Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Point/Counterpoint: Your 2nd Amendment Rights

January 7, 2013 by  

Point/Counterpoint: Your 2nd Amendment Rights
UPI FILE

The other day, I received an opinion piece from one of our writers, Bailey O’Malia, that discussed the 2nd Amendment. In it, she made many of the same mistakes made by a lot of liberals, “progressives” or whatever they call themselves today to not sound bad.

I thought about how I wanted to post it and then realized I couldn’t let it go without weighing in on the issue.

Frankly, she was wrong. So I posted my response and created a point/counterpoint article. I want you to read her piece and mine and then get in on this argument. If you think she’s wrong, tell her.  If you think I’m wrong, tell me. We begin with O’Malia’s argument.

Point: The Right to Bear Arms — Within Reason

In the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, Americans and politicians have spent time reflecting on gun control.

We often hear that our Founding Fathers wrote our right to bear arms into the Constitution as a way to protect ourselves from harm — that they wanted us to have that right, even today.

But that’s not something I’m so sure about.

When the Founding Fathers wrote our Constitution, their idea of a weapon was a musket — not an automatic weapon. The gun they had in mind would be used for safety or for hunting.

With this in mind, I wonder what the fathers of our Nation would have said about civilians owning military-grade weapons that can shoot 100 rounds in a minute.

Surely, there is no need for a civilian to hold that kind of power in his hand. In fact, why should anyone have that much power over another human being? Do we really trust each other’s judgment?

I’ve been thinking about this for days, and I can’t come up with one good reason that a person would need anything more than a handgun or rifle for “safety.”

So when the discussion of changing the gun laws is brought up, I think: “What a perfectly simple solution; ban all automatic weapons.” This appeases Democrats because they will have made steps toward gun reform, and it appeases Republicans because they won’t be fully losing their right to bear arms. Do you consider shooting an automatic weapon a fun hobby? They could still be available to rent at a gun range.

But this is a compromise — a concept politicians and Americans are unfamiliar with these days.

If you’re pro-guns, at this point you’re probably saying: “But it’s my right, and they’re taking away all of our rights.”

But it’s also your right to feel safe in this country. And despite the theorists who say, “Arm every person in the country; that’ll scare ’em,” the lunatics who are shooting up movie theaters and schools don’t seem to place much value on their lives or the lives of others.

Before you start spouting your Founding Fathers crap, take a second to think about the core principle that this country was supposedly built on: freedom. I don’t know about you, but I don’t feel very “free” knowing that my neighbor could be housing an AK-47 in his garage.

–Bailey O’Malia

Counterpoint: The Reason for the Right to Bear Arms

As intelligent as I think Bailey is, she’s dead wrong here. I do feel safer knowing that my neighbor could be housing an AK-47 in his garage. Why? Because I know most of my neighbors are honest, hardworking people who aren’t nutcases looking to shoot up schoolchildren.

See, what happens when these terrible tragedies occur is the media blow things out of proportion to spread their leftist views. I generally don’t yell and point fingers about how biased they are; but this time, they really have showed their hand. Somewhere in the middle of all the hype about how access to guns was the issue here, we forget what the 2nd Amendment was really about.

When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights, they wanted to ensure that all people were equal — equal with each other and equal with the government. Yes, when this was all written, people had only muskets. But do you know who else had only muskets? The government.

We had just finished overthrowing a tyrannical government in order to become a free nation; and the Founders, who literally helped fight in that war, wanted the American people to have equal footing with whatever government took over, in order to prevent tyranny if necessary once again. These guys were smart; they weren’t thinking inside the box of their time. They were completely aware that technology would change, but they wanted Americans to be able to stand up for themselves. How does one do that? By having the same level of weaponry as the government!

The Constitution was written with revolution in mind, not the peace that we have internally had for about 150 years now. I say 150 years, because we fought ourselves with our armed militias in the Civil War; we have been lucky to have had internal peace since then. But you can’t closed-mindedly say that the 2nd Amendment was for limited weapons. It just wasn’t. It was meant to keep people on the same level as the government so that they could fight for their rights if necessary.

Sure, if my neighbors had rocket launchers, I think I’d be scared just because they could blow up my house. But if the Founders were still around, I think they’d be all right with it.

–Tim Young

Tim Young

is the Managing Editor at Absolute Rights and has been featured on Fox News, Forbes, and The London Daily Telegraph. You can see Tim's latest work by clicking here.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Point/Counterpoint: Your 2nd Amendment Rights”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • independent thinker

    You are exactly right Mr Young. The authors of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill Of Rights were well of how firearms had progressed from the first attempts to the most modern ones available to them. they would also have been well aware of the continued attempts at improving firearms. At the time of the American Revolution single shot muzzle loading firearms were the norm but there were people working on breech loading guns and guns capable of multiple shots without reloading. those Gentleman would certainly have expected continual improvement in firearms and as you said would want the private citizen to have the same small arms as the government. In fact I believe people were allowed to own cannons without restriction until the gun control act of 1934.

    • Gary

      Ditto…..we may be required to fight against a repressive State mandate enforced by a Governor issued and directed Executive Order. I want the same weapons they have to protect my Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness!

      • DAVE

        AMAN.

      • Gordon

        Bear with me. You will love this:
        (Bork was a Supreme Court Judge 1987>)

        Arkansas Democrat Gazette newspaper, Weds. Jan 2, ’13, Editorial page 4B, Column titled, “Robert Bork, Verb”, By Pulitzer Prize winning editor, Paul Greenberg….

        “…..Scholar and logician that Robert Bork was, he wound up making an idolatrous doctrine of ORIGINAL INTENT, insisting that the intent of the Founders is all when it comes to constitutional interpretation, which gave his law a brittle and vulnerable character. For a constitution that cannot change cannot grow. And all living things must grow or die.

        Judge Bork never recognized that the Constitution lives, too, and that his suffocating literalism would not save it so much as mummify it. (‘A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation’- Edmund Burke)……”

      • Leroy

        You folks evidently do not understand the subject on which you are trying to comment. You do not and will not have the same weapons the military has even when you are talking about an AR15 that was used in the recent shooting. That was not a fully automatic weapon such as the military weapon and is not capable of firing several hundred rounds per minute. The rifle you are discussing is the version that is manufactured for the general public and is nothing more than the common semiautomatic rifle used for sport shooting or hunting that is styled cosmetically to look like the military version. It is a one shot per pull of the trigger type rifle dressed up to look like the military version, nothing more, nothing less ,besides which, guns,knives,cannons, grenades, or even school buses do not kill people. People kill people.

      • MattN

        Gordon. Robert Bork never made it to the Supreme Court ( thanks to the liar Ted Kennedy). If you can’t get that part right, I doubt the rest of your blast is faultless either.

      • grannymae1

        I wish people would just but out of my rights ! If this person doesn’t want to have a gun then so be it, don’t buy one but get out of my right to have one of any kind I wish . I have all these do gooders telling me I can’t display this because it is offensive to them or I can’t own something else because they don’t see any good reason to them as to why I should have it. It is time to back off and leave the rest of us the H— alone ! People die every day from one thing or another but but you can’t rid society of every danger. Guns is the least of our problems right now, in the next four years you will come to realize exactly what I’m talking about and then people like this O’Malia person can cry us a river over her loss of her rights ! Hope it falls on deff ears. What an idiot !

    • http://yahoo.com Robert C. Whittaker

      It probably won’t make a difference since Obama does not believe in the Constitution but if I understand it correctly in ARTICLE. V. states that: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitutio, or on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; THE NEW LAWS REGULATION SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO CHANGED THE SECOND AMENDMENT BY A BILL ALONE. ARTICLE V SHOULD HAVE TO APPLY. What say you? Do you know?
      Banding certain designs, style, and shape of guns will do nothing regarding the number of fatalities from guns, as the appearance of a gun has nothjing to do with any death. The size of any magazine, “number of bullets” will have little effect on the number that will or that can be killed as it only takes 3 to 5 seconds to drop a magazxine and replace it with another. Gun free zones only keeps the honest permit conceal carry citizen out and gives protection to the crazy / criminal to do what he wants.

      • Kate8

        Robert C. – This has been my understanding, as well. Our rights cannot be infringed by the votes of Congress nor the stroke of the executive pen…

        And yet, we the people have become so ignorant of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, most of us would, no doubt, bow to either, as we have with all of the other infringements on our rights at their hands.

        It’s interesting that liberals, while feeling that we the people should be restricted (or even banned) concerning gun rights, have no problem whatsoever with government holding super high tech firepower and the usurped “authorization” to kill whomever they choose on the slightest whim.

        The truth is, we the people SHOULD have rocket launchers, tanks and even drones. Is the government to be more trusted with these things? How about nukes? Do any of you trust these clowns who’ve demonstrated nothing but contempt for the civilians of the world, including our own, and is totally blase about “collateral damage” when it comes to furthering their quest for unlimited power?

        I was thinking about the Amish, and how they are always heavily armed. They have near zero crime inside their confines, and would have no problem defending their own.

        The hard truth is, even gun registration is unlawful. No criminal registers his guns, and it is always the first step toward government control and confiscation. Government does not register their arms. We have no idea what kind, nor how many, really bad weapons they have which they can use against us (or anyone) without accountability.

        Time to get real, folks, and demand government stop putting themselves above the Law. There is only one word for that, and it’s TYRANNY.

      • Larry

        It has nothing to do with the House of Representatives or the Senate.
        The whole reason for these amendments were to restrict the Government from infringing on the rights of the citizens. Not for government allowing the Citizens to do anything. the ammendments are to prevent the government from doing these things.
        with the second amendment written as stated. what the arms are that ciizens own is what ever the individual deams they need to protect themselves from a repressive Government period. This has nothing to do with what the weapons are the size of the magazines or anything else. We the citizens need to bring this to a baseline fight, the government is prohibited from infinging on our rights to own guns, what ever they may be.
        that means 66% of the Citizens of the United States that is there is no way in this world you will get 66% of the 295 million citizens in the United States of America, the means they would have to have 194.7 million votes to change the 2nd Amendment.

      • NM Leon

        You are correct. Any part of the Constitution, includeing any ammendments can only legally be changed with an amendment. Of course if Congress allows a president to violate the Constitution, then it becomes a moot point.

        The mag change here is extremely fast, but 3-5 seconds would be exceptionally slow.
        http://www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=CAFxgQmxbGI

      • MacBeth51

        From the Heller decision:
        [I]t has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.
        The Supreme court has ruled that the right preceded the Constitution.

      • JC

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

      • http://www.facebook.com/della.creighton Della Creighton

        Agreed, And what I have been saying for a very long time the legislature has been changing the constitution with out amendments which from what I understand is not legal to the contract. And seemingly just plucking things out of thin air and saying they can. As I see they have no authority out side of the document and just because it dosen’t tell them they can’t dose mean they can. they are confined by the constitution and the enumerated powers only. Any laws they makeup out side of it are not laws at all. And again what part of shall not infringe do they not understand

        • Veteran

          The only way to stop them is to sue them in state or federal court (depending on the law) and then push until you get a decision! Remember, Heller had to go all the way to the US Supreme Court to validate the 2nd Amendment – a law that had stood for 224 years! And McDonald had to do it again in Chicago – and in both cases they are still fighting to get sensible solutions, since the offenders response was ridiculous.

          Our fight is continuing.

        • Jeff

          What part of “well-regulated” do you not understand? Who’s to do the regulating – you?

      • Mark

        Jeff asks, “What part of “regulated” don’ you understand? Who is doing the regulating?”

        Well, Jeff, The “regulating” is done by me, and anyone else who wants to be part of those who hold to their 2nd amendment rights. The purpose of the 10 amendments to the Constitution was not to LIMIT our rights, but to LIMIT THE GOVERNMENT’s power over those rights.

        This means that the Federal Government was not to oversee “A well regulated Militia….” A well regulated Militia was ASSUMED to be a right that the Federal government had no power to regulate.

        You see, that’s the purpose of amendments that you Liberals just don’t get: the Federal Government has no power to regulate or control freedom to speech, or freedom to own guns.

        • Jeff

          “This means that the Federal Government was not to oversee “A well regulated Militia….” A well regulated Militia was ASSUMED to be a right that the Federal government had no power to regulate.”

          That may be, but it appears clear the “regulating” was to be done by the States. And don’t tell me that in 1790 “regulate” had a different meaning. In the Commerce Clause, Congress is specifically given the power to “regulate” interstate commerce. It didn’t mean “runs like a watch” or such other nonsense.

          • Mark

            Mark: “This means that the Federal Government was not to oversee “A well regulated Militia….” A well regulated Militia was ASSUMED to be a right that the Federal government had no power to regulate.”

            Jeff: “That may be, but it appears clear the “regulating” was to be done by the States.”

            Actually, if you follow the conceptual framework of the US Constitution, you must recognize that the “…powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or the people.” Which means that this inherent right to arms was not to be regulated by the Federal Government, but left to the states to determine how to regulate, if at all.

            Jeff: “And don’t tell me that in 1790 “regulate” had a different meaning. In the Commerce Clause, Congress is specifically given the power to “regulate” interstate commerce. It didn’t mean “runs like a watch” or such other nonsense.”

            Liberals use “Commerce Clause” like the sugar that goes on top of a donut. It was never intended to regulate the 2nd amendment, and indeed, it is impossible that it could be used to do so.

          • Jeff

            “Jeff: “And don’t tell me that in 1790 “regulate” had a different meaning. In the Commerce Clause, Congress is specifically given the power to “regulate” interstate commerce. It didn’t mean “runs like a watch” or such other nonsense.”

            Liberals use “Commerce Clause” like the sugar that goes on top of a donut. It was never intended to regulate the 2nd amendment, and indeed, it is impossible that it could be used to do so.”

            I’ve come to expect a rather low level of reasoning from the denizens of these blogs, but really, can’t you follow a simple analogy? I was illustrating the meaning of the word “regulate.” The Commerce Clause, of course, has no bearing on interpretation of the 2nd Amendment except insofar as interstate commerce is involved (e.g. shipments across state lines).

          • Mark

            Jeff: “And don’t tell me that in 1790 “regulate” had a different meaning. In the Commerce Clause, Congress is specifically given the power to “regulate” interstate commerce. It didn’t mean “runs like a watch” or such other nonsense.”

            Mark: “Liberals use “Commerce Clause” like the sugar that goes on top of a donut. It was never intended to regulate the 2nd amendment, and indeed, it is impossible that it could be used to do so.”

            Jeff: “I’ve come to expect a rather low level of reasoning from the denizens of these blogs, but really, can’t you follow a simple analogy?

            Let me repeat: I said, “….if you follow the conceptual framework of the US Constitution, you must recognize that the “…powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or the people.” Which means that this inherent right to arms was not to be regulated by the Federal Government, but left to the states to determine how to regulate, if at all.”

            What part of that has got you confused? Can you not follow the back and forth of a debate? Do you need further clarification? Then ask for it, but don’t try this stupid tactic that I didn’t follow your line of questioning.

            Jeff: “I was illustrating the meaning of the word “regulate.” ”

            And this is going to help explain the 2nd amendment term for “regulate”? How? Since the 2nd amendment FORBIDS the Federal Government from regulating regarding the 2nd amendment, it has no power to do so.

            In the case of the 2nd amendment, “regulation” refers to the soveriegn actions of the state and/or its citizens. The amendment clearly states that such regulations are the actions of those entitites, and that the free exercise of the right to bear arms is necessarily dependent on the ability of those citizens to regulate their militia as they see fit and proper.

            What it boils down to is what you liberals keep on ineffectually trying to establish as the real intent of the amendment: that the right to bear arms was for self-protection, and not as a power against over-reaching and tyrannical government.

            Jeff: “The Commerce Clause, of course, has no bearing on interpretation of the 2nd Amendment except insofar as interstate commerce is involved (e.g. shipments across state lines).”

            I never said it had any bearing on interpreting the 2nd amendment.

          • dalek

            Mark, you know you can’t ask a liberal to use common sense right? lol I mean, they have to revise history to make things fit. They certainly can never understand the purpose behind the Constitution. It’s the reason they can’t grasp that the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting, self defense from crooks, or just target shooting. They can’t understand that the 2nd Amendment is about keeping the Government in its box. Liberals trust Government to take care of them from birth until death. What else can you expect?

            I been going back and forth with Jeff. When you prove he is wrong, he revises history. He even told me that the Democrats that were blocking the Civil Rights act were actually Republicans. Next, he’ll be saying we fought China for our independence. ROFL

            I have to admit, Jeff gives me quite a chuckle for someone who has no idea about this country. Makes me wonder if he is even American at all. lol

          • Mark

            dalek: “Mark, you know you can’t ask a liberal to use common sense right?”

