who wants to defend their propert, loved ones and just their fellow man should be allowed to carry. To get a permit they would have to.
    1. Submit and oay for a back gound check–no felons or wife beaters please
    2. Carry liability insurance
    3. Have a very heavy fine and penalty for carrying a gin with out a permit.
    4. Make pointing a gun at someone in the commission of a crime a automatic 5 year jail term. Shooting it is attempted 1st degree murder.
    5. Heavy fines for mis-use of a fire arm and possible revocation of permit.
    If you do not wish to carry a gun by all mean do not, but there are thousands of trained ex-military–police etc etc who could be a excellent back-up security force to help all.

    • post_turtle_hunter

      I’m crying “foul” to your imposed rules of *carry*. The GOD-GIVEN RIGHT will not be infringed. Common sense, a civil and polite society, and a healthy dose of parenting where firearms are a vigorous and vital part of our society from the ground up was well-thought-out in creating this Constitutional Republic. A fee to carry is a tax, and a fine to carry where *you* don’t think someone has the UNALIENABLE RIGHT is both another tax and a criminal assualt on the basic Liberties we all have, and to have to wade through some bureaucratic cesspool to get a “shall issue” permit to exercise what is already a GOD-GIVEN UNALIENABLE RIGHT is ludicrous.

      • Robert Smith

        Ummmmm, post… PROVE to me that your god is real. I just don’t beieve you.

        You say: “GOD-GIVEN RIGHT will not be infringed.”

        Shucks post I just can’t submit to your god’s nonsense. Flooding the world, blowing up cities… I want no part of that.

        However, I do truse the American people to do the right thing. That’s righ, We the PEOPLE.

        Remember, it is here in America where you are allowed to follow your invisible god. Do you hear his voice in your head? BTW, the voices in my head are real when I hook up to my Droid and listen to NPR.


        • post_turtle_hunter

          You know what? I’ll drop the GOD part, and you’re still 100% wrong with relation to where YOUR Rights come from…NOT man, not by a long shot (no pun intended).

          • Robert Smith

            We the PEOPLE

          • Vicki

            Post turtle_hunter writes (to Robert Smith I think):
            “You know what? I’ll drop the GOD part, and you’re still 100% wrong with relation to where YOUR Rights come from…NOT man, not by a long shot (no pun intended).

            To which Robert Smith writes:
            “We the PEOPLE”

            Robert you better hope you are wrong cause if you were right then “we, the People” can (and will) revoke your rights. (2 wolves and a lamb voting on dinner)

            Regardless of your religious beliefs (including the belief in nothing) it is intuitively obvious that you were created. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

            It is NOT “we the people” but YOUR Creator that gave you those rights. We the People have a DUTY to honor and defend your rights as you have to defend ours. It is for this reason (to secure these rights) that governments are instituted among men.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            Prove to me that he doesn’t exhist!!!

          • Robert Smith

            “2 wolves and a lamb voting on dinner”

            In fact the Constitution is there to protect the minority.

            If it was a strict “majority rule” we would still have slavery, women couldn’t vote, etc.


          • Vicki

            Robert Smith writes:
            “In fact the Constitution is there to protect the minority.

            If it was a strict “majority rule” we would still have slavery, women couldn’t vote, etc.”

            Correct. The specific meaning of Constitutionally LIMITED Republic.
            The specific minority protected in the Constitution is the individual.

        • independant thinker

          Instead of blathering on about how there is no God how about providing absolute proof He does not exist.

          • Vicki

            It is said that you can not prove a negative. However due to the nature of reality I think it will also be difficult to prove the positive. None the less I see the works of my Creator all around me so I have no trouble believing in his/her/its existence.

          • Robert Smith

            How’s ’bout the notion that you don’t exist. God is posting trying to gather followers.

            Hey god, not interested. Go away.


          • http://gunner689 gunner689

            GOD to Rob: ” Go to Hell “

        • James

          Robert, what got me started along the ‘belief’ path was the book of Daniel. It was written 600-500 BC, when the two tribe House of Judah was in captivity in Babylon. King Nebbuchadnezzar had a dream that he couldn’t understand and asked Daniel to interpret it for him. Daniel asked God for help, which came, and then Daniel told the king his dream was about his kingdom and the three empires which would follow it (Babylon, Persian, Greek and Roman). The division of the Roman kingdom into two mostly religious kingdoms is still with us. From there I gradually accepted the Bible as historical fact. You’re not alone with your dislike of its war-like theme, most Christians ignore the Old Testament in its entirety.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            Careful there. I suggest you read the final verses of the Bible!

          • James

            Joe H., I’ve read all the Bible many times over. To what verses were you referring?

          • http://?? Joe H.

            the verses in revelations about taking from or adding to the word of God! when you facillitate or approve of not paying any attention to the old testament you are taking away from the word of God!!

          • James

            Joe H. I’m very familiar with Revelation 22:18-19. I was not suggesting that anyone ignore the Old Testament, I was just calling attention to the fact that most of today’s Christians do ignore it.

    • Ellen

      Jackie, what part of “shall not infringe” do you NOT get?

      Carry laws? And just who is going to produce these carry laws? Permit? fines? penalties? These are just MORE ways for the people to be controlled and regulated by those who have NO RIGHT. Perhaps you need to read the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

      • James

        Ellen, You should read this:

        U.S. Constitution, Amendment II:

        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.

        Alabama Constitution Article I, Section 28:

        That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

        Alaska Constitution Article I, Section 19:

        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 individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State.

        Arizona Constitution, Article 2, Section 26:

        The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

        Arkansas Constitution Article II, Section 5:

        The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense.

        Colorado Constitution Article II, Section 13:

        The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

        Connecticut Constitution Article I, Section 15:

        Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

        Delaware Constitution Article I, Section 20:

        A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.