            LOL Well, I know what you mean, but I always try to do the polite thing!

            dalek: “They can’t understand that the 2nd Amendment is about keeping the Government in its box. Liberals trust Government to take care of them from birth until death. What else can you expect?”

            You are absolutely correct. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

            dalek: “I been going back and forth with Jeff. When you prove he is wrong, he revises history. He even told me that the Democrats that were blocking the Civil Rights act were actually Republicans. Next, he’ll be saying we fought China for our independence. ROFL”

            Yes, i did see that exchange that you had with him. Interesting. But you are correct. One thing that Liberals love to do is to move the argument around by redefining the terms to suit what it is that they are stating, and then bashing you because you’re too ignorant to understand that they redefined everything!!! LOL

            dalek: “I have to admit, Jeff gives me quite a chuckle for someone who has no idea about this country. Makes me wonder if he is even American at all. lol”

            They think the same way that Piers Morgan and others from Great Britain do. They are outside of the Constitution, and don’t really comprehend the purpose of the Constitution other than to guarantee specific freedoms TO THE GOVERNMENT.

          • dalek

            Liberals always think they can trust Government with everything but don’t want to look at history and what Governments do to people who can’t defend themselves from that Government. That don’t want to think about the fact that if the Founders of this country were unarmed, we would never have been a country. We would have been a colony of Great Britain or any other country that could have took us. After all, they only had to show up armed and they could have taken anything they wanted.

            Some people, never learn. They just keep repeating mistakes. Me, I’m waiting for the reset.

          • Jeff

            Dalek:

            I had no idea how idiotic a person I was communicating with. There is no one who was alive at the time who does not know that the Southern Democrats were democrats because the Republicans were the Party of Lincoln. Everyone knows they were racist A*Holes who opposed not only civil rights bills but even anti-lynching bills for years. Everyone also knows that those same racist A*Holes all became Republicans within a few years of the Civil Rights Act passing in 1964. If the Act passed because of Republicans, how do you explain that shift?

            To equate the Southern Democrats of the 60s and before with the modern Democratic Party is the height of intellectual dishonesty. If you think you’ve somehow “bested” me or anyone else because George Wallace was nominally a Democrat, have a good time laughing in your beer with the other fossils.

          • dalek

            I’m not the idiot. Go check your mirror. The only change the Democrats have made is to move further to the left. The only rights they want is to control everything and everybody. You proved that in your other post.

        • Zenphamy

          Good one Mark. Read my response to Jeff. We need to talk more and try to gather others into a sensible and realistic conversation. Jeff will never get it, or maybe he does and is one of those citizens that wish to tell the rest of us how to live.

      • Donald

        What you post is correct, for adding Admendments, BUT TO NEVER CHANGE the Bill of Rights or Original Constitution. It States in the Constitution, that “We The People” are to band toghether and overthrow any Tyrannical Government that might somehow gain controll of America!

      • http://www.facebook.com/dave.avitts Dave Avitts

        Read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. It states that these rights can not be touched by the Federal government. The preamble states that the first ten amendments are a list of restrictions on government powers. These rights exist outside of the Constitution and are not dependent on it. Even if the Constitution is amended to remove any of the first ten amendments, it won’t change a thing because they are natural rights held by all granted by the Creator.
        In short, the Feds do not have the right or the power to infringe on, or restrict, or regulate or revoke any of the rights contained in the Bill of Rights.

        • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

          Absolutely correct.

          They are inalienable (unalienable) which is a term that exists (same meaning) today, and the framers got their meaning – which is still the same – from William Blackstone (in his “Commentaries on the Laws of England”), defined unalienable rights – “Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and therefore called natural rights, such as life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture.”

          Definitons today: inalienable rights: “a right according to natural law, a right that cannot be taken away, denied, or transferred”
          Unalienable, inalienable: “Inalienable and unalienable are interchangeable for “unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.” “incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another” ; “Not capable of being violated or infringed”.

          • dalek

            Kansas Bright,

            I ran across this article. Especially the part about the courts ruling posted below. Thoughts?

            “We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State’s officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed. It is so ordered.”

          • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

            That finding was / is true.

            The only way it would not be true is if within that state’s Constitution that they agreed to abide by the federal jusrisdiction. Again, all federal laws, bills, programs, etc MUST be in “pursuance thereof” (follow) the US Constitution to be lawful. So far all state Constitutions that I have read (and I have NOT read all of them, only 15) they follow the US Constitution as the Supreme law of this land and NOT the federal government.

            There are many that are not, that are being enforced because the enforcers do NOT understand the Oath they took (hopefully misunderstanding) or are actively working to destroy our legitimate government. Either way, they are made into criminals for enforcing an unlawful law, act, bill, program, etc.

            Quick note, you would be surprised at how many governors, state AJ’s, etc are not following their state constitutions. That are actually enforcing laws that go against their state constitutions and their lawfully required state oaths (California is one – no surprise there).

            Hope this helps.

          • dalek

            Sorry Kansas, I forgot to put in the link or it didn’t take it for some reason.

            http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/02/03/sheriffs-states-and-the-supreme-court/

            That was my thinking too. It seems the Founders were trying to keep the power with the people at every turn. People just refuse to see it.

        • Jeff

          Nothing in the Bill of Rights is either self-evident nor self-enforcing. Every other such Amendment requires the Courts to interpret the limitations of the rights so enshrined. Even the 1st Amendment has limits (e.g. child pornography; inciting violence). The 4th Amendment requires constant revision to keep up with technology so that police know when they need a search warrant, what searches are reasonable, etc. The 5th Amendment’s guarantee of due process is constantly being reinterpreted to fit new situations. The 6th and 7th Amendments guarantee trial by jury but even they have limits. The 8th Amendment is applied very differently today from the way George Washington may have envisioned it.

          So why is the 2nd Amendment unique? Why is there not a rule of reasonableness in its interpretation? Why does the Constitution suddenly become a suicide pact when dealing with the issue of guns?

          It doesn’t. The Supreme has recently decided the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to a gun. As conservative as that decision is, it is a long, long way from the position of the gun people on this blog who seem to think it guarantees them the right to an arsenal that can compete with the Army. Even Justice Scalia, probably the most conservative member of the most conservative Supreme Court in 100 years, wouldn’t go that far. Even he will recognize a rule of reason. I have heard him speculate the limit may be what a person can carry “in his arms.”

          I’m constantly amused when the gun nuts jump all over me for saying the Constitution is subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court. They come up with a quote from 1820 and act like it invalidates over 200 years of jurisprudence. To you, the 2nd Amendment may “obviously” guarantee your right to your own machine gun, drone, and A-Bomb, but to the rest of us, it’s not so clear.

          • dalek

            Jeff, as I have told you before, the Supreme Court is not as final as you claim. The States created the Federal Government and they can reign it in if needed. Some States are starting to do that. Here is a little info and a link for you:

            [quote]

            Jefferson warned of a supreme court with such a power:

            “…To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…and their power is more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruption of time and party, its members would become despots….”

            [/quote]

            So, as you can see, especially if you read the article and other information there, the States can dispute the Supreme Court and what the States say is truly final in the legal sense. However, as I and others have pointed out MANY times, the people have to final say. Ultimately it is “we the people” that ALLOW the Government to exist not the other way around.

            I know already you will learn nothing from this but you can only plead stupid, not ignorant. Me and others are trying our best to get you to learn.

          • Jeff

            I know you’ve said that before and in theory that may be the case. But in the real world the Supreme Court decides what the Constitution means. Other than voting for a President who will appoint Justices with whom you agree, there’s not a lot you can do to “reign in” the Court. But then, you’re probably talking about extra-legal measures like Plan AR-15. That stuff I leave to the experts on this blog.

          • dalek

            Jeff, it is not theory. It is the foundation of this country and it is FACT. Where do you think the Federal Government came from? Thin air maybe? It just appeared one day out of nothing. No, it came from the States and the people. If the Federal Government keeps going, States will start passing nullification laws as some already has for NDAA and other Federal laws too. Then the Federal Government will be forced to pay attention. If it doesn’t, then the people can force it to pay attention just like was done back in the 1700′s and Great Britain. A Government is a Government. Period.

            [quote]

            Jefferson wrote:

            “Resolved, That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government . . . . and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force. . . . that the government created by this compact [the Constitution for the United States] was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; . . . . that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; . . . and that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorised by the Constitution, shall be exercised within their respective territories.”

            In effect, Jefferson believed that states should reject, or nullify, unconstitutional federal laws through state legislative declaration; and deny federal authority of enforcement within their state boundaries.

            [/quote]

            http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/01/29/state-governments-check-federal-power/

            Jeff, ask yourself this. If the States MUST follow Federal laws, how come so many states are passing laws legalizing pot? The reason is, States can nullify Federal laws. They certainly can if it is unconstitutional.

            Kansas, you may enjoy that link too. I’m sure Jeff won’t tho. lol

          • Jeff

            I think your site (hardly impartial, BTW) conflates Acts of Congress with Constitutional protections. I tend to agree that many provisions of the NDAA violate basic concepts of due process guaranteed by the 5th and 14th Amendments and it probably violates other Constitutional protections as well (8th Amendment?). So, the first way a state can fight this is through a lawsuit in federal court. Since federal courts do not render advisory opinions, we may have to wait for a future Government to overstep before a Court will hear such a case.

            Marijuana laws are a different matter. We have concurrent federal and state jurisdiction, so we reach the anomalous conclusion that something can be legal under State law and still illegal under federal law. This situation cannot endure, and I predict the feds will soon back off and specifically allow states exclusive jurisdiction over marijuana. The feds can maintain their own laws on trafficking, etc. but they’ll have to carve out space for people to act in accordance with state law.

            The areas we’re talking about are different as they’re either matters of federal law or areas where federal law pre-empts state law. “Nullification” is a term generally reserved for juries that just don’t want to convict someone. To broaden the term to include State legislatures that want to legislate in federal waters (e.g. immigration) is to stretch the term beyond what is sensible. A jury has the power to find someone not guilty as a matter of fact regardless what the evidence shows. As a matter of law, a state legislature cannot make its own immigration policy.

          • dalek

            Jeff, once again, you missed the whole point. Maybe this link will help. I’m tired of typing so you can go read for yourself.

            http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/james-madison-rebukes-nullification-deniers/

            Good luck.

          • Jeff

            “What are the Two Conditions Precedent for Nullification?
            The deniers seem unaware of the two conditions our Framers saw must be present before nullification is proper and possible. These conditions are important – you will see why!:
            The act of the federal government must be unconstitutional – usually a usurpation of a power not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution; and
            The act must be something The States or The People can “nullify”- i.e., refuse to obey: the act must order them to do something or not do something.”

            I understand. But this all presupposes a clearly unconstitutional act or directive. An assault weapon ban, if upheld by the Supreme Court, would not be unconstitutional except on this website and in your militia courts. Don’t worry. It won’t happen since the gun manufacturers’ lobby seems to own Congress, but were a sane bill to pass that you considered unconstitutional, your “nullification” would constitute open rebellion and you’d end up in federal prison.

    • wandamurline

      I elieve the American public has been pretty permissive as they have allowed the government to make you do a background check before purchase and they get a permit to purchase and a permit to carry. You are correct, if you read the Declaration of Independence, it states gives us permission to overthrow a tyranical government, it goes even further to state that it is our DUTY to do so. Our forefathers saw the government we now have in our future and they gave us the right to bear arms lest we needed to forma a militia. I can tell you right now that there are 3.5million+ gun owners in the United States, and as one I will not give up my guns, pistols or semi-automatics (don’t have any right now, but thinking about purchasing one) to this government. Diane Feinstein can stick it …. I will not conform to any more gun control and I believe that I speak for millions of like minded citizens. Enough is enough. David Gregory and BO state that armed guards in the schools are not what is needed, but both of them send their kids to a private school that has not one but eleven (11) armed guards. Diane Feinstein used to carry to protect herself before she stole American’s money to the point she now has a body guard …. the same holds true for Harry Reid…they are both on tape stating that they were permitted carriers to protect themselves. You see, they want their pansy @zzes protected, but they don’t think us “endentured servants” deserve the same rights. They can all go to H##l.

      • Larry K.

        my words exactly. i value my life and the lives of my family as much as the crooks in washington. if they don’t want us to have guns to protect our selves and our families then they sure as he** don’t need them either. our children are worth as much and loved as their’s and they don’t have body guards.

      • Kate8

        Totally agree. We should all be sick of them holding themselves to a different standard. And this goes for everything they foist on us while exempting themselves.

        We all know what those things are.

        And btw, this includes granting themselves regular pay raises while crashing our economy and receiving millions in corporate bribes and other illegal (and immoral) activities.

        We can never fix this mess without cutting off their sources of money. It seems that every politician can be bought. Sooner or later it has to cause them at least a few moments of consideration, one would think.

        Then again, maybe not.

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

        Comes down to one thing sure. I can load my gun and until a human picks it up it is harmless. People kill, not guns. The marxist left has really been winning all along, with every feel good idea they have we lose more rights with the idea that we are free? Distruction of the Family, no father in the home, easy divorce for no real good reason, kill babies with no problem but, we can’t figure out why humans kill other humans? Kicked God out of schools and evil was waiting at the door to take his place. That is also a problem, everyone doing what they feel good doing, well some evil people believe they have a right to kill others because they have become little gods in their own evil minds. Can I trust a government that want’s to unarm me but have every weapon known to man? Hitler got away with it, and the fabian socialist have been doing it for years. Destroy the family and the marxist school system takes over for the parent and since socialist run that system, why are we shocked? Why do homosexuals want to be able to tell kids about their life style, get them young and train them to do what you want, same sex marriage isn’t even really possible yet they want to call it that, what next a man and his dog? Convince people there is no God, then no judgement and do what ever you want, that is the reason they fight anything to do with Christmax, churches and the ten commandments anywhere someone can read them and think, if people don’t wake up the same gun control people will have you imprisoned for praying, using the name Jesus or anything else they hate.

      • http://www.facebook.com/andrea.groom.31 Andrea Groom

        I am still waiting for my gun permit to be issued in NJ. As an unarmed potential victim I can only offer verbal support – which I am. I would also like to see more women step up on this issue – it’s a woman’s world, too! Write our “representatives” Chris Smith, Frank Lautenburg and Bob Menendez and tell them we are not giving up our country without a fight. I am not a criminal and will not be treated as one! Good people of this country need to start speaking out!

        • Veteran

          Andrea, you are so right! Unlike yourself, most people don’t realize this is not an issue for just white men or hunters or target shooters – it is truly a Women’s and Minorities’ issue!

          Look at the most vulnerable people in today’s society – single women, single mothers, the elderly, minority populations and the poorer among us. The police don’t pay any special attention to the needs of these people – in fact, it’s just the opposite. The wealthy and upper middle class neighborhoods get the best protection and quickest response while the rest are truly left to fend for themselves. Police response times may be five to ten times longer and in these cases, ‘when seconds count, the police may only be 10-15 minutes away’.

          The women we see in the news calling for very strict gun control are mainly the lberal women who have the time to make the news and protest, not those who have to work and truly care for their families. But the ones who understand their vulnerability and want to take responsibility for themselves and their families are ignored and may be stopped from protecting them by the legislators reacting to the noise – and NOT approaching the situation logically. And think of the elderly who are some of the most vulnerable and easily targeted by the felons.

          I personally have helped five single women who work for a company which doesn’t allow concealed carry on the premises, and these women have to travel daily by MetroNorth train and live in a poorer section of Bridgeport, CT. They were apprehensive going to and from work daily, but now they are confident, and have been trained to be much more observant and cautious. And I now have three new and eager students; one minority and one elderly couple.

          Please pass on the concern to every single woman you know – get into the ‘discussion’ and let your legislators know just how you feel.

          • Jeff

            A woman who lives in a house with a gun is something like 12 times as likely to be killed by domestic violence as a woman who lives in a home without a gun.

          • http://carlwk3c carlwk3c

            Actually, Jeff, that is a lie. You must have gotten it from the Brady website or one of the other fact-challenged rabidly anti-gun groups.
            The REAL facts, from government crime data, show that a woman who defends herself (fights back) is more than 4.5 times LESS likely to be killed, raped, or seriously injured than one who doesn’t fight back, and that a handgun is the most effective means of fighting back when faced with an attacker.
            You REALLY should read Lott’s work … The book “More Guns, Less Crime” iss rather long because it’s packed with so much data and actual facts, by put there’s a paper available for those who care to use actual facts about mass shootings (the current thing that’s being used as an excuse for more violations of our rights)

            http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=161637

          • Veteran

            Jeff, don’t make that statement unless you can back it up with facts – cite your evidence, which means give me your data source, like FBI stats (it’s not there!) or national studies conducted by independent researchers.

            Remember, your domestic violence automatically assumes that there are two adults in the household, and that the male owns the gun.. I was talking about single women – so again, cite your evidence!

      • jopa

        JC;Are you just making this supposed quote by Hitler up and if not where did he write or make this speech?No proof, I didn’t think so.Would like to see facts not fiction.

      • http://www.facebook.com/della.creighton Della Creighton

        Agreed I will not give up mine or any of my rights and I will continue to tell them everytime they do and I use the same term I do not give you my consent and I willnot compywith any laws created out side of your authority.

    • Capitalist at Birth

      Ditto, ditto, ditto, ditto, and ditto until the end of time. I want a tank, hand held SAM,, hand held RPG, fully automatic, and anything that the government has, I should have too. If you trust the government, you are a fool.

    • Bill

      When guns are taken away from honest citizens, then crime will soar. That will be a disaster for the weak; women and seniors. The only equalizer thay have is a good firearm.

    • Texas Ride

      Absolutely,, I can’t image the founding fathers thinking we should only be allowed “single shot muskets” when tyrants will have automatic weapons so they can “mow down their opposition.” Americans have the right to own firepower they want to protect themselves.
      I didn’t see a list of banned weapons in the Constitution. I believe it says “arms.” That is all inclusive.

      Shooting incidents have nothing to do with our right to bear arms!
      We all know that government wants its citizenry “unarmed.” Governments are always afraid of citizens that are allowed weapons, and there is a reason for that. So,never compromise on the right of gun-ownership. Our Constitution was written with revolution and the dispatching of dictators, in mind. They knew it would be inevitable that Americans would have to fight tyranny to keep their freedom.

      • Kate8

        Considering that these shootings are actually CIA operations, it seems, it shows all the more reason why the people MUST be even more heavily armed than we are now.

        Good grief. Think about it. Governments are the biggest mass murderers of all time. In fact, it’s not just guns. They have multiple genocidal operations going on ALL THE TIME.

      • http://gravatar.com/cbgard Carlucci
      • Kate8

        Carlucci – This is really chilling. The mentally disabled were among the first targeted for elimination by Stalin, Lenin, Hitler…

        I have worked with the mentally impaired, and some of them speak of things being done to them by ???? They were always thought to be just delusional….but are they? They are then drugged into compliance and apathy…

        BTW, did you see any of the articles about them using Adam Lanza to isolate an “evil gene”? This is really scary, as you can see where this is heading…

      • eddie47d

        Balderdash Kate 8! Spreading more conspiracy nonsense that you can’t prove. You want it to be true so badly that you keep telling others it is.Why don’t you use you mind for good instead of evil intentions and yes unproven rumors is evil!

      • TheTruthHurts

        Carlucci & co. While the medical community has not completely eradicated disease (mental or physical) they have been making great strides towards treating them effectivly, albeit not wholly. What would you say if a personal that is mentally deranged (intentionally not using APA DSM 4 diagnoses for this example) did those shootings & they were unmedicated? Would there not be an outcry about how that person was able to commit this act? It would be very illogical to allow people with mental disorders To purchase/own guns; I for one have seen people with mental disorders attack others, unprovoked. They (some, not all) have no psychological restraints to check their actions and thus their outcomes
        Do we stop giving people antibiotics because there is a possibility of developing resistance? Could these folks just developed a resistance to the drugs? Or perhaps misdiagnosed or medicated?

      • Kate8

        Truth – The problem with that argument is that it is based on a false premise from the get-go.

        But then, that’s a discussion for another time.

    • Charles Ashby

      There was one error both you and your writer made. Yes the government had muskets, smooth bore wepons, but a lot of the people who used their own wepons had rifles which ha groves in the bore. So in this case the people had better wepons than the government.

      • Joe Di Pietro

        Smoothbore and rifled muskets–rifling was developed by Enfield for the Union Armies during the Civil War–citizens later had them as a result of engaging in the Civil War…

      • CZ52

        Joe Di Pietro You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Rifling was in use long before the war of northern aggresion. While the military used the smooth bore musket as its primary arm during the Revolution many of not almost all private arms used were rifles. Also, Enfield was a British rifle and the use of rifling in it was developed for the use of the British. It just happened to be a commonly imported rifle by both the north and the South.

        • Veteran

          Sorry, but MOST of the Enfields used by the British in “the colonies’ in our Revolutionary war were the smooth-bore type as the majority of rifled Enfields were sent to other areas of conflict. The rifled guns were issued first to the more elite regiments, and there were very few of them in the Americas.

          It is correct that the majority of the “Kentucky” and “Pennsylvania” long guns (which are virtually the same firearm) were rifled, and since many of the colonists used them daily for survival and at smaller targets, the colonists were much better marksmen than even the professional British army soldiers. Thank goodness.

    • Sheepdog on patrol

      I totally agree. The 2nd amendment is about Revolution…..the ability of the people to defend themselves against the sort of government that, even as I write this post, wants to disarm us all. And, their agenda and their methods are exactly the same as Adolph Hitler’s. First, ban all semi-automatic weapons, initiate mandatory registration of individuals who now posess these kinds of weapons, then pass another law making it illegal to own such weapons and demand surrender of such weapons or face criminal charges for posession of such weapons. THAT is exactly how it will go down unless we stand up to them right now and let them know that their actions will start a revolution in this country. This is what our founding fathers had foreseen and this is why they wrote the 2nd amendment into our bill of rights. Why is it that every time a progressive liberal talks about gun control they talk about guns for duck hunting or deer hunting? Of course I have guns for duck hunting and guns for deer hunting but I also have guns for TYRANT hunting. That is the right that the 2nd amendment guarantees me and if you are too stupid to understand this simple fact, then you are too stupid to vote and definitely too stupid to be one of my elected officials. We now have a multitude of traitors in political offices throughout our country. Politicians who have attacked our Bill of Rights, circumvented our Constitution with outrageous and illegal laws and executive orders and mainly our Constitution’s second amendment and have marched in lockstep with this administration. Surely they must know they will have a day of reckoning.

      • Bubbie

        Not to take away from the main point of this discussion, the 2nd Amendment, but with all the talk about the intellectual brainpower, or lack there of,of our elected officials…it makes me wonder how many freedom loving individuals helped to put them back into those positions where they do nothing positive for the mass population. I know that everyone I voted for did not get elected…but some portion of our population had to have voted for those Constitutional violators…and to those who voted to retain this level of incompetency I would like to remind them that they got what they voted for. So, when is the revolution and where do I report??

    • Jane

      Amen from here too. The liberal leaning argument makes absolutely no sense to me.

    • Scott

      When our fore farthers wrote the 2nd amendment they did it with twi things in mind, First that each state is to have a milicia, and second that people had the right to keep and bear arms without being infringed. The 2nd amendment is the only one that says ” without being inringed upon”. As we all know, it is the infringed amendment in the constitution. The reason for this amendment is clear, “so that the individual person could protect him/herself from those with there own weapons.
      So with that in mind, do the bad guys out there play nice and assoult us the public with only a .22 rifle? NO, they USE WHATEVER they can get there hands on, Including rapid firing weapons. Should “we” have the right to defend ourselfs against that? YES
      Now think about this, what kills more people, adult and children then anything else that we have? IT’S NOT GUNS! It’s the CAR. Shouldn’t they be demonized more then the gun?

      • Kate8

        True, Scott.

        And yet, how many gun owners have duly registered their weapons? I dare say, nearly all of them?

        Having to register weapons is unlawful. That one act is submission to government control of this right.

        Criminals do not register guns. They are usually stolen. And they are only discovered when they use them in crimes. That should tell us something.

        The 2nd Amendment is the only authorization we need to bear arms. Whatever kind we can acquire. This is not up to the government to allow or disallow. It is our God-given right to secure our safety from the government.

        This would seem to be self-evident.

      • eddie47d

        If what Scott says is true and since cars are highly taxes and registered then why wouldn’t any other inanimate object be taxed and registered? A car only provides transportation and a gun is bought with the potential to kill. Then a weapon should be registered at a higher rate and with more restrictions. There is no free ride in owning a gun and a greater burden should be placed on them.

      • Kate8

        Actually, eddie, exactly the same goes for cars and any other thing. They are regulated by statute, not by Constitutional Law, except by the states. There is no Constitutional requirement for even a driver’s license.

        However, the 2nd Amendment does Constitutionally declare and acknowledge the Right to bear arms which CANNOT be infringed. The right to drive a car is not spelled out, is it?

        What part of CANNOT BE INFRINGED do you not understand?

      • Kate8

        Oh, and btw, the government’s power is strictly limited by enumerated powers, beyond which it has NO AUTHORITY. This means, if it’s not spelled out, they ARE NOT TO DO IT.

      • eddie47d

        The Founding Fathers wrote the laws and were the government. The government can write laws and change them if needed, (by vote) If something doesn’t serve its purpose as originally written it can indeed be infringed upon to make it right. Since I think the far right has hijacked the 2nd then they may be the ones infringing upon it.

      • phideaux

        “The right to drive a car is not spelled out, is it?’

        Nor is the right to own, posess, or use any other form of transportation such as buggy, wagon, or horse.

      • Kate8

        Rights do not have to be spelled out for us to have them. They are natural rights, and fall under the “pursuit of happiness”.

        It is government which was strictly limited, not us. And it is government which continually attempts to deceive the foolish in its voracious quest for greater power.

        I don’t recall the one who said this…I think it was one of our founders:

        NO MAN HAS THE RIGHT TO CLAIM AUTHORITY OVER ANOTHER.

        That pretty much says it all. Too bad a lot of people just don’t get it.

      • dalek

        @eddie47d, so what you are saying is that they can pass laws that violate the Constitution. You are wrong. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any law that violates the Constitution is unconstitutional. Your thinking is seriously flawed. You need to rethink your thinking and make serious corrections.

      • eddie47d

        DALEK; Nothing wrong with my thinking and I will stand by what I said!

      • JC

        eddie47d says:

        January 7, 2013 at 4:33 pm

        The Founding Fathers wrote the laws and were the government. The government can write laws and change them if needed, (by vote) If something doesn’t serve its purpose as originally written it can indeed be infringed upon to make it right. Since I think the far right has hijacked the 2nd then they may be the ones infringing upon it.
        _______________________________________________________________________

        Wow! Sinse you “think” the “far right” has hijacked the Second Amendment?
        How is that even possible? The Amendment is what it is…
        The freedom, right and duty to arm ourselves in order to preserve liberty and freedom.
        Dalek’s right. You’re thinking isn’t just flawed…it’s completely unhinged.

        • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

          “The government can write laws and change them if needed”

          You are incorrect. All laws, bills treaties, etc are REQUIRED to be “in pursuance thereof” the US Constituton.

          Clause 2 of Article VI of the Constitution: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

          The Bill of Rights – none of the three branches were ever given a power to touch:
          Most, but not all, governments were established by a King, dictator, or ruling class which laid edicts upon its subjects and promised them protection for which taxes and other homage was paid, and all law came from that source. Whatever laws were created was done so at the pleasure of the ruler and without concern for their subjects.

          Here we established that God, our creator, by the very act of our creation, instilled upon us our rights (natural rights); and those rights are NOT granted by any government. Our government was to be created by the people, drawing its power from the people solely for the purpose of protecting those rights. As soon as the government turns to make unjust demands upon the people, or usurp power where it is not entitled, it is the right of the people to correct, or to abolish that government and start anew.

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

      video http://youtu.be/gS4QZC3rVdU
      Some brave soul had the courage to put this petition on the Whitehouse website. He should get a medal in my book.

      Petition is here:
      https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet…e-awb/sdKKkKJ5

      “WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:
      Impeach Sen. Diane Feinstein for violating her oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, re: AWB
      Sen. Diane Feinstein has announced that she will be introducing new gun legislation in Jan 2013. The proposals of this legislation are in direct contradiction to both the spirit and letter of the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Her blatant disregard for the rights of citizens, and willingness to make criminals of a large number of law abiding gun owners, needs to be addressed…”

      This would have a great effect on the other traitors in congress who spit on the constitution….and our president too. Almost none of them follow it. If they won’t keep their oath they shouldn’t be in office. I am not being represented….are you?

      Agree?

      Or do you think the constitution is just a g_d_ piece of paper like GW Bush did? Mr Obama doesn’t respect it much either. Nor did Mitt Romney. Chances are your congressman doesn’t either. We get the govt. we deserve don’t we?

      The NEW AMERICAN FREEDOM INDEX scores all congressmen and senators on how often they vote WITH the constitution. People should check that before they vote in 2014. Google it and you can download a pdf of it and check to see how your representative is sticking to it….or not. You will probably receive a shock on how LOW the scores of most are. Rand Paul at 93% but his dad was 100%. Not too many with high scores sadly….they need to go away.

    • skip

      o’mailia’s premise is totally wrong from the get-go… she has NO idea what she’s talking about… her point re weapons that’re automatic and shoot a hundred rounds in a minute, is totally wrong… automatic weapons were banned like 80 or so years ago and no one has these, legally, without permission from the ATF… and, if some crazy had one semi auto pistol with 10 mags containing 10 rounds, what’s to stop h/er from doing tons of damage, except someone with like capability… mags can be exchanged in seconds… gun free zones are a criminal’s/crazie’s candy… also, someone should get all the surviving victims and non surviving victims families, etc., together, and SUE all those who have been instrumental in the establishment of ‘gun free zones’… that should put a crimp in their style… these people are the proximate cause of all the injuries/deaths in these zones and should not get away with it… consideration should also be given to criminally prosecuting them as accessories before, during and after the fact of murder, etc…

      • eddie47d

        No her reasoning is not wrong there Skip. You need to come up with a different premise than just arming schools. At Columbine they had two police officers (yes that’s 2) yet Harris and Klebold lugged several pieces of equipment in to the school to commit their deed. Now I’m sure you will do your best to arm these schools and allow the taxpayer to foot the bill. Right! With your thinking then I say citizens should sue every gun dealer for arming our sick society.

      • Chuck S

        I believe that one of the policemen at Columbine was in the parking lot and the other was making a nearby traffic stop. I don’t think either was in the building.

        On another subject, Baily shows somewhat typical liberal media ignorance in not knowing what an automatic weapon is. Or not knowing that automatic weapons have been virtually banned for decades. An automatic continually shoots bullets as long as you’re holding the trigger back – like a machine gun. A semi-automatic shoots 1 bullet every time you pull the trigger and automatically loads the next bullet. Somebody posted to a chat room that 85% of guns sold are semi-automatic. And revolvers are sort of semi-automatic.

        I hate to improve her point, but i found that I could shoot about 4 bullets per second with a semi-auto, which is about 240/minute EXCEPT for reload time. An automatic fires at it’s own speed, but I think an M-16 will fire 600/minute (10/second) or so.

    • Jan Ferraro

      This is not just to “independent thinker” but to everyone.. We keep discussing guns as being the problem, but I read an article recently that gave facts and figures on how many of the shooters in recent years were either on phycho drugs or had just come off those drugs. We are using drugs to deal with challenges with our kids instead of working on the problems. Not every high energy child needs Ritalin or some similiar drug, not every tough time in our lives has to be dealt with with mind altering drugs. We really do need to wake up and smell the coffee burning and it isn’t gun powder that I’m smelling,

      • Chuck S

        The person controls the weapon, but the drug may be controlling the person. I heard a talk show host say that he did research a few years ago and found that 18 out of 18 shootings he looked at involved physiological drugs. I remember thagt the Columbine scumbags (I don’t want to use their names) used them.

    • http://yahoo.com Ron

      The Authors of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, must have known weaponry would change through out the future of this Country! They Must have, they saw changes while they were fighting the Indians (better known as Native Americans) and fighting the British (better known as the “Tax To Death” of the good people). And yes, most assuredly I would feel MUCH safer with knowning my neighbor had an AK-47 in his garage, although I would wish he would keep it closer to his vest! The garage is to far away for any real good it will do. I don’t envy many people in this World, but I envy him! What people forget is the TRUE meaning in the Constitution, the right to bear arms is many fold, to hunt, to protect ones self and family, and to do away with a Government who infringes on the Rights of the people it governs. Tyranny and taxation without representation are just a few GOOD reasons to have weapons of any catagory. The hysteria formed by the media is wrong! The real issue in this Country is Government medleing in private people’s lives, a.k.a. can’t spank a child, can’t have a statue of a little child that changed the world because some atheist dumb ass said so.etc. My Dad spanked me growing up when I did something bad, this is not child abuse, it is direction. And I grew up to love life, have a great marriage and family, served two tours in Combat in Viet Nam, was wounded, came home, and worked the best that I could, paying the bills I made with out handout from anyone, yeah I did OK and I thank my Dad for keeping me focused. I am buying a “wanna be, look-a-like assault rifle” before I can’t. Anyone with a Combat background will tell you, “that an AR-15 is NOT an M16-A1 or M-4 Military Assault rifle. They don’t really look alike, act alike, or feel alike. People should get their heads out of the purverbial ass and know what they are talking about before inserting their foot. It doesn’t taste good and not becoming to you at your next attempt at taking away someone elses rights! You can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time! Maybe it is time for your writer to retire, without pay, no health insurance, these things would be more worth her time to pursue! If your writer doesn’t like the way this Country gives right to the people, the I will buy her a ticket to IRAN! I will pay for her to fly First Class, because it will be the last time she has rights, freedom, pray the way she wants, vote, work where she wants, dressing like a “well I’ll be kind”! If she sneezes the wrong way, off with her head, and as Mr. Walter Cronkite use to say, “And thats the way it is!”