        Florida Constitution Article I, Section 8(a):

        The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.

        Georgia Constitution Article I, Section 1, Paragraph VIII:

        The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.

        Hawaii Constitution Article I, Section 17:

        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.

        Idaho Constitution Article I, Section 11:

        The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony.

        Illinois Constitution Article I, Section 22:

        Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

        Indiana Constitution Article I, Section 32:

        The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the state.

        Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights 4:

        The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security, but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

        Kentucky Constitution Section1:

        All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: … Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons.

        Louisiana Constitution Article I, Section 11:

        The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.

        Maine Constitution Article I, Section 16:

        Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.

        Massachusetts Constitution Part The First, Article XVII:

        The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

        Michigan Constitution Article I, Section 6:

        Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.

        Mississippi Constitution Article III, Section 12:

        The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons.

        Missouri Constitution Article I, Section 23:

        That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned, but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.

        Montana Constitution Article II, Section 12:

        The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.

        Nebraska Constitution Article I, Section 1:

        All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof. To secure these rights, and the protection of property, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

        Nevada Constitution Article I, Section 11,[1.]”

        Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.

        New Hampshire Constitution Part First, Article 2-a:

        All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.

        New Mexico Constitution Article II, Section 6:

        No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.

        North Carolina Constitution Article I, Section 30:

        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; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice.

        North Dakota Constitution Article I, Section 1:

        All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness; and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed.

        Ohio Constitution Article I, Section 4:

        The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

        Oklahoma Constitution Article II, Section 26:

        The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never e prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.

        Oregon Constitution Article I, Section 27:

        The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power.

        Pennsylvania Constitution Article I, Section 21:

        The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

        Rhode Island Constitution Article I, Section 22:

        The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

        South Carolina Constitution Article I, Section 20:

        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. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the state shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it. No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner nor in time of war but in the manner prescribed by law.

        South Dakota Constitution Article VI, Section 24:

        The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied.

        Tennessee Constitution Article I, Section 26:

        That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

        Texas Constitution Article I, Section 23:

        Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

        Utah Constitution Article I, Section 6:

        The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the Legislature from defining the lawful use of arms.

        Vermont Constitution Chapter I, Article 16:

        That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State – and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

        Virginia Constitution Article I, Section 13:

        That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

        Washington Constitution Article I, Section 24:

        The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

        West Virginia Constitution Article III, Section 22:

        A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use.

        Wisconsin Constitution Article I, Section 25:

        The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.

        Wyoming Constitution Article I, Section 24:

        The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied.

        Six States have no ‘right to bear’ clauses in their constitutions, however that doesn’t mean citizens there don’t have the right.

      • Dan az

        In Arizona you have the right to carry concealed with out permits or any other charges.What a state!

    • independant thinker

      ” Have a very heavy fine and penalty for carrying a gin with out a permit”

      All the gins I have ever seen are kinda large and heavy to carry around concealed or otherwise.

      Sorry I just couldn’t resist.

      • Robert Smith

        for carrying gins a flask works very well and isn’t necessarily obvious.


        • independant thinker

          I was thinking of gin as in cotton gin not the drink but good point.

          • Robert Smith

            Yup, just string us along.

            I don’t cotton to that.

            It tends to get things all balled up.

            But someone will write about it, “Once upon a twine.”


        • James

          Robert S. I think Independent had his fingers crossed there.

    • wayne

      Jackie, good post. I agree. We all should be able to protect ourselves. The police cannot be every place. We have a lot of bad people that we need to protect ourselves fom. Arizona is a good example.


    More people carrying makes for a more dangerous society.

    • Bitter Libertarian

      You are sadly incorrect. Facts from the locations and nations that have little to no gun laws have the lowest crime rates.
      You and many others have little knowledge of events that take place every day where a Gun in the hand of a law abiding citizen has thwarted a crime. You wont see this stuff on the news, and police dont like it because it is solid evidence supporting an armed and well protected society is safer. No Crime = No Job for the police.

      • independant thinker

        Bitter Libertarian, read it again I think he is pro carry not anti carry.

        • Bitter Libertarian

          JACKIE PHILLIPS says:
          January 14, 2011 at 8:48 am
          Well thought out Carry Laws are the answer. Everyone who wants to defend their propert, loved ones and just their fellow man should be allowed to carry. To get a permit they would have to.
          1. Submit and oay for a back gound check–no felons or wife beaters please
          2. Carry liability insurance
          3. Have a very heavy fine and penalty for carrying a gin with out a permit.
          4. Make pointing a gun at someone in the commission of a crime a automatic 5 year jail term. Shooting it is attempted 1st degree murder.
          5. Heavy fines for mis-use of a fire arm and possible revocation of permit.
          If you do not wish to carry a gun by all mean do not, but there are thousands of trained ex-military–police etc etc who could be a excellent back-up security force to help all.”

          Looks like a TON of INFRINGMENT to me. Who is to pay for all that???? Oh I get it….only someone who can AFFORD it has the right to defend themselves…

          • Vicki

            Lets make a deal with Jackie.

            Everyone who wants to associate with their friends their propert, loved ones and just their fellow man should be allowed to do so.
            To get a permit they would have to.
            1. Submit and oay for a back gound check–no felons or wife beaters please
            2. Carry liability insurance
            3. Have a very heavy fine and penalty for associating with out a permit.
            4. Make associating with someone in the commission of a crime a automatic 5 year jail term.
            5. Heavy fines for mis-use of association (I.E. Criminal behavior) and possible revocation of permit.
            If you do not wish to associate with your fellow man by all mean do not.
            Or maybe this one.

            Everyone who wants to write for their friends, loved ones and just their fellow man should be allowed to do so.
            To get a permit they would have to.
            1. Submit and oay for a back gound check–no felons or wife beaters please
            2. Carry liability insurance
            3. Have a very heavy fine and penalty for writing with out a permit.
            4. Make writing in the commission of a crime an automatic 5 year jail term.
            5. Heavy fines for mis-use of writing and possible revocation of permit.
            If you do not wish to write for or to your fellow man by all mean do not.

            A right that requires permission of Government is not a right.

        • Vicki

          He is probably pro carry but has not yet thought thru the meaning of a right vs a privilege.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            It’s real simple. It is a priveledge to drive and your licence can be pulled for something as simple as no insurance! gun ownership and carrying is a right and can only be pulled if you commit a felony!!

          • Vicki

            Why do you think that driving is a privilege?

          • Vicki

            Joe H. says:
            “Gun ownership and carrying is a right and can only be pulled if you commit a felony!!”

            Well technically only if you are convicted of a felony. However since I am not allowed to carry a gun even though I have NO convictions of any crime does that mean that carrying is a privilege or does it mean that government does not understand the meaning of rights vs privileges? Or, more ominously, does it mean that government thinks of itself as my Master.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            I was only stating facts not what the government practices. It does stand to reason that if they can pull your licence to drive and put you in jail if you continue as supported by the supreme court, that driving IS a priveledge!! I believe the restrictions placed in the second appliy to the federal government as well as the state and local governments!

          • James

            Vicki, The right to keep and bear arms is a right, not a privilege. However, States do regulate the right to bear (carry) arms. Find your state in my above ‘January 14, 2011 at 4:20PM’ entry, read it, then research your state law on the ‘right to carry.’

  • Jo

    This is what we ALL need to do to stop all of what is going on…11 Chronicles 7;14. Check it out.

  • pennsyltuckian

    McCarthy is just another 1 topic liberal fool trying to get even with the world because some nutcase with an ILLEGAL gun killed her husband. That is her only claim to fame. King on the other hand is suggesting a truly stupid law. 1000 ft of a politician is not rational. Unlike a school, politicians crawl around and are hard to track. If I am driving down the street and drive past some restaurant where he is eating am I in violation of the proposed law? How would I know where the stupid politician is? It is a mindless law that is totally unenforceable.

    • http://?? Joe H.

      I know people that live right next to our senior citizen center where our congressman likes to hold town hall meetings. does that mean if they own a gun they would be breaking the law?? The whole thing is just a knee jerk reaction to an unfortunate action perpetrated by a crazed killer!

  • s c

    Arizonans are obligated to keep weapons in their homes. If you recall (especially those of you who never let common sense get in the way of your ‘thinking’), Arizona is a border state. Uncle Scam REFUSES to close our border(s). Arizona has the legal and moral right to defend itself [ref. Article 4, Section 4].
    Mr. Obama, yet another PINO (Prez In Name Only), REFUSES to act like a commander-in-chief. His ‘pals’ benefit from a flood of easy votes via millions of illegals (power at ANY cost syndrome).
    Mr. Obama surrounds himself with sociopaths. With a prez like Mr. Obama, America needs no enemies. Arizona, protect yourself from foreign and domestic enemies. You have the Constitution on your side. Screw Washington.

    • Dan az

      Thats the way we see it here and nobody is going to change it,Its our constitutional rights here voted on by the people here and big guv is not going to change it without a fight!And thats a fact jack!

  • http://BobLivingston Wild Bill


    “martial law” proceeds by arraying men under arms in order to set aside or suspend the Constitution of the United States, in whole or in part, and to employ those arms against anyone who resists—without any constitutional or other lawful authority for doing so. Therefore, inasmuch as “the United States” exists only perforce and through application of the Constitution, “martial law” amounts to “levying War against the[ United States]”. And inasmuch as WE THE PEOPLE are the Conauthors and beneficiaries of the stitution, “martial law” amounts as well to “levying War against” THE PEOPLE themselves. It would be immaterial that those who attempted to impose “martial law” wore uniforms (even with United States flags as shoulder patches), or held military commissions, or acted pursuant to orders from supposed superiors. Even someone who commits “Treason” under a claim of “good faith” is entitled to no immunity. This principle is part of the modern Law of Nations: “[T]hat the [officer] acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility”. [Charter of the International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg, Germany, 1945), art. 8.] And it subsists in American law of a far longer heritage. [E.g., Mitchell v. Harmony, 54 U.S. (13 Howard) 115, 137 (1851).]

    • RandyH

      Yeah, “honest” Abe made good use of martial law didn’t he? I see Obama following suit in the near future if’n things don’t cool down.

  • Dave Davis

    Liberals, materialists that they are, can only see the material part of this crime – the gun. Liberals are blind to the evil that obviously existed in the mind of the alleged killer. Good and evil are concepts that the liberal mind cannot grasp. In typical Liberal fashion, therefore, retribution for this crime will be taken on law-abiding citizens.

  • http://BobLivingston Wild Bill

    Some more info you might want to look at. Nothern Command making a deal with Canadian army to come to the USA to help enforce a possible illegal Martial Law.

    U.S. Northern Command, Canada Command establish new bilateral Civil Assistance Plan We nearly missed this one. That’s what we get for not checking in with Northcom every day. Bottom line: This puts us one step closer to a North American Union. Co-operative militaries on Home Soil! The next time your town has a ‘national emergency’, don’t be surprised if Canadian soldiers respond. And remember — Canadian military aren’t bound by posse comitatus.
    The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction, with the intention (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) of substantially limiting the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement. The Act prohibits most members of the federal uniformed services (today the Army, Navy, Air Force, and State National Guard forces when such are called into federal service) from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain “law and order” on non-federal property (states and their counties and municipal divisions) within the United States. The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Coast Guard is exempt from the Act.