    • Leroy

      There are means for change ,but there are also established guidelines for that. Any way who is Robert Burke. All he can do is offer his opinion and opinions are like A@&les everybody has one and they are worth as much as his.

    • Billy Hill

      My neighbors on either side are postal workers,the weapons they have include the AR type.As most in my quiet country neighborhood,they are well armed.Does it bother me?No,because most are trained by years in the military.Am I worried they might “go postal”.No,but those who attempt to confiscate our weapons should be worried,most of them will leave in a box

    • DS

      Ok, people. Do some research. You will find that the “laws” that the Government puts out there, only actually apply to *Government* employees and those that live inside the District of Columbia. Not a single statute (they are not laws, they are statutes) applies to a human being. Only to those that work for the Government or live inside DC. This applies to IRS, and literally millions of “laws” they want us to think we have to abide by. Truth be told, this whole gun control thing can be solved in a very simple way. Ask “them” to show you the gun control law (and others as well) that applies to you as a human being. There are. . . NONE!. Those “laws” are statutes, put out by the Corporate USA (it is a corporation, not a government, now) and therefore only applies to *Corporate* entities, which human beings are not. Let’s discuss several things here. . . Drivers license. Concealed Carry License. Hunting. . .License. . . What is the definition of “license”. According to Black’s Law (the Bible for the legal industry) license is defined as (paraphrased) “permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal”. NOT UNLAWFUL, but *illegal*. There is a difference. Who has to ask “permission”? A child has to ask permission. Not a grown, sane adult. All men are created equal. One has absolutely no more power over another but that which he allows him to have. Why does one person have to ask permission from another to do something? He. . .doesn’t. Back to the gun control “laws”. Since the “Government” is a Corporation, then everything is “Contract”. Ask to see the “Contract” that gives them the right to tell you what you can and cannot do. There is NO CONTRACT!. Everything is Contract. In order for there to be a contract, there have to be two sides, an agreement of some sort, equal consideration from both sides and two or more parties to the contract (requires a human to sign, a corporate entity cannot). Do you ever remember signing a contract with any human being that puts them above you? Why would you sign anything that makes you a subordinate to someone else anyway? You . . .wouldn’t. If they (the “Government”) can’t provide the contract that shows you to be subordinate to them (they can’t) then you are just as equal as they are. This will stand in court, just make sure it is a Court de jure! (with a jury of 12). Everything else is simply administrative. There are no “judges”. They are “Administrators”. Many will say I am crazy, here, but that is why I said at the outset to do your own research. You will find it to be surprising how much power “We The People” actually *do* have! I, personally own several guns. None are “registered” (They do not have to be.) The only record anywhere that says I have (one of) them is where I had one shipped to me and it had to be handled through the local pawn shop (background check, etc.) before it could be released to me. UTTER BULLCRAP if you ask me, (knowing what I know now) but back then I was stupid enough to go through with that. I am drafting documentation that will make that not required if it ever happens again. (Again, people, think “CONTRACT”). I will shut up now. Don’t shoot the messenger!

      • Robin

        Nice, DS! I point all of this out, especially the part where, if they were laws they would be called laws! I am sometimes called crazy for it. I cited, almost verbatim once, the tenth amendment…and was asked, “where do you come up with this crazt sh__?” I promptly produced my “crazy” US Constitution for that individual. The rest of your post is accurate, and even the simpletons should read it very carefully in order to possibly glean something from it!

    • John Illinois

      The Founding Fathers wrote the first 10 amendments not because they wanted to protect the citizens from what they might decide to do, but to protect themselves from what they feared that their political opponents would do.The exact purpose of the second amendment was for citizens to protect themselves from tyrannical government. Find an American History book from 100 or more years ago, and compare it to what today’s American History books say about the American Revolution. Today’s books are so sanitized as to make it sound like a cat fight.

    • Jacques Wibier

      To give an ecsample of what you all are trying to say, just look at Syria. The sluaghter of a people by a tyranicle government. Our own government was trying to get guns to them. (Bengazie). You realy think it can’t happen here?? Realy?? I hope you all get the point!

    • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

      It was most definately created for us to defend ourselves from our own government if need be. From the forefathers themselves:

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

      “The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press.” And
      “Tyranny thrives where gov’t need not fear the wrath of an armed populace” Thomas Jefferson

      “We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln

      “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State…” Alexander Hamilton

      “… Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” Patrick Henry

      “The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both”. Rawle

      {notice that he said that to disarm us they would have to pretend like they have a reason since it is our natural right to be able to defend ourselves from whatever threatens us, even those within our own government and that if they pretend that they do we are to use our weapons to change their minds.}

      “The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers… The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.’” Story

      {If you are not aware of who the militaia is, they are every able-bodied person between the ages of 18 – 45.}

      “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” Tench Coxe

      “If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates, but let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” George Washington, Farewell Address

    • Jeff

      Then why didn’t the founders use language at least implying such intent? The 2nd Amendment is worded in terms of a “well-regulated militia.” Is everybody with an AK-47 in his garage a militia? Well-regulated? Of course not. The 2nd Amendment was written to permit the States to regulate firearms as they saw fit – not for David Koresh to amass a private arsenal for whatever nutty purposes he may have had.

      “When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights, they wanted to ensure that all people were equal — equal with each other and equal with the government.”

      Where is the evidence that such was the intent of the framers? If you look at the way people lived in the 1790s versus today and if you look at the type of weapons available, it is inherently unreasonable to say the 2nd Amendment gives everyone the right to carry guns, concealable guns that can shoot dozens of times in seconds, on the city streets. You gun nuts keep talking about fighting the government with your guns. First of all, that’s insane. You can’t fight the local police with your gun, let alone the Army. Secondly, in order to have a civil society, the government needs to have a monopoly of force. Otherwise you have Afghanistan where the President is really the Mayor of Kabul.

      Your big gun is good for showing off and for killing innocent civilians. It has absolutely no other purpose.

      • DS

        “You can’t fight the local police with your gun, let alone the Army. Secondly, in order to have a civil society, the government needs to have a monopoly of force. ”
        Ok, that is just stupid and out of hand. The reason you can’t fight the police with your gun is that you are severely outgunned! Same with the army. The civil society that lives under a tyrannical government with a monopoly of force is absolutely NOT a civil society. It is nothing more than a SLAVE society. You get out of line, they shoot you. The “get out of line” could be something as simple as walking across the street in some other location except the government-decided and controlled crosswalk. Myself? I don’t want that kind of “civil society” where you live daily in fear that you will be killed for crossing the street in somewhere other than where they say you can. Or, if you wish to make love to your wife on any day except that which the government declares is “the monthly have sex with your spouse day!” I know these sound ludicrous, but the very definition of the word f*** (yeah, you would be killed for saying that, too. . .) derives from the tyrannical days of the kings and rulers where you had to only make love under the “Fornication Under Consent of the King” rules and if caught at any other time, you were likely hanged or otherwise dealt with. Sure, you just let them take your ability to defend yourself from them and then see just how “civil” society becomes. No more “choice” you will be “civil” by FORCE or you’ll be pushing up daisies! JMHO – YMMV

        DS

        • Jeff

          And if your paranoid delusions should come to fruition, then what? You and a dozen Bubbas with guns are going to change it? I don’t think so. What stops our military from taking over the country is not your stupid gun. It wouldn’t slow them down for a moment. What prevents a military coup here is that it is unthinkable to every military officer. Where it is not unthinkable, it happens regularly. Keep that in mind the next time you call for “revolution” against representative government because you disagree with something.

      • http://carlwk3c carlwk3c

        Jeff,
        In the usage of the Founders’ time “we’ll regulated” meant “capable of functioning as intended.”

        “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people” – Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

        “A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” – George Washington

        You say, “… in order to have a civil society, the government needs to have a monopoly of force.” That’s absurd. When the government has a monopoly of force, it’s called tyrrany or a dictatorship.

        “The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both”. Rawle

        {notice that he said that to disarm us they would have to pretend like they have a reason since it is our natural right to be able to defend ourselves from whatever threatens us, even those within our own government and that if they pretend that they do we are to use our weapons to change their minds.}

        “The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press.” And
        “Tyranny thrives where gov’t need not fear the wrath of an armed populace” Thomas Jefferson

        Since you are unwilling to accept the intent of the Founders in their own words with respect to the 2nd amendment and freedom vs, tyranny, I submit the following quote from Sam Adams as guidance for you …

        “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace.
        We ask not your counsels or your arms.
        Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
        May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”

        • Jeff

          I don’t believe the founders intended for every citizen to have his own garrison. If they did, why not say so? Why do you guys insist on saying people who disagree with you about the meaning of the 2nd Amendment are “against” it? I am against your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment because it is crazy. More guns on the street means lots more gun deaths. And it wouldn’t help you a bit if the Government comes looking for you.

          • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

            Dear Jeff,

            You write: “If they did, why not say so?” They did.

            You write: “More guns on the street means lots more gun deaths.” FBI crime statistics do not support this claim.

            You write: “And it wouldn’t help you a bit if the Government comes looking for you.” Tell than to the Iraqis and Afghanis who fought the U.S. military to a standstill.

            Best wishes,
            Bob

          • Jeff

            Well, I see you agree with me on one point. In a post this morning, I said that if the government does not have a monopoly of force, the country essentially becomes Afghanistan. The difference is I don’t see that as an attribute. In the event you had a General who decided he could no longer serve his President and decided to stage a coup (and assuming he had the personality to get other officers to go along), what good are your guns going to do you? And on which side would you fight? Another Civil War – is that what you’re advocating? Or just a free for all with AK-47s?

          • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

            You write: “Well, I see you agree with me on one point. In a post this morning, I said that if the government does not have a monopoly of force, the country essentially becomes Afghanistan.” Please point out where I agreed with that.

            You write: “n the event you had a General who decided he could no longer serve his President and decided to stage a coup (and assuming he had the personality to get other officers to go along), what good are your guns going to do you? And on which side would you fight? Another Civil War – is that what you’re advocating? Or just a free for all with AK-47s?” Non sequitur.

            Best wishes,
            Bob

          • Jeff

            Bob:

            With all due respect, you and some of your followers on this site are the ones who keep stating you need your guns to protect you from the Government. I believe it is incumbent upon you to indicate what scenario you have in mind and exactly how your guns will protect you from the Army and the Air Force.

            I do not see my post as in any way illogical. Are you predicting or advocating a Civil War? I don’t think that’s a silly question given the attitudes I see evidenced on this site.

          • http://www.boblivingstonletter.com/ Bob Livingston

            Dear Jeff,

            You write: “With all due respect, you and some of your followers on this site are the ones who keep stating you need your guns to protect you from the Government.” There are many who believe as I do, that the 2nd Amendment, which is there to prohibit government from infringing on my inalienable (ie. God-given) right to own and carry a gun (not “grant” me that right, as some say) so that we can resist a tyrannical government and “alter or abolish” government if necessary, and defend ourselves from criminals, and hunt game if we choose, and shoot targets if we desire.

            You write: “I believe it is incumbent upon you to indicate what scenario you have in mind and exactly how your guns will protect you from the Army and the Air Force.” Again I direct you to the way armed militias in Iraq and Afghanistan fought the U.S. military to a standstill. However, I don’t believe it is the army, air force, marines, navy, that will be the attacking force (a few may, but not not many) on American citizens, but the increasingly militarized police force and federal agents of homeland security and/or blue helmets of the U.N. Regardless, an armed populace will give them pause. Governments killed 260 million of their own people in the 20th century. Those people were largely unarmed. Google the word “democide.”

            You write: “Are you predicting or advocating a Civil War?” Not advocating… not yet. But predicting there will be if gun confiscation starts, or the march toward tyranny doesn’t stop.

            Best wishes,
            Bob

          • dalek

            I’m with you Bob, NOT YET.

          • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

            Exactly! Very good comment.

          • http://carlwk3c carlwk3c

            Jeff,
            All of the data, including that from the FBI and DOJ, shows clearly that more guns equals less crime. The body of data is very well described in John Lott’s book with a similar name “More Guns, Less Crime”.
            Good guys (and gals) use guns about 2.5 million times per year to stop or prevent violent crimes. The most reasonable estimate is that guns save about 65 times more lives than they take each year.
            The problem with liberals is, they don’t know what they don’t know, they operate on warm fuzzy feelings instead of facts, and they look to government to solve problems that a) don’t exist and/or b) government can’t solve no monastery what they do.

          • Jeff

            Anyone can play games with statistics. But we have the most guns and the most gun deaths (by miles) of any advanced, civilized country. Are you actually saying if we didn’t have all those guns that we’d have more murders? I don’t buy it. Statistics also demonstrate that if you have a gun in your house, you are much more likely to be a victim of gun violence. This is particularly true for women.. That gun you’re so in love with is far, far more likely to be the instrument of your death than it is to rescue you from armed intruders or a tyrannical government.

          • http://carlwk3c carlwk3c

            ALL OF what you have just said is patently FALSE.
            You are clearly not open to facts and reason, so there’s no point in arguing with you further.
            I’ll devote my time and energy to people who are willing to accept the truth.

          • Mark Pepin

            Very good, Carlwk3c. I’ve come to the same conclusion, and I encourage everyone to stop dialogue with this liberal wacko. He refuses to engage people on a point by point debate, instead he ignores your comments and throws out more of his bull. Good choice, Carl.

          • Jeff

            Here’s a story about how much good a gun for “protection” did for this family.

            http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/02/11/130211fa_fact_keefe?currentPage=all

          • dalek

            And Sandy Hook, Columbine, Pearl MS school and others is what happens when no one is allowed to carry a gun. Sort of renders your point stupid doesn’t it?

            I should also mention, Chicago too. ;-)

          • Jeff

            Only if you take having guns as the “norm.” I don’t know of anyone who expects there to be guns at a school. Maybe an armed guard or a police officer, but short of that, no one expects a teacher to be armed. These shootings are not crimes of opportunity like someone seeing a brand new car with the keys left in it. The shooters are essentially committing suicide, so the presence or absence of guns at the school won’t deter a potential shooter. What might stop him is the inability to get a high-capacity assault rifle in the first place. Maybe it won’t but he won’t be able to do as much damage with a shotgun.

          • dalek

            Hot off the presses Jeff:

            http://www.gopusa.com/freshink/2013/02/05/woman-distracts-intruders-in-time-to-get-gun-and-shoot/

            That sort of thing happens all the time Jeff.

          • Mark Pepin

            Please, don’t feed the animals.

          • Jeff

            Well, it happens. I doubt it happens all the time or we’d hear about it a lot more than we do. And all she needed was an old-fashioned 6-shooter.

          • Jeff

            And clearly you know the TRUTH. Let’s double the number of guns on the City streets and see if violence goes down. You’ve refuted nothing. A woman living with a gun and a guy like you in the house is something like 5 times as likely to be killed during a domestic disturbance as a woman not so “protected.” It may well be that a liquor store owner needs a shotgun to lessen theft. Perhaps guns can reduce petty crime, but most people worry about gun violence on the street and not about petty crime.

          • http://carlwk3c carlwk3c

            Again lies with the 5 times stuff … The facts show the opposite. The facts also show that you are more than 5 times MORE likely to be accidentally/mistakenly shot by the police than by a law-abiding citizen using his/her gun to stop a crime -DESPITE the fact that non LEO private citizens justifiably shoot many more criminals each year than the police.
            Look at the incident not long ago where the NYPD tried to stop a gun crime on the streets on NYC and the cops shot 9 innocent bystanders.
            But, I know you’ll never be persuaded by the facts. It’s your goal to spread your lies.

          • dalek

            If I recall correctly, they missed the bad guys completely. Hit 9 innocent people and hit no bad guys at all. No wonder I want to defend myself. If I wait on the cops to get here, they may shoot me instead of the bad guys. lol

            Oh Jeff, I posted a link a long time ago about schools arming teachers/staff in several states. So, you do know about it but you choose to ignore it like everything else we point out to you. You keep posting emotions as fact. We post facts and you allow your emotions to ignore them. We ALL see what you are doing.