  • http://n/a John Beach

    Why would not the fear of victimization by criminals be a logical cause of the spike in gun sales rather than the fear of the loss of the right to keep and bear arms? Remember, law enforcement was fully armed and, theoretically, SHOULD HAVE PREVENTED the incident. PRE-VENT is the operative word here. Why weren’t the prevent(at)ive measures necessary to eliminate any possibility of such an occurrence taken before the event took place? The jurisdiction of specific law enforcement departments seems to be at issue here. Why would a sheriff, who, theoretically and practically, should be informed in his own jurisdiction be blaming vitriolic political discourse as the remote cause of a local problem over which he had jurisdiction? Maybe he has a problem with IFF (identification Friend or Foe.)

    • ValDM

      Sheriff Dimwit chose not to be present, and also chose for his deputies not to be present either.

  • Tasmanian devil

    As we watch the first Ammendment disappear, you will see the Second go as well. Without the First there is not Secnond.

    • post_turtle_hunter

      I beg to differ. The Second Amendment will not infringed.

      • Vicki

        The 2nd amendment is to protect we the people from government infringement. Government has done what criminals do with law. They ignore it. The right of the people to keep and bear arms comes from the Creator not the Constitution so it is not that the right disappears it is that infringement goes to 100%.

    • Bitter Libertarian

      Any paper that is worth anything is backed by something…paper money use to be worth something when it was backed by Gold or silver, precious, rare metals.

      The US Constitution is backed by the Precious metal Guns are made from. Without that metal backing it, that paper would be gone in 30 seconds.

      • Vicki

        It’s not the gun or the sword its the pen. Winning the hearts and minds of the populace is what keeps the country strong and united. The First is first because the pen is truly mightier than the sword for as we say time and time again “guns don’t kill people. People kill people”. If we left it up to guns or swords they would just lay there.

        The 2nd is the teeth of the Constitution for it matters not that we have the hearts and minds of the populace if they are all unarmed.

        Though both are critical to the security of a free State, if we loose the battle against the pen it matters not how many swords or guns we have, the Constitution becomes just words on paper.

        This, of course, is why the soapbox is first and most important.

    • http://gunner689 gunner689

      without the Second there is no Constitution

  • 2WarAbnVet

    A single nutjob out of a population of some 350 million does what nutjobs do, so our politicians immediately think of ways to punish the entire population. The problem is that the Founding Fathers sought liberty for Americans; current politicians seek to control Americans.

  • Bitter Libertarian

    The Second Amendment is about the Right to Self Defence, be that defending against anything or anyone. It does not diferentiate nor does it need to.

    If you wish to have that inalienable right to equalize your ability to thwart a threat posed upon you then you are a fool. That you are a fool is Fine, but do not try to push or force that foolish regulation upon me because I will not comply.

  • http://BobLivingston Wild Bill

    How about requiring the bad guys to get the permits for owning and to carry a gun. You say that is stupid, because they wouldn’t do it. RIGHT, so why should we???

    The politicians who are in office now, should not be in office. We need people who will pass only just and constitutional laws, not try to go around the constitution, as they do.

    • David Fields

      Ever think that the problem is that we have Politicians in office, rather than ordinary citizens?

      You’ve done it to yourselves, people. Live with it.

      • Bitter Libertarian

        Your Correct,

  • Hedgehog

    You can’t curtail craze’s, Doper’s and drug traffickers from possessing illegal or legal weapons by imposing more laws on law abiding citizens. The politicians are just using these kind of incidents to try and confiscate all weapons and this doesn’t work either. All this does is put the law abiding citizen at the mercy of either the criminal or lets the Government control the citizen at large and folks that is precisely what this administration is working towards CONTROL. Once you can control the population of a country there is no more freedoms. If you have a hard time seeing this here are some good examples. Germany WWll, Japan WWll, Some places in Africa (present time), Iraq, Saddam Hussein just to name a few. They imposed a no weapons society and look what happened Is this what people of this Country want? I don’t think so.

    • Robert Smith

      from Hedgehog: “Doper’s and drug traffickers from possessing illegal or legal weapons by imposing more laws on law abiding citizens.”

      Those who USE drugs rearely carry guns unless they are dealing to support their habbit.

      The best way to put DEALERS out of business is to take the money out of pot. Folks can grow it themselves and there isn’t any money involved unless one wants to buy a grow light. There isn’t much corner traid on those.


    • Robert Smith

      Hey Hedgehog: “They imposed a no weapons society”

      Yup, and a no drug society, and a no respect for women society, and a no gambling society, and a no pre-marital sex society!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      My goodness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      They look like fundimentalist christians!


    • Bob37

      Everyone, especially liberals, need to become more informed about this try at confiscation. Do a Google search for ‘Innocents Betrayed’. You can buy the DVD or go to YouTube and see it. That’s a bother because it’s in 6 parts but it’s free. This is the result of gun control. Gun control isn’t about guns – It’s about control.

      • James

        Bob37, I agree, the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed by Congress, to do just that.

  • Anglo

    The legislative branch can make all the laws against gun ownership that they want as those laws and the laws presently on the books limiting gun rights will be and are illegal as per the Constitution of the United States of America. What is amazing is that the people do not uphold and demand the enforcement of the Constitution/Bill of Rights, except of course if one of any given individuals rights are violated and then there is Constitutional screaming for the Constitution. Mexico is a perfect example of anti gun laws. No private ownership of guns in Mexico; but look at the state of the nation, Mexico, today.

  • Anglo

    As per the Constitution, any new laws as well as existing laws will be and are illegal. Take a good look at Mexico where it is illegal for the citizen’s to own fire arms or ammunition. Our military can’t even render a rifled salute to a Mexican national who has served in our military but is put to rest in Mexico. The honor guard has to use fake guns and just go through the ceremonial dressage.
    Up hold the Constitution or get rid of it. Get rid of it and you had better hold on for dear life because there would be hell to pay.

  • M. Amundsen

    I wish I owned a gun store. Apparently nothing sells like fear and paranoia.

    • Robert Smith

      Ahhh, but a find Desert Eagle or Gold Cup 45 can sure bring out some lust to acquire.


    • http://gunner689 gunner689

      Nothing sells like something that the gvt. may take away from you.

  • Julian

    If one person there had a cancealed carry permit he probably would have only gotten off a few shots, if everyone there had an open carry permit he probably would have rethought the idea.

    • Robert Smith

      Actually there is a strong idea that he was working towars a “suicide by cop” kind of thing going out in a blaze of self imagined glory.

      That kind of shooter nut case is someone who need to be stopped long before he gets to a parking lot.

      Sadly the right isn’t willing to put the resources into universal health care that woule offer even a chance to have an effect ahead of time.

      They imagine themselves shooting them to make it all better. You know, it’s their greed that needs to be satisfied by not contributing to the health of society. And… If they get to kill a few! Well, that’s a bonus.

      Selfish nuts.


      • Vicki

        Selfish or just smart enough to know what big government would do with that kind of power.

        • Robert Smith

          A cop can often kill and get away with it. Unfortunately it’s part of the current culture.


          • Vicki

            Maybe they can but they DON’T. Just like citizens both those that have and those that don’t have guns. Did you have a useful point?

      • Dan az

        They knew he was a wack job and didn’t do any thing about it.We do have nut houses here for the criminally insane and we are one of two states that have the right to put them in there for their own good before they do harm but it was not the case this time because of the ayers school that he attended that prevented it from happening after five altercations that he had while attending that school.

        • http://deleted Claire

          Dan az–You are correct–they also knew the Ft. Hood killer was a nutjob and no one did anything about it until it was too late.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            Yup and it was all over PC crap!! “Oh, don’t accuse the muslim of hating the US cause YOU might be branded a racist”!! You report that the crazy kid was acting quite weird and you are worried that he might hurt someone and what happens??? You get sued!

      • James

        Robert, You are confusing ‘universal’ healthcare with government controlled healthcare. We have universal health care now. Canada has government controlled healthcare, and yet Canadians stream across our northern border to our better, and cheaper, system here.

  • Paul J. Bosco

    He emptied a 30-round clip. Maybe guns don’t kill the first person, but in this case the 5th & 6th are almost certainly dead because of the available hardware. Stones & knives won’t figure in a massacre. I doubt the right to stream bullets in a crowd was the “original intent” of the Second Amendment.
    Almost 3000 people were murdered on 9/11/01, in three states, almost simulaneously. The weapons employed? BOX CUTTERS!! In reaction we banned even shampoo bottles (etc.) on airplanes. But we can’t restrict extended magazines on concealable guns?

    –Paul J. Bosco

    • Bitter Libertarian

      No offence but your post is almost self defeating…

      What exactly is your point regarding the “volume” of a 30rd magazine as being More violent then say what..a 6 shooter? Muzzleloader? How about he blow himself up and kill everyone within 100feet?

      The mentality that more bullets = more violence is counter acted by less bullets = less violence. Kennedy was killed with how many?

      Not blasting you but there is a reality here grossly overlooked..if you think that banning a gun or a 30rd mag is going to stop violence, look at Russia or China…next thing Battery Acid will be shot aout of a super soaker..or aids infected blood….you cannot stop violence by thinking you are eliminating the tool used in violence…someone wants to be violent…they can use anything.

    • Vicki

      Paul writes:
      “Almost 3000 people were murdered on 9/11/01, in three states, almost simulaneously. The weapons employed? BOX CUTTERS!! ”

      Funny. In the timeline I am writing from the number of people killed was as in yours between 2,700 and 3,400 but in my timeline only 1 or 2 were reported and not confirmed to have been killed by people USING boxcutters. The rest died from the direct or indirect use of AIRPLANES as tools of mass destruction. We didn’t ban airplanes so why should we ban guns.

    • Dan az

      I better go out and buy a new car because next thing will be it can kill thousands before it runs out of gas!

    • Paul R

      The weapon deployed was not a box cutter, it was 2 jumbo jets. Do we now ban aircraft? Trucks and cars have been used in IEDs, do we now ban them as well??? Going to work or taking that next vacation to Florida is going to be kind of rough walking there, isn’t it?????

      • Vicki

        Just means the liberal will demand more paid time off to get there and back. :)


    Government intrusion into the affairs of Az and the irresposibility the feds have displayed in refusing to stem the intrusions at the mex/American border against illegals and drug traffickers has resulted in a mind boggling upturn of crime and rising cost in this state and the rest of the country. In fact government intrusion in the affairs of all states has resulted in a erosion of states rights and citizen freedoms and confusion, the states are now meeting the Feds in the courts to argue these major intrusion and there is a move to have a Constitutional Covention take place in order to correct this imposition of government. The Feds want to control all things, but will not relent in the running of schools, energy, certain rights and mining resources, they want not only control of vast amounts of land but to impose law which over rides all state law and local law, that is called a dictatorship. Time for the law to be put back where it belongs and the size of the Fed government pared to one that can once again be controlled by the voters and taxpayers.

  • http://roadrunner jim

    I say the govt works for us so we should be able to fire anyone in govt when they dont do their job..and not wait till their term is up…nobody would give me that if i were not doing my job..jd

    • wayne

      Jim, I like your way of thinking.

    • RandyH

      Any time a person reaches the “federal” level, whether it be elected representative or hired employee, the “state and locals” become pretty insignificant.

  • jopa

    Some of our congressman and senators want to start wearing six guns strapped to their sides when they go to work.I don”t care if they do or not that’s up to them but I can just picture Liberman,Mc Cainn and that Goober,Gomer or whatever his name is from Texas walking into a bar and at the table Boener sitting there crying in his beer.Well boys what will we discuss tonight.Back to the issue at hand.Washington isn’t trying to ban any particular gun but do want to limit the amount of rounds a clip can hold.I could go along with that.