            One thing about this conversation with Jeff is this. I have decided to buy a pistol for concealed carry and to get a permit for it. I think it is unwise of me to think that someone else would defend me or anyone else with people like Jeff in this world. So Jeff, you are responsible for putting another armed citizen on the streets. Hows that feel Jeff? Your arguments and posts have had the opposite effect you wanted.

          • http://carlwk3c carlwk3c

            Actually, I believe the succeeded in killing e bad guy, but the did shoot 9 innocent bystanders.

            Nationwide, per federal statistics, you are about 6.5 times mor likely to be accidentally or mistakenly shot by the police than by an armed “civilian” who uses their gun to stop a crime. That’s despite the fact that armed citizens justifiably kill many times more bad guys than th police each year.

            Lawful gun use saves at least 65 times more lives each year than criminal use of guns takes.

          • Jeff

            I noticed you left out a cite for the study. Was that the one by LaPierre and Nugent? I always make sure to follow their advice in the conduct of my affairs.

          • http://carlwk3c carlwk3c

            All of the numbers I’ve cite are from federal law enforcement (DoJ/FBI) data.

          • Jeff

            No link to the site?

          • dalek

            Just found a interesting link with a nice video about timing and people claiming you can tackle a shooter while reloading.

            http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/01/sheriff-debunks-fallacies-surrounding-gun-magazines-in-this-viral-vid-plus-his-response-to-bidens-shotgun-advice/

            Yep, trying to tackle a shooter is suicide and really stupid. Enjoy.

          • Jeff

            Argue with them:

            http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

            I’m sure you love and honor your gun, but if somebody really wants you dead, it won’t protect you.

          • http://carlwk3c carlwk3c

            There is so much “research” conducted by liberals with an agenda, much of it funded by anti-gun groups.
            The facts are clear from law enforcement data.
            Here’s the story the leftist puppets in the lame steam media propaganda machine never tell the gullibles in their audinces:

            According to the statistics gathered, but hidden, by their beloved government, guns are used by law-abiding citizens in justifiable self-defense (to stop or prevent a crime) about 2.5 million times per year in the US.
            In the vast majority of cases, no shots are fired. The mere display of the means of self-defense prompts the criminal to turn tail and run.
            In the minority of cases where shots are fired, those citizens kill several times more criminals per year than the police.
            Despite the fact that citizens shoot and kill significantly more criminals than the police, you are approximately 5.5 times MORE likely to be accidentally/mistakenly shot by the police than by a citizen defending himself (unless, of course, you are actually the criminal).
            Lawful use of guns saves FAR more lives each year than the unlawful use of guns by criminals and psychopaths. (At least 65x more!)
            Every state that has enacted “shall issue” concealed carry laws, which allow citizens to carry after passing a background check, has seen crime in general, and violent crime in particular, drop dramatically.
            Places with the most prohibitions on self-defense (Chicago, LA, DC, etc.) have FAR more violent crime than areas where it’s known that citizens have the right to self-defense and the means to enforce that right.
            Those are the IRREFUTABLE FACTS that the government and its media propaganda machine don’t want the public to know.

          • http://carlwk3c carlwk3c

            By the way, my wife shoots as well as I do … Glocks in .40 S&W, AR-15, 30-06, and shotgun. While I would protect her, she’d only need it if seriously outnumbered (like more than about 4:1)
            I’m sure your boyfriend wishes you shot better (in more ways than one)

          • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

            You are correct, we do have the most “gun” deaths. But we do not have the highest murder, rape, vicious crimes rate, that goes to Great Britain – where guns are banned. Once again, do a bit of research.

            By the way. Not sure if you ever read any of the TREASON laws that I have posted here and other places multiple times. If you are supporting, aiding, abetting those in the gov or in other places that are, or (Obama, Panetta, Dempesey, etc) who HAVE committed treason – YOU ARE COMMITTING TREASON.

            After the fight we are having DEFENDING our legitimate government, much like is STILL going on with those who participated in Germany, we will hunt EVERY treasonous sob down where-ever on this planet they may try to hide, and bring them back for prosecution for their crimes against the USA and her people.

            Make sure what you are doing IS your idea. Because “just doing my job” and “just following orders” have NEVER been, nor will they be, accepted as defense in a treason or murder prosecution. This is not a threat, consider this an education. It is important to know the constitutional laws – the ONLY ones lawful in the USA, so that you, and others, do not break them

      • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

        William Rawle, author of “A View of the Constitution of the United States of America” which was adopted as a constitutional law textbook at West Point and other institutions. Rawle was not only a respected constitutional authority; he was the only early commentator who actually voted to ratify the Bill of Rights: “The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both”.
        Rawle writes: “neither the states nor the national government has legitimate authority to disarm its citizens. This passage also makes it clear (“the prohibition is general”) that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the scope of the right.”

        Alexander Hamilton: “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State…”

        Patrick Henry: “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”

        Tench Coxe, “Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution,” Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 where he asserted that it’s the people (as individuals) with arms, who serve as the ultimate check on government: “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”

        Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 29: “… Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped…

        James Madison, Federalist 46: “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of…”

        ,Tench Coxe: “Who are the militia? are they not ourselves… Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American…The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people”.

        Justice Story, Supreme Court Associate Justice wrote a constitutional commentary in 1833, “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States”. Regarding the Second Amendment, he wrote of the 2nd Amendment: “The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers… The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.’

        Saint George Tucker, “Blackstone’s Commentaries”, Volume 1, Appendix, Note D
        “The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people;…”

        I“Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1803), Tucker, wrote of the Second Amendment: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.”

        This is in their own words, hope you understand the 2nd Amendment now.

        • Jeff

          Rawle writes: “neither the states nor the national government has legitimate authority to disarm its citizens. This passage also makes it clear (“the prohibition is general”) that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the scope of the right.”

          Then what is the purpose of the first clause? You cannot read the amendment pretending the first clause does not exist. The Amendment appears to limit the power of the Federal Government, leaving the power to “well regulate” firearms to the States. Our problem now is transport is so easy that it doesn’t matter what laws are passed in California, Illinois, or New York so long as virtually any state has no standards. I don’t think we are prepared to have armed guards at state borders.

          At some point we as a society have to determine what is sensible with respect to guns. The 2nd Amendment will have to be interpreted with reasonableness in mind. In the 30s, machine guns were outlawed. Do you think that law is unconstitutional? If the NRA were to take that position, which is entirely consistent with its current position, the vast majority of people who don’t live in Alabama would instantly recognize just how extreme the gun nut position is. Can you have your own drone too? Anti-aircraft weapons? A-bombs? Where is the rule of reason?

      • Iwillnotbow

        Let us all hope and pray it does not come to another civil war but if it does Jeff and his ilk will be begging the “gun nuts” to protect them from Homeland Security when they show up to round up all the dissenters and stuff them into FEMA camps….

        • Jeff

          Yes, your gun will stand you in good stead when facing a drone attack. Meanwhile, while you’re waiting for Armageddon, how many kids have to die because we have too many guns on the streets? I know, while you’re on patrol, nothing bad will happen.

          And what makes you think the “well-regulated militia” in the 2nd Amendment had anything to do with fighting the Government? Doesn’t that sound like treason? They did believe in the concept of treason back then. In fact, you probably still think all the people who protested the Viet Nam War were guilty of it. What if a draftee pulled a gun on somebody serving him with a draft notice? Treason or patriotism?

          • dalek

            You do realize that criminals won’t obey gun laws right? They will certainly keep theirs and the people who give theirs up will be the ones robbed, raped and killed. Look to other countries and you can see that happens when guns are banned.

            Another thing, people who believe in the 2nd Amendment will not give up any guns. Me, I will NOT register ANY gun I own. Period. I’m not going to give up any either.

          • Jeff

            Where do you think criminals get their guns? Every gun in a criminal’s hands was either purchased by him before he became a criminal, purchased illegally (or legally at a gun show) from someone who bought the gun, or stolen. In any event, the gun did not come from ACME Guns for Crooks. It came from the same stream of commerce as your “good” gun that still imperils your family. If you live in a house with a gun, you are far more likely to be a victim of gun violence than if you do not so share your home. And it is more likely that gun will be the source of a tragedy than that you will use it to stop a “bad” guy.

          • dalek

            They are criminals, they STEAL them. They buy them on the street from other criminals. Heck, they steal them from cops when they get the chance. Heck, sometimes it is the cops that ARE the criminals. Point is, criminals will still have theirs and you want everyone BUT the criminals to give theirs up. Look at other countries that have done this and their crime rates. Getting rid of guns does NOT work.

            The guns in my home keeps me safe. For you to even think that it makes me more likely to be a victim only proves you are nuts. Since you claim it tho, provide a link that backs it up. I want a reliable source for that to, not some left wing website.

          • Jeff

            Exactly. As long as those weapons are available to be bought, they are available to be stolen by the “bad” guys. But most of these shootings aren’t done by the Al Capones of the world. Some kid gets a gun from his father who probably told him a million times not to take the gun and shoot up the school. But what if the father didn’t have the gun in the house at all?

          • dalek

            You keep missing the point. As long as the 2nd Amendment is the LAW OF THE LAND, we will NOT give up our guns. PERIOD. You will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, I can’t stress NEVER enough, get rid of guns. There are more guns than there are people in this country. It will never happen.

            I’m law abiding. I have served on jury duty, twice. One a murder trial. I don’t care what law they pass, I will NEVER give up my guns. I don’t care who is in the white house or how many laws they pass. I’m NOT giving up mine and there are MILLIONS more just like me. We will resist with deadly force if needed but we will NEVER give up our guns. There is NOTHING you can say that will change that fact. Absolutely NOTHING!

            You want to do something, try to repeal the 2nd Amendment. You will see what I mean then. It will be bloody. We will have a LOT less crooked politicians afterwards. That’s the reason liberals don’t have to balls to even try it. They know it will not end well for them.

          • Jeff

            Your hand will be cold and dead soon enough, probably the result of a gun “accident” in the home. Are you saying the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to possess all weapons? Machine guns? Surface-to-air missiles? Drones? A-bombs? If not, where do you draw the line? And where does the 2nd Amendment say anything about felons not being permitted to have guns? It doesn’t. Sometimes, reasonableness in interpretation is implied. But that would require a functioning brain.

          • dalek

            You need to recheck your thinking. I am more likely to drown in a swimming pool than to die from a firearm “accident”. Heck, the bath tub is the most dangerous thing you can have in your home and everyone has one of those. More people are injured or killed in bath tubs than from firearm accidents. You really need to put things in perspective. I’m looking at 5 guns right now, ALL of them loaded and ready. They have been in the exact same spot for decades. I have yet to see one jump up, aim itself at me or anyone else and pull its own trigger. That’s how stupid your point is.

            “Arms” Weapon(s) that you can carry. If you want to get down to the bare facts, that is what was arms is. I do believe that the weapons ban that was done back in the 30′s violates the Constitution but at the same time, I don’t think it is needed to resist the Government. As for felons, I think that violates the Constitution. I like the idea but it violates the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment does not say ‘shall not be infringed except for felons’.

            It’s not real hard to understand: “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 key points, “right of the people” and “shall not be infringed”. I also like “free state” too. That the reason for the 2nd Amendment to begin with, not hunting or self defense.

            Your brain is not functioning. Mine is just fine.

          • Jeff

            “Arms” Weapon(s) that you can carry. If you want to get down to the bare facts, that is what was arms is. I do believe that the weapons ban that was done back in the 30′s violates the Constitution but at the same time, I don’t think it is needed to resist the Government. As for felons, I think that violates the Constitution. I like the idea but it violates the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment does not say ‘shall not be infringed except for felons’.

            Dalek:

            You are the first “gun” person who has actually responded when I’ve asked these questions. Since you believe the “felon” restriction and the machine gun exception violate the 2nd Amendment, I assume you think any further regulation, including background checks and magazine limits, would likewise be unconstitutional. But since the existing restrictions have been upheld, explicitly or implicitly, aren’t we now just arguing about where to draw the line? Most sensible people think the line should be drawn at military-style weapons capable of firing dozens of rounds in a minute and at clips holding more than 10 rounds. I know what you think personally, but as a legal matter, I believe such a solution would be difficult to challenge since we’ve already established that the 2nd Amendment is not absolute.

          • http://carlwk3c carlwk3c

            No, Jeff. Most “sensible” people do NOT think the line should be drawn at “military style” (with the emphasis on STYLE to confuse and misinform) weapons and limiting magazines to no more than 10 rounds.

            The Bushmaster AR-15 and similar civilian weapons that Feinstein et al are demonizing and want to ban are NOT assault rifles at all. Don’t give the gun banners any leeway on these lies and distortions. Their intent is to confuse and misinform those who don’t know any better. In other words, they’re lying.

            Tell people the truth … tell them that the AR-15 is not really functionally different than other rifles except that it outwardly RESEMBLES the M-16/M4 machine gun that our troops use. (For reasons of economy in manufacturing, the inherent reliability and maintainability of the underlying design, and other factors, there are a lot of common parts, but the important ones that determine function are designed to preclude illegal conversion to fully-automatic operation like the military weapons with which the gun-banners want you to confuse them.)

            The guns they want to ban are NOT machine guns, as the gun grabbers and media try to convince you. They do NOT “spray bullets” as military weapons do. However their outward appearance, combined with deliberate untruths and the use of incorrect terminology, makes it easier for the deceivers to demonize these guns as they try to build support for banning them. (Which is, of course, just a step towards further bans in the future.)

            Also impress up on people that the AR-15 and functionally similar guns are NOT “only suitable for a war zone” as the ban’s proponents and media personalities keep saying, but that they are, in fact, NOT really suitable for combat use at all because of their limitations. (Our troops would be SERIOUSLY out-gunned if they went into battle with AR-15s.)

            Further, they are not “heavy weapons” as some of the media people keep saying. Inform people of the factual reality that these weapons are actually considerably LESS powerful than most of their grandpa’s deer rifles – to the point that in many states it’s illegal to hunt game larger than groundhogs and coyotes with the .223/5.56mm round that the AR-15 fires.

            Stop feeding their misinformation campaign.

            30 round magazines for ARs and magazines in the 13-19 round capacity for pistols are STANDARD, not high capacity. (Maybe I’d grant that 100 round+ drum magazines are “high capacity,” but they tend to not feed reliably.)

            Don’t use the inaccurate, misleading terminology that the gun grabbers created in an attempt to demonize perfectly ordinary guns to deceive those who fear guns because of their brainwashing and lack of knowledge.

            “The cops are the experts on the current criminal trends. If they have determined that a “high capacity” semiautomatic pistol and a .223 semiautomatic rifle with 30-round magazines are the best firearms for them to use to protect people like me and my family, they are obviously the best things for us to use to protect ourselves and our families.” – Massad Ayoob, writing in Backwoods Home magazine

          • Jeff

            I understand that you, like Gordon Liddy, get off on explaining the distinctions between the killing capacities of various weapons. Undoubtedly, you know far more than I do about a subject I find quite boring. I understand that our soldiers in Afghanistan have truly automatic weapons that can fire hundreds of rounds a minute while the shooters in Aurora and at Sandy Hook could “only” fire dozens of rounds a minute with their semi-automatic weapons. To me, that is an assault rifle, regardless of the definition that may be in vogue with the gun nuts. Particularly if the weapon is equipped with a high-capacity magazine. The combination is way too deadly for our streets. If you want to argue it’s “only” semi-automatic and isn’t an “assault” rifle because an Uzi is more deadly, tell it to the parents of those kids in Connecticut.

          • Don Peterson

            Jeff is a typical liberal who “feels” bad that guns exist. His arguments are ridiculous. He obviously doesn’t have a clue that the states with the most restrictive gun control laws have the highest violent crime rates. By his argument, the states where all these evil guns come from should be way more violent and dangerous than places like say, Chicago, Detroit, or New York. He has nothing but his feelings on his side, which unfortunately is all he needs in our world today.

          • dalek

            Yep, he is that. On another article, I went back and forth with a guy for about a month. Every time he posted a fact, I posted a link that proved him wrong. Most of it was him claiming Democrats did things that Republicans did. After a bit, he figured it out. I don’t have a problem with people who can learn but some people, even when you prove they are wrong, they still argue that they are right, despite all evidence that proves they are not.

            As others have said, guns are not the problem. Outlaw guns, they will use something else. It could very well be explosives. As bad as guns are, explosives will make guns look like child’s play. Think Oklahoma City bombing. Imagine that on a school or a mall. It’s scary.

          • dalek

            Thanks for your reply Carl. I went to town for a little while.

            I might also add, in my state, you are not allowed to hunt deer or any big game animals with anything less than a .35 caliber bullet. This removes .17 .22 rimfire, .222, .223, .243, .270 all 30-xx calibers, .338-xx calibers, among several others from hunting. Any of those, do NOT have enough killing power according to the game and fish people to kill large game; deer, bear, piggy and such. You can hunt with .22 rimfire for squirrels and rabbits tho. This was changed in the last couple years. Before that, it had to be .38 caliber or larger.

            Also, let’s say they outlaw every long gun: ALL rifles and shotguns. Then someone goes into a school, mall or whatever with 4 or 5 pistols and kills a lot of people. Then what? Ban more guns?

            Same can be said for large clips/magazines. Let’s say they ban all clips/magazines that hold more than even 5 bullets. Someone goes into a school with rifles, shotguns or pistols with LOTS of clips/magazines. Then what? Ban more clips? That clip would already be less than most revolvers hold.

            Let’s then say that ALL guns are banned. Someone gets a nice large SUV or pickup and fills it with propane tanks, then drives that thing into a school, mall or some place there is a lot of people and sets it off. Are we then going to outlaw BBQ grills? Outlaw SUV’s maybe? Let’s not forget Oklahoma City and that big explosion. It was over 150 killed, including kids. Imagine that in a school. We going to ban kerosene and diesel fuel too? Fertilizer?

            At what point does this stop? For the liberals and progressives, it will not stop until the people rise up and stop it. The only end is defenseless people that the Government can make slaves of with no resistance available.

            Guns are NOT the problem. It’s the people that are the problem. Kids are raised with no value on human life, even their own. This is why people do this then kill themselves. They know going in that the LAW will have no affect on them, they will be dead in the end. Dead people get buried, not tried and convicted then punished.

            Until we get this country back on the right track morally, we will have killings like this whether there are guns or not. It’s that simple.

        • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

          “it does not come to another civil war ”

          It is NOT a “civil war”. WE are DEFENDING our nation, our legitimate government from domestic enemies – yes, the same one all oaths require to defend the US Constitution from, and treasonous representatives.

          DEFENDING is the word.

          • Jeff

            I see. If you fire on a Federal official serving a warrant on you, then you are the legitimate government while the official sent by the elected President is illegitimate. Does it work that way even when a Republican is in office?

          • dalek

            To answer your question directly, yep, it does. Any person who is given a order that violates the Constitution is not required to follow that order. It is actually unconstitutional to do so. Example: If the FBI director gives a FBI agent a order to go beat a confession out of a suspect, that is unconstitutional. That agent has every right and legal athority to ignore that order. He also should report that order to the person above the person giving the order.

            You need to understand one thing. The Constitution is the SUPREME law of the land. No law, no order from higher ups can violate the Constitution. Period. Any warrant that violates the Constitution is worthless.

            I don’t care who is in office, the Constitution is the same.

            I found this a bit ago. Seems the fearless leader may have trouble.

            http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.CON.RES.107:

          • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

            Absolutely it works that way no matter the party a traitor belongs in. I was one of those fighting to have Bush arrested and prosecuted for Treason, Murder, Mass Murders, War Crimes and various other criminal and civil offenses, and Obama (illegally – because a prez cannot pardon treasonous scum) pardoned Bush of “all”.

            All Law Enforcement, Military take a legally biding oath: : “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

            “I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

            “I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”

            They swear to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” against all enemies”, domestic enemies included. The US Constitution is what they are REQUIRED support and defend before anything else, not a president, or anyone else, The US Constitution. Notice that to obey the orders of the President is BELOW “support ad defend the US Constitution and of much fewer words, plus lumped with orders of officers above. They can, and be prosecuted for not doing so for following unlawful orders. The Supreme Law of this land is the US Constitution and ALL laws MUST be in pursuance of it to be legal. Significantly the oath is to support and defend the Constitution and not an individual leader, ruler, office, or entity.

            If there were never intended to be action to defend the Constitution from those who are domestically attempting to destroy its power and authority, why would each Oath require it of those who take the Oaths?

        • John Illinois

          The Founding Fathers were highly educated men. They knew exactly what those words meant, and worked very hard to be certain that they were clear–to people with some knowledge and background to understand those concepts, therefore, defining those phrases would have been considered redundant. What they didn’t plan on was the way other people would “lawyer” the words and simply and plainly endeavor to change the meaning of words, as the liberals have done since then.

          • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

            Exactly!

        • auhunter

          A “well regulated militia” has nothing to do with weapons it is the military, actually the National Guard. It only takes a second to check the word in Webster’s. Then you’ll know what your talking about, at least part of it.

          • dalek

            Wrong. The first part is about the militia, the second part is about the PEOPLE. Here are some quotes from the Founders themselves:

            “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)

            “No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])

            “Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

            Note it compared the CITIZENS of other countries, not military but CITIZENS, in the quote above.

            “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States” (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution’, 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))

            “…but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights…” (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)

            “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” (Tench Coxe in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution’ under the Pseudonym `A Pennsylvanian’ in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)

            You need to listen to this part about what the Constitution means and how it is to be interpreted.

            “On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)

            So, you are completely wrong when you claim arms if only for the military or National Guard. It is for the PEOPLE as INDIVIDUALS to be armed. You are also trying to squeeze something out of the Constitution that is NOT there. Even back then, they warned us about people like you trying to get meaning that is NOT there.

            Got it? If you don’t, I could post MANY more quotes from the founders. Many, many more.

      • Robin

        “You can’t fight the local police with your gun, let alone the Army.”
        Why not? They do a fine job in Iraq and Afghanistan…year after year.

        • Jeff

          Robin:

          I’ve thought about it, and I think I prefer the U.S. as it is. I’d rather not see us turn into Iraq or Afghanistan.

    • grannymae1

      independent thinker, You are right on as always. To me it doesn’t even come into question today as to why they wrote it, it is there and it should stay there and we need it more today to protect our families than ever before. We know that there are countries out there that say they want to kill us and they are inside out gates plotting to do just that and I’m suppose to give up my guns because some murder went in a school and killed inocent little children. I don’t think so. All the more reason to keep my guns. As horrible as this is there is always going to be some communist thinking jerk that will actually use this or any tragidy to further their own agenda. Each time they do they cripple us a little more and weaken us a little more so we are no longer able to defend ourselves and family against those that want to harm us, and all the time it is not really with the inocent children in mind, it is for their own intentions of power. I don’t know how manytimes they will have to be exposed before others that have the bleeding hearts only on their mind , will be able to see what is really going on. I love and want our babies to be safe too. I have litle grandchildren and great grandchildren and I know how special they all are and I want them all safe but giving my gun away isn’t going to make that happen. How many countries do we see that ban guns and yet the criminal has guns and the inocent are getting killed ! I don’t feel that the government can or will keep my family safe now or ever. They can’t there are too many individuals in this country to try to keep safe and it just can’t be done. The crooks will always be there armed to the teeth thanks to our government. They can’t protect their own border patrol people so why should I expect them to take care of me or my family? When it comes down too it there will come a day when Washington will cause the military to patrol the streets and order them to fire on their own people. There will be brother shooting brother and son shooting father and all in the name of some progressive professing to be protecting us and we can’t fight back because the bleeding hearts have cried to ban the gun ! As far as an automatic weapon being banned because you don’t hunt with one! Sure you do. You hunt the guy that is trying to kill you and your family ! I would rather have an automatic when I’m protecting my family and yours than trying to come up against a tank with a stone ! If you think your country won’t come up against you with everything they have you need to remember back to Waco and how the government fired on and set fire to a compound on private property that was no threat to anyone. They killed men women and children before those people could ever do anything. Those people had done nothing wrong and still Janet Reno and the powers that be at the time in Washington didn’t like what they thought they were doing so they ploted against them and then attacked them and killed them everyone right down to the little children and we are supposed to think that Sandy Hook was so terrible ? It was but it was done by a deranged young man, Waco was done by our own government against her own citizens. I won’t trust the government any farther than I can throw them especially what is in office right now. This president stood by and watched while our own people got killed and all because he was trying to arrange a kidnapping so he could exchange the blind sheik for the ambassador but his stupid idea failed and he got people killed. Just another derranged mind ! Now we have the hostage situation setting up all over again and the blind sheik will go free. This government is so sick it isn’t even funny ! Still the idiots with no brain re-elect him now how sick is that ? I say keep your guns you will need them !

      • grannymae1

        As far as there being a debate on gun control, that is BS. There is not debaste. I want to keep my gun and it is lawful and there are people that aim to take it away from me ! That’s not a debate !

  • Jeremy Leochner

    I appreciate Mr. Youngs use of point and counter point. I would point out first two things.

    One: The debate over gun control is not left versus right, liberal versus conservative.

    Second: His statement that “media blow things out of proportion to spread their leftist views” is one sided and incorrect. Media spouting both liberal and conservative, right and left ideologies have both equally used tragedies to their own advantage. Each side has used it to in some way or other say either “I told you so” or “This is all your fault” to those they disagree with.

    That aside I feel Mr. Young makes a compelling case. Where I take issue is the idea that the constitution was intended for revolution and that the founders wanted “Americans to be able to stand up for themselves. How does one do that? By having the same level of weaponry as the government!”. I have no doubts that the founders intended for Americans to be able to stand up for themselves. And I do not deny that the constitution and the founders who created it recognized the peoples right to amend or abolish existing institutions if the need arose. However I believe that the founders were above all men of reason and ideals. I believe that the founders put more faith in the spoken and the written word than they did in weapons of war. I believe this because the founders enshrined in the first amendment a slew of freedoms including freedom of speech, religion, expression and assembly and petition for a redress of grievances. They then put the right to keep and bear arms in the second amendment and even then only after they mentioned well regulated militias being necessary for a free state. So as far as I can tell the founders put faith first in the power of the press and of speech and second in militia units that were regulated by individual state governments and then third in the power of armed individuals. I hardly believe the founders intended the last refugee of freedom to be a lone individual armed with any sort of weapon. This does not mean the right to bear arms is meaningless or is of less virtue and importance as the freedoms expressed in the first amendment. What it does mean is the founders did not intend armed resistance to be the only true defense against tyranny. So often in discussions on gun control hyperbolic language is used on both sides. Those on one side discuss the dangers of guns and make hyperbolic statements about how groups like the NRA want everyone to have access to guns of all types regardless of age or mental health. Those on the other side tend to make the argument that gun control advocates intend to enact gun bans and thereby prevent honest Americans from protecting themselves from either criminals in the street or criminals in government. Both of these ideas are equally wrong. Aside from those calling for gun bans I believe most advocates of gun control such as myself have certain specific areas where we wish gun control was stronger. For myself its schools. However there seems to be an exaggeration of the importance of guns and as a result a great fear of the loss of guns. I believe that guns are a last resort to be taken up in times of true tyranny. I say this in regards to the argument that the second amendment protects citizens from a tyrannical government. I feel that such a government that requires its citizens to be armed in order to be safe from the government does not characterize our government at this time. I say this because it is possible for us to have an open and frank discussion of the matter and for that matter the fact that the question of whether the government is tyrannical is even brought up at all. From my study of history and countries like Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, which are often used as examples of where we are headed to, it appears that the tyranny of the government is manifest and regardless of any ones beliefs regarding the leaders it is an unmistakable fact that such basic freedoms as freedom of speech and public assembly have long since become illegal and are gone. My point is that just as when a person needs a gun to fend off an attacker they have no illusions about the danger so I believe that a government whose tyranny demands armed resistance would be one that produced such blatant and universal injustice that no one could possibly deny the tyranny. To me a government that is so tyrannical that it requires armed resistance would be as obvious to anyone, or at least any American in a country whose entire history is based on liberty and equality, as if the sun were to rise in west. It would be an undeniable and undebatable fact. And since our country has not entered or neared that point I believe it is a hyperbolic argument at this time to suggest that gun control of any kind could place the freedom of Americans at risk. The day I fear is when the government starts passing laws that control peoples ability to criticize the government or the day when the demand comes that people go through red tape to be able to vote. That is the day I fear. More than a day when people are required to go through red tape to obtain a gun. Words cannot hurt people but are our best defense against tyranny. Guns can hurt people and until they are needed they pose a threat to those who have them and to those around them.

    • windage

      “The day I fear is when the government starts passing laws that control peoples ability to criticize the government “? That day is already here. You are looking for easy to see signs of tyranny, but it doesn’t happen all at once like that. Look for the small, erosion of your rights. For me, that is my gun rights, which started with the NFA in the 30′s, (to keep agents busy after repeal of Volker). For you it is the erosion of free speach. Witness the tyranny of the imprisonment of a filmaker, who is blamed for the Bengazi attack.
      We are currently experiencing as much tyranny as they (fed gov’t) think they can get away with, but you don’t see it?

      • Jane

        Right!

      • Kate8

        Just one point, Jeremy, about both sides exploiting events. The Left uses these (government operations) events to take away rights, and the Right generally “exploits” them to defend rights. (Although, they are coming together more all the time, being the good cop/bad cop ruse that they are.)

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I do not deny that there are abuses. Nor do I deny that people need to be watchful of government. Where I feel disagreement is this idea that supporting gun control equates to giving government the power to take away our guns. I see the abuses. But we still have the power to stop it through the press and the ballot box. Its when people stop believing in the press and the ballot box that tragedy strikes.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Kate if by government operations you mean Fast and Furious I disagree. I believe that that operation demonstrated incompetence and stupidity rather than sinister scheming. I saw it more as a mistake than a calculated effort. Especially since no laws against guns came of it.
        What I meant when I talked about exploitation was the stories of things like the Newtown shooting. People on all sides of the political spectrum have used tragedies like that to get vindication of their beliefs. Whether you may agree with their beliefs or not I believe getting vindication or trying to score political points from a tragedy is wrong.

      • eddie47d

        Windage: That filmmaker was arrested on another charge not because of the video. No wonder so many of you are confused.

      • http://Aol.com CommonSense4America

        The Second Amendment is the ONLY amendment that will guarantee that we will have the First Amendment.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        But no one can take away any of the amendments unless they first take away, well the first.

      • Kate8

        Nice try, Jeremy, but I was also referring to Newtown (Sandy Hook), Aurora, AZ, Columbine and a host of others now shown to be false flags staged by OUR GOVERNMENT as an excuse to ban guns.

        All it shows is that we need to be even more heavily armed to defend ourselves and our kids against Uncle Sam.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        With respect Kate I do not believe any of those events were false flags committed by the government.

      • Kate8

        Jeremy – Of course you don’t.

        Shills are not allowed to criticize the government, anyway, so I wouldn’t expect you to.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Kate I criticize the government all the time. Examples including NDAA, Iraqi War, Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, Fast and Furious, Defense of Marriage Act, Drone Program, Tarp, Guantanamo Bay and torture. Just because I do not declare the government responsible for sinister schemes does not make me a government shill.

      • JC

        eddie47d says:

        January 7, 2013 at 1:43 pm

        Windage: That filmmaker was arrested on another charge not because of the video. No wonder so many of you are confused.
        ________________________________________________________________________
        Really? What was the other charge?
        Why don’t you clear that up for us?

    • Steve White

      Where does Mr. Leochner suggest we find these weapons should the governments tyranny grow to the point that we do need to use force to over-throw it? I think I am right to say that Nazi Germany use the same argument to enact gun bans and then lived in relative peace for some time before they started to destroy the “dissidents”in their country. I only wish that intelligent people like Mr. Loechner would truly study the whole history before making statements like this. He should look at more of the underlying current events if he truly wants to see what is going on in our great nation. We are seeing our rights being eroded away under the pretense of political correctness. God help this failing nation from our own stupidity!

      • Kate8

        Steve – I think I remember reading that it was a period of only 5 years from the time Hitler took charge until the mass genocide began.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        With respect Steve I have studied the history. Laws diminishing the German peoples right to bear arms were enacted during the Weimar Republic long before Hitler came to power. And the actual law that deprived the average German citizen of any sort of right to bear arms was not passed until 1938 long after Hitler had come to power. Weapons of war are necessary to fight against tyrannies like Hitler. However Hitler came to power through trickery and exploitation. The law that granted him absolute power was the Enabling Act. It was voted on. And a shining example of the power of the spoken word was when the Social Democratic Party, the second largest political party in Germany at the time, voted unanimously against the act. The only reason it passed was Hitler and his goons were able to convince the other political parties to vote in favor. It was the power of words that bring dictators into power through the democratic system. And it is words that must be used to prevent that. Weapons are needed should such dictators come to power. But it is my understanding that when people lose faith in the power of words and became enthralled by the power of weapons that dictators are able to rise. It is when people start believing that the guys with the guns make the rules that we start slipping into tyranny.