    • RandyH

      It’s a magazine, not a clip. If they get round limitation, then it will be no detachable mag at all, then it will be no semi auto, then it will be caliber limition, then it will be blah blah blah ’til nothing’s left. Apathy is what our “caring” politicians love to hear.

      • independant thinker

        Technicaly you are correct RandyH however clip and magazine have been used intgerchangebly so much that many do not know the difference even some who are generaly knowledgeble about firearms.

        For those who do not know. Technicaly a magazine is what holds the ammunition in the firearm whether it is removable or fixed. A clip holds a number of rounds (commonly 5) in a disposable device designed to make reloads easier especialy in fixed magazine firearms.

    • Vicki

      Jopa writes:
      “Washington isn’t trying to ban any particular gun but do want to limit the amount of rounds a clip can hold.I could go along with that.”

      I can’t. I won’t know how much ammo I need till I know how big the mob is.

    • Dan az

      The next time your standing in a line and thirty people with guns start shooting at you, and you have a six shooter to defend your self well I guess you can give up when they start shooting right?

  • http://com i41

    I think it was Jackie thinking if everyone was armed, there would be more shooting, probably would and then again there would be morte civility. In Mt you can CCw or carry in the open. A few year ago I watched a male being pushed and beign tormented several times by a spoilt knuckle head. The one getting picked on, was told that he didn’t have the balls to drag iron. The spoilt idoit was going to hit him, when the guy pulled iron and shoved it up to his chest and had a misfire. Since it was a wheel gun he just recocked and the spoilt ass beg not to be shot. Arm everey one and a little more civility would happens. When gang bangers drive by shooting unarmed people, if everyone was armed might have a slow down on this crap. We know not beign armed doesn’t work. By robert smiths beleif in every dpot head not beign armed, I have arrested more loony pot heads and drug thugs carrying than average citizens. Use pot motavation and common sense alway goes out for long walk abouts. By roberts comments, as a liberal beleif pattern, he probably is a middle 50 ages pot user who has always worked for somebody else , beleives in unions and loves queers, is possivly a governemnt democrat. Just a guess.

    • Robert Smith

      You are wrong in too many ways to try to fix. Go actually read my posts. It’s far better than the garbage you make up.


    • wayne

      i41, good post. I agree with you 100%. I am not going to even respond to Robert Smith’s post anymore since he already has all the those wacko answers he comes up with. Talking, or trying to converve with some one like Robert Smith will drag you down to their level.

  • Robt Hauser

    They can pass all the “laws” they want; if they are un- or as is far more often the case now, rabidly ANTI-Constitutional, the few real Americans we have left in this country will simply refuse to comply. This mongoloid idiot YELLOW State of Californicate passed a “law” that requires all of us to register our weapons. Gun owners took to the streets in phalanxes with weapons in hand and burned copies of the legislation.

    I do find it somewhat amusing that no one on this thread has brought up the fact that according to some of the earliest reports on the incident, Loughner was apparently acting in concert with a 45 year old accomplice who is still being sought for questioning….that spells “CIA DRONE HANDLER” in three inch caps. Would anyone care to try to explain how Loughner was able to fire 33 rounds from a 30 round clip? We hear nothing about this anymore from the tethered press and the maggotry of the media. do we? I don’t doubt for a New York second that Loughner was a walking pharmacy when he pulled off that caper….but I will lay odds of five hundred bucks to a toenail paring that both the psychotropic drugs he was loaded on and the 9mm Glock he was using were both furnished by the CIA which in turn is lavishly furnished by YOUR tax dollars. I say 9mm because if it had been higher caliber, Giffords wouldn’t even have a head left; smaller, there wouldn’t have been the fatalities and number of seriously wounded.

    • Paul R

      The mag. for the glock 18 holds 31 rounds and you can get an extension of +2 = 33 They are right about that. I own 9 of thoughs mags. in 9mm…………… You could even get one more with one in the chamber!!! But look, if some wack job or terrorists decides to kill people there isn’t alot you can do. The uni-bomber, 911,and the federal building are all examples of this and they all have something in common. NO GUNS WERE USED. Lets be grateful that the Arizona shooter didn’t try one of these options.

  • John

    Hey, you know the Obama and democrates are in the process of getting a U.N.Treaty to disarm all Americans AND AMMO.THE SMALL ARMS AND AMMO TREATY TO CONTROL AND BAN GUNS!Look what happen to England 20 years ago or longer.It is coming here.WE must stop it.Democrates think they can go round Congress and get the U.N. mandate pass without Congress knowing when and maybe sneek it in a Large bill Congress doesnt read,check for Unamerica written rant,and can not be audited.It must not pas under any reason.It is time to wake up!

    • Robert Smith

      from john: ” U.N.Treaty to disarm all Americans AND AMMO.THE SMALL ARMS AND AMMO TREATY TO CONTROL AND BAN GUNS!”

      Absolutely false. Nobody has shown us any lines in that treaty that will counter our 2nd ammendment.

      That is meant to get to the dealers who are supplying the small hot flash wars that are actually criminal enterprizes for things like drugs, diamonds, etc.


    • http://gunner689 gunner689

      Blue Berets make great targets. Hear they taste good to.

  • Ellet

    It is bad enough that Congress makes laws that lets them confiscate property that was legal before the law was passed. I they make certain “guns” and accessories illegal and leave the citizens no choice, the citizen should be financially compensated at the fair market value of the property confiscated.
    I do wish people would use the proper terms. These “gun” for the most part use magazines, not clips.
    We hear the anti-”gunners” always complaining about how strong the NRA is. Two or three of the people financing the anti-”gun” crowd have more money than all of the pro- NRA people put together. The NRA wins like they do because they are right. If all 80 million law abiding gun owners in this country started protecting their rights the country would be better off. Right now there are between 4 and 6 million NRA members. The other 74 million “gun” owners are not carrying their load and will cry the loudest when the “government” comes after their “gun”. Just ask anyone in England or Australia how it happened there. My friends in these countries tell me how lucky we are to have the Bill of Rights.