      • eddie47d

        The true socialists and democrats in Germany did not like Hitler and thanks for pointing that out Jeremy.

      • JC

        eddie47d says:

        January 7, 2013 at 1:46 pm

        The true socialists and democrats in Germany did not like Hitler and thanks for pointing that out Jeremy.
        _______________________________________________________________________

        All according to eddie’s imagination….

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Well in fact JC Hitler only included the socialist in his parties name to try and appear more centrist than the party was. Hitler disagreed vehemently with those in his party who took the socialist part too seriously. He considered them little better than communists. I as a social democrat consider the social democratic party to be the true representatives of what socialists and democrats in Germany wanted.

      • JC

        All subject to interpretation Jeremy. Hitler was an elected dictator who used whatever means, political or otherwise to get where he was going. Relevant to this thread would be his approach to gun control. Which history records, was used to subjugate first the Jews of Germany, then an entire nation.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I agree JC. However I will say the historical record shows that Gun Bans were not enacted in Germany until 1938 a full four years after Hitler assumed dictatorial power and a full 3 years after the Nuremberg Race Laws deprived the Jewish German citizens of all their basic rights. Hitler did not start his subjection of his people with gun control. He did it with the burning of books and letting the SA run wild in the streets:

        http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html

        http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html

        • Veteran

          You are correct with the timeline, but he absolutely had to confiscate the firearms before his control could be complete – Obama and the anti-gun crowd is just starting earlier on their path to complete control.

          Remember, the Warsaw Ghetto ‘held off’ an entire German regiment for over a month with only 31 firearms – it’s just the Germans didn’t know how few guns they had. The Jews had fired a few shots and the Germans halted. It took them almost a month to gin up the courage to attack, rather than just waltz in.

          The Founding Fathers knew that many, many governments turn tyrannical, and they had just fought a war against just such a foe – England. So they put in the 2nd Amendment to make sure that wouldn’t happen again on our soil. And being a member of the Sons of the American Revolution and the NRA and a student of American history, I will do all I can to insure we keep our rights – which are just as valid today as in 1878, when our Constitution was ratified.

      • JC

        So, are you suggesting that the collection of guns by the Hitler regime had nothing whatever to do with his ability to create a dictatorship?

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Veteran The people in Obamas administration who want to have gun bans I believe are idealistic well meaning idiots. They do not want to ban guns as part of a first step on the road to dictatorship. They are doing it because like the those who supported prohibition they genuinely believe that simply banning the item will solve the problem. I disagree with them. However I also disagree with you as to their motives.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        JC Hitler did not collect guns until long after his dictatorship was established. He did not become dictator through a military take over. Nor did try and confiscate weapons before he came to power. The only way that having weapons would have prevented Hitlers rise to power is if someone had assassinated him. Sadly with the hindsight of history we know Hitler should have been arrested or assassinated. The people at the time were so preoccupied by their fear and distrust and hatred that they could not see the forest for the trees. Hitler came to power through the power of words and it is words which could have and should have stopped him. Gun bans are not the way. And I agree that banning guns or getting rid of the second amendment would place the people in serious danger. However it is my firm belief that dictators do not start confiscating the peoples weapons and depriving them of the right to bear arms until after they gain absolute power. If they attempted to take peoples guns prior to gaining absolute power it would be denied them. Basically it is my belief that they don’t start coming for peoples guns until it is already to late to stop them. By the time they come for peoples guns those individuals who happen to own a few rifles and handguns are basically on their own and have no form of legal or political recourse or defense.

    • http://www.facebook.com/david.trusty David Trusty

      OK, so basically, what you are saying is that as long as the government isn’t tyrannical, they can take your guns, but when the government becomes tyrannical, they will give guns to the people to fight them? Defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that is the oath that I took. The Japanese didn’t invade the U.S. because “There would be a gun behind every blade of grass”. The government we have today is exactly the government that the founders were talking about.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        No David. The government starts trying to take all guns away when it is tyrannical. Gun Control in the form of waiting periods and back ground checks does not equate to taking away peoples guns. Gun Bans would fall under that category but I am as much against those as you are. There are plenty of ways to fight a threat without there being a gun behind every blade of grass. We need not have that many guns to be safe. Not for nothing but I believe that our armed forces serves as a slight deterrent against any invasion.

      • eddie47d

        The US military is there in our defense today. The Founding fathers didn’t have the luxury of a standing army thus they basically “drafted” all eligible men to serve in those militias. That need is no longer necessary yet private citizens (gun owners) still attempt to say that is so.

        • Bryan George

          eddie47d WOW!! does it have any relevance that our founding fathers were in fact REVOLTING FROM A TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT??? Fighting the government in power?? Not yet a Country?? Maybe that is why they didn’t have the luxury of a standing army?? Ya think??? Maybe that is why the wrote the 2nd amendment??? Ya think?? Or don’t you think???

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Well it is a complicated issue Eddie. The founders created the continental army to unify their effort. But militias still made up the back bone of the Revolution. And not for nothing militias made good showing in the fights at concord and the battles of the cowpens and kings mountain. Nowadays we have a strong armed forces to protect against threats both foreign and domestic. But I think it is a valid point that we need militias as a safe guard against tyranny. A back up plan in case tyranny should some how take over. And its always nice to think that there is some form of organized resistance to assist the national guard and the other branches of the military should an invasion ever happen. The classification of “militia” is tricky and I fully support the portion of the second amendment which talks about well regulated militias as opposed to any group of gun totters calling themselves a militia. I think we still need militias as a just in case. But I consider them to be our last resort plan.

    • GALT

      The purpose of the second article of the Bill of Rights is to kill cops, or anyone
      else in government who acts contrary to the “just powers” granted to it, “by
      the consent of the governed”.

      Articles of Confederation, Article VI

      “but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.”

      In the spirit of “stare decisis”…….the language here does NOT suffer from lack of
      clarity………everything provided by and self contained within the “in public stores”
      for the “keep up” of “a well-regulated and disciplined militia”………

      If that had been the “intent” of the Bill of Rights, regarding this issue…….”the right
      of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” would have been
      an unnecessary addition.

      Which leaves us with the rather stark and brutal statement that begins this offering.

      For better or worse, this endless and circular debate……..must be discussed in
      those terms…….anything else, is disingenuous distraction.

      REALITY, suggests that the number of people ” in government who act contrary to the “just powers” granted to it ” are growing everyday………at least in the eyes of those,
      who believe that………the constitution means what it says, and is still in effect…..
      both in terms of “enumerated powers” and ” stated rights or otherwise, retained by
      the people.”

      Government is FORCE…..and this hasn’t changed…….and it is applying this
      force in all manner of activity……..either for it’s own interest’s or the “special
      interest’s” by which it has been corrupted, not in the interests of the “people”,
      and in direct violation of the “rights” quite clearly enumerated.

      Cops can kill without fear of reprisal, while at they same time they have no
      legal requirement to protect anyone……..taken together, their badge and the law
      should be sufficient……with due process….to do their job…….no guns required.

      If they have a potential problem or anticipate one….they can request the assistance
      of that “well-regulated and disciplined militia”. ( after all the constitution does not
      say that the law enforcement officers of every state shall have the right to keep
      and bear arms……….but if they feel the need for one……..I suppose they can
      base their claim……..as being “one of the people”….and thus have the “same
      rights”. ( that cops are people too…..is a bit of a stretch, but logically consistent.)

      If nothing else, having this debate, on these terms……stark and direct…..could
      prove far more useful in any number of “areas”, including “what’s really going
      on with all this seemingly “unconstitutional” stuff……….and judging by “fat boy’s
      statement last week, dismissing this argument out of hand…….this is precisely the
      “argument” they don’t want to have. Why make it easy for them?

      “To conquer, first DIVIDE!” ( and then HANG, separately. )

    • Bryan George

      The government has already made it a felony to protest anywhere the “secret” service is deployed “Good luck with that”. This IS an attack on the first amendment!! The second is meant to insure that a tyranical government does not take the others away as they ARE doing now! I would Gladly and sooner trust my neighbors with weapons than I would my own government because the government does NOT have OUR best interests in mind and they have an army at their command. You had better wake up, the mainstream media ARE Liberal progressives “Communist” and they most certainly do NOT tell both sides of any debate!! The SEIU and the AFL-CIO both have marched in San Francisco and Washington D.C. carrying communist signs and chanting communist slogans that ended with “Communism is the solution”!! Did they cover that?? Did they cover Obama standing in front of the SEIU and saying ” your agenda is MY agenda” and “Together we will paint this country SEIU purple”?? Think Obama doesn’t know of their march’s?? Democrat’s and unions ARE communist!! I don’t say this lightly as I have been a union member (affiliated with the AFL-CIO) for years and had no idea they use our money to support such ideas. Not even the Republicans will talk about this, WHY???? Proof is there for all to see on U-Tube. Spread it until these idiots are run out on a rail!!! I didn’t see any coverage about the shooting in San Antonio 2 days after Conn where an armed person shot the shooter and saved countless lives either. They ARE BIAS!!

    • http://aol Gene

      when the president of Russia says that Obama is a communist there is no one better qualified to make that kind of a statement and Putin better than anyone should know a communist when he sees one

      • eddie47d

        Putin rules Russia with an iron fist and you still don’t want to get caught up in their prison system. If you want to quote Putin then maybe that would be a better place for yoin mother Russia.

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

        Gene looking at the comments by eddie, teddy 47 ways to be a commie and Jeremy is like standing on a Russian street corner and listening to two commie’s building each other up, neither have a clue about history and both have distorted it when ever they are in the mood. If they say it, you can bet it is a lie and something they made up. I have caught so many of eddie, teddy’s lie’s it would fill a book, now I get to add Jeremy and his lie’s. The fabian socialist took over our school system and it show when you read these two. Wow, talk about drinking cool ade and lying to get a cause to the forefront>

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I assure you Benjamin I am no communist. And what I believe comes less from what I learned in school and more from my curiosity about issues and my studying them. I admit school helped. However it was hardly drinking the cool aide as you suggest.

    • http://www.ucl.co.ke Wamalwa Nanjolicho

      American people, the people who are pro guns are very myopic in their thinking. I leave very far from country in a country called Kenya and we are constantly under the thread of guns from the criminals to cattle rustlers. Imagine we lost over 40 police men in one go to the hands of cruel cattle rustlers who had guns and knew the terrain well than the police officers who were trying to recover the stolen animal.
      The cattle rustlers were armed in equal measure like the policemen like some are advocating but they outnumbered the police officer. So when you talk of people being armed that is the kind of anarchy we anticipate.
      As a country we are advocating for restriction of trade in small arms to limit their access to the criminals who cause the suffering of the innocent people.
      I hope that the American people shall come to the senses and support us in coming with a treaty on small arms, this will go a long way in helping reduce the suffering being caused by these small arms.

      • dalek

        I have just one thing to say. You do what you want there including giving up your guns. If that is what you want and your Government says it is fine, so be it. Our Constitution gives the people the right to bear arms. It doesn’t say small or large so it includes them all. WE ARE NOT GIVING UP OURS. You can if you want but not me and many millions of others. We have seen what happens when the people are disarmed and we have a Constitution that gives us a way to prevent that. Actually, we have a way to prevent our guns from being taken to begin with. It is called resistance with force, deadly if needed.

      • http://aol Gene

        from Kenya, small arms treaty, sounds like someone we all know

      • Nadzieja Batki

        So you are an IDIOT plain and simple, and if you don’t know what that means look it up. We have enough human variety of trash in America, you just added yourself to the crowd. If you don’t want freedom and liberty why did you bring your sorry ass here to America, you should have been a quick learn how to get along with the thugs in your own country.

      • JC

        Wamalwa Nanjolicho says:

        January 7, 2013 at 8:28 am

        American people, the people who are pro guns are very myopic in their thinking. I leave very far from country in a country called Kenya and we are constantly under the thread of guns from the criminals to cattle rustlers.
        _____________________________________________________________________

        Another simplistic view. The desired result of Liberals in their quest for disarmament is that guns actually be “uninvented”, nothing less would give them the utopia they imagine.
        The reality is guns aren’t going away and we’re safest when the majority of those guns are in the hands of law abiding citizens.

      • Wildturkey

        Maybe if the farmers had ample weapons the cattle would not have been stolen in the first place. Did you ever think of that. Criminal will get weapons from where ever they can even if you ban them.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        wildturkey, the kenyan Wamalwa is just another human predator who found too much competition among the other predators in kenya so he had to migrate here to America.

      • Capitalist at Birth

        Who is we? You and Totalitarians like you are advocating to infringe on my right to keep an bear arms. That is a declaration of war. Do you have the courage to attempt to disarm me and those like me, yourself? Or will you have your gang of armed thugs do it for you? Makes no difference I will die a free man and never be your slave. You however, will continue to be a coward.

      • http://yahoo MilitaryMom

        Tell me how you will ban Machetes & Harpoons where they slaughter whole villages?? They never used a gun!!!

      • Kate8

        Wamalwa – With all due respect, we are not Kenya.

        Americans have always been well armed since our inception. We had our “wild west” days, but we have always (until now) been a moral people who simply want to be left to “pursue happiness” unmolested by anyone, including government.

        As someone pointed out, criminals will use whatever they have. Somehow, they are always able to get their hands on guns (probably supplied by corrupt politicians), but in the event they can’t, they’ll use whatever weapons available. Heck, anyone can MAKE a weapon.

        We’ll keep our guns, thank you very much. They’ve been the only thing which has kept us protected up until now.

      • Steve E

        Wamalwa Nanjolicho, you should leave this country. You do not believe in the Constitution. And you should always keep yourself, unarmed.

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

        Your dumber then a rock, who steals, crooks, who murders, crooks, so by letting them have theirs and the police who do you think will be the victim? You !!!!

      • JC

        This just in:

        Lots and Lots of Americans exercising their natural Constitutionally enshrined rights.

        LOTS of em! :)

        “Since Congress and the President may try to pass laws to make us defenseless, Americans are stocking up on weapons as insurance against thieves, rapists, and murderers. That’s why we’re seeing evidence of record gun buying from Florida to California.
        “Nearly 8,000 people attended the first day of the Florida Gun Shows’ exhibition this weekend in Orlando, according to event organizers.
        “Crowds broke records on Saturday, and organizers said it’s possible they’ll see even larger numbers of gun enthusiasts before the weekend ends.
        “Hundreds of gun buyers took vouchers that would allow them to return on Sunday because it was difficult to get into Saturday’s events.
        “‘[Gun enthusiasts] are buying and they’re buying as fast as they can get them,’ said Victor Bean, promoter for Florida Gun Shows. ‘We’ve had some exhibitors who had to cancel because they didn’t have any inventory from their gun shops.’”

        Most Americans do not trust the government. (For damned good reason too)

        Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/01/gun-shows-and-gun-buying-breaking-records/#ixzz2HLpJ7gHH

    • scott

      Re: Soviet Union, Germany, Turkey,Communist China,Uganda,Cambodia,Afghanistan, the evidence is clear. These countries are historical examples of what happens when a populace is disarmed. Genocide. It is impossible when the victims are armed and able to resist. Be aware, gun registration is always the first step to confiscation. Confiscation at some point leads to complete loss of freedom and mass killings.
      Don’t think it can happen here? Better think again. Just look at the steady erosion of our rights and freedoms in just the last decade! This gun control issue HAS to be the “line in the sand” for lovers of freedom. With guns you’re citizens – without guns you’re subjects!

      • GRusling

        Careful now… Afghanistan is not and never has been disarmed! It’s simply a tribal land where the tribes have no desire to BE DISARMED or to develop “democracy” where the vote of the majority is allowed to oppress the minority. Time after time other countries have TRIED to control those tribes, but they’ve always failed, and the U.S. will fail just as badly. Even the Soviet Union with its massive occupation could not subjugate the tribes of Afghanistan, which is nothing more than an “area” designated as a “country” by allied cartographers at the end of WWII. These United States will utterly fail as soon as our military is withdrawn to the level that it can no longer control the populace. Our “installed” central government will immediately fail and Afghanistan will revert to what it has always been — still well armed and extremely dangerous. My solution is to simply walk away, with the promise to return in force and bomb them all back into the stone age if they ever again give aid and support to an enemy which dares to attack us…

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Than why is it that the laws which disarmed German Citizens was not passed until 1938 a full 4 years after Hitler assumed dictatorial powers. And why is vast numbers of armed resistance groups sprang up through out Germany. The power of the first amendment is how dictators become powerful. They convince people that they need weapons rather than the ballot box to be safe. Its then that they start becoming all powerful and convincing people to give up their guns willingly.