  • Dave from Oz

    Re Joe H and discussion of the so-called “Immaculate Conception” of Jesus. Despite the merits of any other argument he makes, I agree that Robert’s claim that God raped Mary is wrong – in fact, I think it’s bizarre. However, I feel compelled to set the facts straight on the concept of “Immaculate conseption” …
    There is a very widespread and MISTAKEN belief that the “Virgin Birth” of Jesus from Mary is defined by the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. That is factually incorrect.

    The Catholic Church doctrine of Immaculate Conception has NOTHING to do with Christ’s conception. In fact, it refers to the dogma that MARY was conceived free from original sin — that is, her soul was “immaculate” from the time of her conception. This doctrine was developed by Catholic theologians on the “logical” basis that Mary could not have been flawed in any way, given the belief that her son was God.

    So, if you wish, please refer to Christ’s birth as “Virgin Birth” BUT NEVER as an “Immaculate conception”. There, got that off my chest.

    PS. Re Firearms. If I may throw in my outside opinion: We in Australia have registration laws for target shooters, hunters and farmers who use/need guns. We do not permit ordinary citizens to own automatic/assault weapons. Law enforcement and security personnel do use them as necessary, and they are authorised and trained to do so.
    Result? Our murder rate is a small percentage of yours in the USA. Of course criminals still obtain firearms and use them, but the myriad domestic, neighbourhood and accidental fatal shootings just don’t happen without the ready availability of firepower. There’s still bashings, strangling, stabbing etc by “amateurs” but that’s often harder to do and a lot less likely to result in homicide unless the perpetrator is really skilled or intent on a fatal result.

    Yes, “people do kill people”, but without a gun (which, by the way, is specificallly designed to kill people), they may not have the opportunity …For example … Not many people wielding a baseball bat or a carving knife, accidentally kill a late-home drunk family member as they try to “sneak in”, but put a Glock in their nightstand and guess what may happen?

    • Robert Smith

      Hi Dave,

      For many years I kept a newspaper story on my wall. I’ve since lost the paper it was on but the story was about how one friend shot another with a bow and arrow. The defendant claimed, “I didn’t know it was loaded.” I wish I could find it again.


    • libertytrain

      Dave – nice explanation for those who don’t comprehend the Immaculate Conception – Of course, there will always be those who get their jolly’s by mocking that which they don’t comprehend themselves and I’m not talking about Joe.

      • Robert Smith

        I can guess who you are talking about!

        However, as an outsider to that violent christian faith where the god killed the entire population of earth except for that Noah guy and his family, crushed a couple of cities, took the walls of Jerico down because one side prayed harderthan the other, etc…

        Anyhow, as an outsider YOUR mythology means NOTHING to me. Why can’t you respect that? I’ve given you my reasons. In America I’m allowed, no, it’s a right, that I can choose my god if I want to.

        Why do you insist that it be yours? Ain’t he strong enough to get along without me?


        • libertytrain

          You’re a funny little guy. I respect that you can respect and believe in whatever god you choose or not. I don’t mock your god, she’s surely a fine god, whilst you mock the God of other’s – But that’s kind of the way you play and it’s tediously boring.

  • Dave from Oz

    Comment on “gun control” from another hemisphere …
    If I may throw in my outside opinion:
    Australia has always had use of rifles and shotguns as a normal part of country life, plus hobby shooters of anything from paper targets to feral pigs, but not much of a general “gun culture” amongst the populace.

    This, despite what many of your correspondents appear to fear, has not led to Australia becoming a communist dictatorship or anything other than one of the world’s healthiest democracies.

    However Australia, I believe, still has the dubious distinction of holding the record for the largest single number of fatalities by a deranged individual gunman (about 34 killed in one event at the tourist attraction of Port Arthur, Tasmania, in 1996).

    This massacre led to a widespread consensus on amending firearms controls, hence legislation driven by the then Federal government was introduced and generally accepted.

    Thus, we in Australia have registration laws for target shooters, hunters and farmers who use/need guns. We do not permit ordinary citizens to own automatic/assault weapons. Law enforcement and security personnel do use them as necessary, and they are authorised and trained to do so.

    Result of this history, culture and legislation? Our murder rate per 100,000 citizens is a small percentage of yours in the USA.

    Of course criminals still obtain firearms and use them, but the myriad domestic, neighbourhood and accidental fatal shootings just don’t happen without the ready availability of firepower. There’s still bashings, strangling, stabbing etc by “amateurs” but that’s often harder to do and a lot less likely to result in homicide, unless the perpetrator is really skilled or intent on a fatal result.

    Yes, “people do kill people”, but without a gun (which, by the way, IS specificallly designed to kill people), they may not have the opportunity …For example … Not many people wielding a baseball bat or a carving knife, accidentally kill a late-home drunk family member as they try to “sneak in”, but put a Glock in their nightstand and guess what may happen?

    • Paul R

      What if someone in a truck ran over a crowd of people intentionally,would they then ban trucks??? Its not the thing that killed, only the nut case behind the wheel!!! We don’t live in Australia. Here in America, we have the right to self defense. Its called the 2nd amendment……………..

      • James

        Paul R,Search my ‘January 14, 2011 at 4:20 PM’ entry above. See what your state’s constitution says.

  • Dave from Oz

    Robert, Love that story!

  • jopa

    Paul R Well lets say that truck was going over one hundred miles an hour.We wouldn’t ban the truck we would lower the speed limit.

    • Paul R

      Do you really think that would stop him ??? Only law abiding citizens obey the laws, not criminals,terrorists,or nut cases. I hope your little liberal mind can comprehend that!!!

      • Mick

        Paul R says:
        January 15, 2011 at 11:21 pm
        Do you really think that would stop him ??? Only law abiding citizens obey the laws, not criminals,terrorists,or nut cases. I hope your little liberal mind can comprehend that!!!
        Paul R ,,,, I am with you but are you kidding me ?
        Liberals haven’t been able to understand it for decades and with the decline of common sense on their part they certainly won’t understand it now………They continue to defend criminal behavior in one way or another, that it’ll be because of bad childhood , being poor or what ever they can think of to defend the aggressors but when it comes to a hard working law abiding citizens, forget it, we don’t have the right to defend ourselves or ours or our property, they have pushed it to the point of defending terrorists rights over ours, they really are a lost cause…………

  • jopa

    Robert Smith:Are you for real.You talk about this guy who couldn’t get his fix and shot himself in the head three times.I just cannot picture this to actually happen.This is one for Ripleys.

    • Robert Smith

      jopa asks: “Robert Smith:Are you for real.”

      Sure am. It seems you missed my point with the guy who went the suicide express with an automatic weapon.

      Suicide was the END STAGE of a chronic disease. Yes, for many addiction is a disease. It isn’t a matter of will, determination, or anything else. It is simply the way their brain is wired. It is difficult but possible to change that. Rarely does anyone do it alone.

      As a chronic disease there were many chances for others to see the problem and do something about it. Particularly in a close military unit it would be easy to see.

      So, why didn’t they do anything about it?

      I think they should take some of the blame for that kid going home in a box.

      I get the impression that you don’t want them to have any responsibility.


  • Earl, QUEENS, NY

    It is indeed sad that leftists and democraps will exploit tragedies like this as an excuse to lash out at the NRA and the 2nd Amendment, never mind the fact that even the most rigid gun laws will only hurt law-abiding Americans while doing nothing to stop crime. Also, now it appears Jared Loughner wasn’t the only nut job on the scene in Tucson 8 days ago. In today’s (Sunday, 1/16/2011) NY Daily News, we read of a 63 year old who was wounded in the shooting, and was taken into custody yesterday for psychiatric evaluation after making threats against a tea party leader who was obviously against gun control. Hmmmm!! Would this 63-year old moron be against the 2nd Amendment had an armed citizen stopped Loughner before he was wounded?? This 63-year-old sounds like another Jim Brady, whose wife Sarah wheels him around as they peddle drivel suggesting that tougher gun laws would prevent such tragedies. GET REAL!!!! As sad as it is, we know that John Hinckley committed the crime in the city (Washington DC) with America’s most rigid gun laws!! Also, there were no guns involved in the 2 worst mass killings in history – Oklahoma City in 1995, and the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks. As for the latter, had the flight crews and/or passengers been armed, the 9/11 tragedy could’ve been prevented and the WTC towers would be standing today!! And thousands of lives could’ve been saved if bullets had been used to stop the suicide terrorists!!

  • jopa

    Okay Paul and Mick lets ban the trucks but I don’t think it will pass in the senate.

    • Paul R

      You must be related to Loughner. Thanks for proving my point………

  • Dan az

    Doctors vs. Gun Owners
    >(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is
    >(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians
    >per year are
    >(C) Accidental deaths per physician
    > is 0.171
    >Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of
    >Health and Human
    >Now think about this:
    >(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S.
    >is 80,000,000.
    >(Yes, that’s
    >80 million)
    >(B) The number of accidental gun deaths
    >per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
    >(C) The number of accidental deaths
    >per gun owner is .0000188
    >Statistics courtesy of FBI
    >So, statistically,
    >doctors are approximately
    >9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
    >Remember, ‘Guns don’t kill people,
    > doctors do.’
    > HAS A GUN,
    >Almost everyone has at
    > least one doctor.
    >This means You are
    >over 9,000 times more
    >likely to be killed by a
    > doctor as by a gun owner!!!
    >Please alert your friends to
    >this alarming threat.
    >We must ban doctors
    >before this gets completely
    > out of hand!!!!!
    >Out of concern
    >for the public at large,
    >We withheld the
    > statistics on
    >for fear the shock would
    > cause people to panic
    >and seek medical attention!

  • James

    I would appreciate some comments to my January 14, 2011 at 4:20 PM entry – the state constitutional quotes. Thank you.

    • Bob Livingston

      Dear James,

      Perhaps if you explain your point or ask a question I could comment.

      Best wishes,

      • James

        Bob L.,Nearly everyone refers to the right to bear arms as their Seccond Amendment right. I have never seen anyone here cite their state’s constitution – for any reason – so I supplied the state constitutional provisions on arms rights to see how contributers would react to it. The sole purpose for the Second Amendment was to prevent the national government from infringing on the right. It is simply a part of the Bill of Rights restrictions the people and states placed upon their federal government. The right to bear arms is an unalienable right that isn’t dependent on any document for its existence. I thought citing state constitutional provisions would make that clear. Thank you.

        • Bob Livingston

          Dear James,

          You are correct.

          Best wishes,

          • James

            Bob L. Thank you.

  • Raggs

    Well… Let’s just or unjust.
    So who will draw the line?
    We can leave this up to obama the ass in which hates liberty or we can defend ourselves.
    I can rely on a complete idiot in the congress to make what they would call laws to our benefit, what a joke!

    99% of the sheeple do not understand how stupid that they are.
    Its a sad thing that this country relies on 1%.

  • Raggs

    barry is a fool of a man, a puppet of dirty strings.
    So how much more screwing do the sheeple need to figure that out?

    • http://gunner689 gunner689

      if someone offed Hillary, Rahm, and George Soros would anyone care? Would the country mourn or throw a party ?


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
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.