      • Billy Hill

        Read carefully,the”Dick Act “of 1902.It provides unbreakable protection to the 2nd Amendment

    • nonannystate

      So what part of “shall not be infringed” do these “well-educated” gun control advocates and, for that matter, our elected representatives not understand. It seems to me that the 2nd amendment verbage does not leave any room for debate. I am certain that it was not written lightly.

    • wandamurline

      Get yourself a copy of the Declaration of Independence…it is blatantly clear that you are completely uninformed as to why we are allowed to have guns….and remember the words in the 2nd Amendement, “shall not be infringed”. These people took an oath of office to conform and uphold the Constitution….many like Feinstein and Reid are definitely not abiding by their oath and they need to resign.

      • http://aol Gene

        not resign, fired

      • Capitalist at Birth

        Executed as traitors, would be more fitting, in my mind.

    • http://yahoo Ken

      You are so full of it your eyes are brown. I would be wasting my breath trying to explain the 2nd Amendment to you and the real reason for it. People are the threat and video games for the kids. You want to keep freedom then keep the assault weapon or so they are called which is BS!

    • Capitalist at Birth

      You are a fool, if you trust the government. I am sorry you do not understand that the end is nearer than it was 150 years ago, when the constitution was repeatedly eroded. I think if you want to live in a country where arms are restricted to only the government, you should move there and leave the Constitution alone. In other words you and your type are not welcome here.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I do not trust the government. I trust the Republic and Democracy to be my safe guards. I trust my power and the power of the people to speak out against corruption and incompetence and extremism. And I never said I wanted only government to have weapons. The constitution expresses the right to keep and bear arms as one that cannot be infringed. I follow that same as all others. There is a difference between creating restrictions on how where and when a person may obtain a gun and making it impossible for a person to keep or bear a gun.

      • Capitalist at Birth

        Creating restrictions is the same as infringement. What don’t you understand about that?

      • Nadzieja Batki

        C A B, there will be a new way of infringing on gun ownership and it will be by way of home insurance. It isn’t enough that the home insurance companies have grown to be the biggest extortion rackets they will create gun control through this gambit.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Capitilist. Making it difficult for people to obtain weapons in no way violates their ability to keep them. Neither does it infringe on their right to bear them.

    • Marie M

      You make some very good points til the end where you argue that it would be easy to identify a tyranical government in time to do something about it. I think that if you were honest about your study of history you would know that most of the most tyranical of governments started out reasonably but then progressed to limiting speech and weaponry until the average person was no longer able to mount any defence even with the help of his neighbors. This is not the path I choose. Not what I spent 12 years in the military to defend. One has to always be vigilent because change for the worst while happening in plain sight is often missed or deemed to not be important enough to do anything about.

      • Capitalist at Birth

        I think our current government since around 1900 could and should be defined as tyrannical. It is only a matter of degree that should be debated.

      • Steve E

        Watch how tyrannical this government gets if it ever tries to take your arms. There will be more bloodshed than ever before in the history of man.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Marie my theories are centered on the two tyrannical governments most often used as examples of where we are headed. When people use hyperbolic language about the power of big government Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany are the go tos. However in both those cases and specifically Nazi Germany the people should have seen it coming a mile away. Sadly the people were driven to near madness by the great depression and so fearful of chaos and disorder that they decided Hitler and his goons should be given political power to restore order forgetting who it was who destroyed that order in the first place. And it was the same when the Bolsheviks over threw the government established by the February Revolution against the Czar. From Francisco Franco to Saddam Hussein, from The Terror of Maximilien Robespierre to Fidel Castro. The way these dictators came to power was through convincing and deceiving people. They tricked them into believing that the Democratic Process or that a Representational Government was not enough to protect them. That they needed a strong man to safe guard them and that he could only act through aggression and suppression. Robespierre was one of the framers of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and was a passionate opponent of the death penalty. Yet when things became difficult and France faced dangers from abroad and within Robespierre simply said times have changed and abandoned his former principles. He justified the terror by saying it was necessary. The key thing in common with all these dictators is that to start out they had to trick people and convince them. To stop dictators from rising we need people of courage and integrity in government. We need a watchful citizenry and a citizenry that participates. Above all we need a citizenry that remains faithful to the democratic system and to the power of words both spoken and printed. Its when people stop believing that they can protect themselves from tyranny through words and print that tyranny comes. Its when people stop believing in the promises of a republic and turn to the seductions of a tyrant that liberty dies. Its when people stop believing that government can be reformed and cleaned of corruption and extremism and instead take matters into their own hands that disaster occurs.

    • Bill

      Jeremy,
      It is a left vs right argument. The liberals want to disarm the public so they can control. The weak , women and seniors, needs guns to protect themselves from all of the new criminals created by the liberals anti business recession

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Bill I am a liberal and I do not want to disarm people. I do not support gun bans. So its not a generalized liberal versus conservative left versus right debate at all.

      • Capitalist at Birth

        Jeremy, That you mention Democracy in the same sentence as Republic, proves your ignorance. None of the people involved in creating a Constitutional Republic thought Democracy was a good idea for governance. As with all Totalitarians, your desire to force your majority will on the minority shows through loud and clear. Democracy cannot and has never worked. It always leads to chaos and economic collapse. You need to study a little bit more, and quit running your mouth on sites like this so much.

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

        Bill Jeremy and eddie, teddy 47 ways to be a commie prove your point every time they comment. They are the people who believe in what Karl Marx said and they prove it everytime they talk like him. Marx said there were 10 steps to communism and in the U.S we employ 9 of them and under people like Jeremy and eddie teddy and Obozo we will have the 10th, a dictator which is number 10 and he lives in the White House now.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Capitalist our system has a democratic underpinning. We must not allow the majority to tyrannize the minority but neither must we allow the tyranny of the minority to control the majority. Not for nothing they are the majority. I am loyal to our country which is a Republic. And I am loyal to the right of the majority to cast its vote. Whether it be for a particular candidate or a particular policy proposal. Democracy is not our system and pure true democracy cannot work. But there still needs to be a underpinning of a democratic system. Just as there is both the Senate to provide equal representation to the states regardless of population so there is the house of representatives to ensure the voice of minority.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Benjamin I am no communist. I am a social democrat. I believe in having a social conscience and applying social justice in deed not word. I do not believe in ignoring the individual for the sake of the community. But neither do I believe in ignoring the community for the sake of the individual. Its a balance that has to be maintained.

    • Texas Ride

      How naive you are, Jeremy! I bet you don’t own a gun…

      Those that became Americans were people that demanded freedom and despised tyranny. That has been a cornerstone of this Nation. Our system is failing, our elections are meaningless and compromised. Our schools are government-run indoctrination centers. Everything that has made this country great, is under attack.
      Our government no longer represents the people, nor does it believe in our constitutional rights. Bottom line, the government is broken and no longer functions as a servant to the people. The process has begun to make people the slaves to the government. There is no leverage, no representation, or Rule of Law that is recognized by the current regime.

      • http://aol Gene

        Very well said

      • GRusling

        You’re correct, but remember the “Patriot Act” was passed by the previous administration, under republican control of all three branches of our federal government, and it’s difficult to imagine a more unconstitutional act by the “elites” in Washington DC than that pile of garbage…

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Texas I do not own a gun and I admit I am young and a tad naive. What I know is this. I went through one of those government indoctrination centers as you call them. Yet my allegiance has never been to the government or to its leaders. My allegiance is to the Republic and to Democracy. And it is in my experience that when people stop believing in a Republic that a Republic dies. Its when people stop believing in the Democratic process that liberty dies and tyrants rise. I support peoples right to bear arms as I do all other rights. Perhaps I am naive but on this I am certain. I am determined to never bow or submit to any dictator or ruler of any kind. I am loyal to the Republic. Until the day that someone attempts to declare themselves a dictator I will do all in my power to prevent that. And I believe putting faith in the power of the pen rather than the sword is the best way to do that.

      • Texas Ride

        Jeremy, this post sounds like you have “promise.”

        Just hope you realize that there will come a time when “the sword is mightier than the pen.”
        We didn’t get our independence from England with the power of the pen! A lot of good patriots lost their lives.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I realize a lot of patriots lost their lives in the struggle for independence. Me belief is that they were left with no choice. They were fighting for their independence against a government that did not represent them and was made of, by and for the king. I believe that in such a situation as that armed resistance is unavoidable and necessary. But the pen is how you prevent such a system or such a situation from arising. You can’t shoot someone because they say that amendments should be abolished. You cannot shoot someone for saying America should abandon its constitution. You cannot shoot someone for threatening to ban all political parties. In this free society you have a right to say what you wish. However you also have the right to speak out against them. You have a right to do all in your power to tell people the truth and prevent the mentality that leads to tyranny. If there ever comes a day when the sword must be used I will wield it same as others. But until such a day I will use the pen and all that I have to prevent that.

    • alpha-lemming

      The ground-work for that “tyrannical Government” IS being laid…..

      The MSM won’t remind you but… recall Chairman ObaMaos’ request for a “civilian army”….. “As large and as well equipped as our conventional armed forces”. For what purposed I wonder?? The ONLY answer that makes any sense has to involve “social justice” or “redistribution” or what ever made up word/synonym they come up with to mis-identfy what’s actually “sanctioned thievery to fund the Communist utopia”.

    • Old Man

      Jeremy Leochner……Your another of the rambling “useful idiots” who doesn’t seem t want to see what is “incramentally happening in this country. Read this quote……. “The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under the name of Liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist Nation without ever knowing how it happened.”
      – Norman Thomas, American Socialist

      • Steve E

        Jeremy Leochne is Flashy. They have the same IP address.

      • Kate8

        Steve E – I’ve noticed how they always seem to show up together…

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Old man I am a liberal who believes in Liberalism. I have no desire to compel anyone towards socialism and from what I have heard of socialism it does not sound all that great anyways.

        Kate and Steve I am not flashy or anyone else. Mr. Livingston and Dave were wrong when they said that I have the same address as some one else. The only way that is possible is if someone is breaking into my house and logging onto to my pc and coming on.

    • GRusling

      Mr. Leochner: You err in several ways, probably because your point-of-view is corrupted by our non-education system.

      First, the left/right paradigm is false on gun control because many of my “democratic” friends are as strongly opposed to it as my “republican” friends. In reference to the media though, the paradigm is generally true. The mainstream media has a strong leftist slant which can easily be ascertained. If you don’t see that, you simply haven’t looked. Only FoxNews moderates that view, and even then it’s a slight moderation. Their approach is “republican” which is presented as an alternative to the “far-left” but in fact, is simply a slightly moderated version of that same viewpoint. Today’s republicans are oceans apart from the Goldwater republicans of a few decades ago.

      Where the 2nd Amendment is concerned, you totally ignore reality. Our Constitution, as written included no provision for a “standing army” so “The People” in the militia were the only army that existed! Our constitution still provides that no funding for an army shall be for more than “two years” while the “Militia” is deemed to be perpetual, under command and control of the States, not the federal government. To that end, it’s necessary that “The People,” who are that militia, be properly armed to fight a war. Repeating rifles, in this day and age, are the proper arms of a soldier, so anyone who tries to disarm, or even restrict the arms of the individual members of our militia are acting at cross purpose to our constitution. Texas, for instance, has “5 Well Regulated (well trained) Militia Units” maintained by and under full command and control of our Governor. All these individuals (except the Commanding Officers) have full-time jobs outside their militia units and meet regularly for training. Each or all of these units can be called up within a matter of hours, with a full compliment of the “Weapons of War” which our U.S. armed forces have at their disposal. Texas also has the “general militia” which consists of everyone not a member of this “select militia.” There is no longer a requirement that every member own and maintain proper armament, but most still do. I know of very few men in this State who do not own and maintain proper weapons at home. Most who don’t are either newly arrived or forbidden by law to own firearms through their own actions. If you care to inquire you’ll find that “accidental shootings” in America have steadily declined since the 1940′s, and certainly not as a result of “fewer firearms” in the hands of our citizens, so I have very little fear (like none) that my neighbors might “accidentally shoot me” just because they are well armed, and they certainly are.

      For any who fear “The Police” it should be understood that they are also members of our local community, who will join us, not oppose us should revolution become necessary. That fact alone stops our federal government from attempting to abruptly interfere with our many freedoms.

      That being said, I point you to the so-called “Patriot Act” which is a direct violation of almost every single article in our Bill of Rights. It’s unconstitutional on its face in more ways than I have space here to describe. The recent “NDAA 2012″ has created its own furor, and even members of our legislature call it illegal and unconstitutional, but the fact that it hasn’t been repealed out of hand demonstrates that we cannot trust our federal government not to oppress us and/or “MURDER” our citizens at the whim of our President! If THAT doesn’t get your attention, you are hopelessly dependent on someone else to do your thinking for you…

      • Jeremy Leochner

        GRusling.

        First in regards to Fox News you and I are in great disagreement. I believe Fox News is just as radical and just as partisan as it claims the “mainstream media” is. And I use quotes because for all Fox News talks about the “mainstream media” they also cannot help but brag about how they are the most popular network and have audiences much bigger than any other. Fox News is the mainstream media. And I hardly believe anyone would suggest Fox News is in any ways liberal.

        As for the second amendment. I do not deny the importance and need for a militia. Where I disagree with you is on the issue of a standing army. The continental army was designed as a unified effort against the British long before the constitution and became the basis for our future armed forces. While the constitution recognizes the importance of militias I feel the founding fathers put more faith in having at least some central armed forces. After all during the time the articles of confederation was the law of the land the armed forces was a pathetic shadow of what it would one day be. It could not maintain domestic order and near chaos reigned. I believe that a militias primary responsibility is to be a watch dog against tyranny. Its second responsibility is to be a back up to the national guard in the event of a foreign invasion. So I recognize the importance of militias. But for me I cannot help but feel as of right now they are not needed. Perhaps I am being neglectful and I am glad to see other states take care of their militias. I just do not believe they are needed as of yet.

      • GRusling

        Jeremy Leochner: Your view of FoxNews shows that you have no idea what the “right” is, or you’d realize there is a huge distance between the “Far Right” and what FoxNews espouses. The concept of “Don’t Touch My SS and Medicare” is about as far right as those folks ever get, and that position is way LEFT from the center of the political spectrum! You can’t even tell the difference between a “Welfare State” and Marxism, and they’re radically different! How can you be expected to recognize the difference between “Democracy” and a Republic?

        The “Mainstream Media” is not defined by viewership on some “Cable News Network” and if you knew whereof you spoke you’d understand the alphabet soup networks (ABC, CBS and NBC) ARE the “Mainstream Media” and their viewership absolutely DWARFS that of ANY Cable News outfit. The New York Times and the L.A. Times lead the WORLD in “Print Journalism” with only the Wall Street Journal to challenge them, and the word is “challenge,” not overcome. Ask our host here, Bob Livingston just how “conservative” he considers “FoxNews” to be, and I think you’ll be amazed.

        When the U.S. Constitution was written and ratified, the United States had “NO” (as in none at all) standing army, and the constitution makes no provision for one in the future. If you had studied U.S. history at all you would KNOW that our Founding Fathers DISTRUSTED a standing army, and all the military men who fought the Revolutionary War were actually “Militiamen” from the various Colonies, and only “George Washington” was hired by the “Confederation” as General of the Continental Army while every other officer came from one colony or another. They were “Federal Officers” only in the sense that they were, at that time, called into “Federal Service” in unified defense of our newly formed country. Not only was that the case in our Revolutionary War, it was STILL true almost 80 years later when the so-called “Civil War” between the North and South was fought. Lincoln named U.S. Grant Commander of all union forces, while those forces were comprised ENTIRELY of the combined Militias of the remaining union States.

        All of this makes what you “feel” the Founding Fathers had faith in, utter nonsense, because it doesn’t even come CLOSE to the reality of what they actually did…

      • Jeremy Leochner

        GRusling

        1: If Fox News is not far right you would not know it by asking the people at Fox. Case in point I offer this little demonstration of fox: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-27-2011/gop—special-victims-unit

        2: I do know the difference between a Republic and Democracy. Democracy is just majority rule. A Republic is founded on the principle of checks and balances and that is what I have always supported. However just as the minority must check the majority so the majority must check the minority. The majority cannot check the minority without some form democracy or a democratic underpinning taking root.

        3: I am a history buff with a particular focus on the Civil War. With all due respect there was a regular or “standing” army during both the War of 1812 and The Civil War and every war in between. The continental army formed the basis of the regular army which was a standing army. The founders tried with the confederation to allow every state to just look after its own but it did not work. And the idea of each state taking care of itself without a standing army was further shown to not work with the confederate states of America. Every attempt by the Richmond government to centralize control struggled mightily with numerous states refusing to send units from their state to others. This contributed to the Confederacys ultimate downfall. There needs to be a United Armed Forces if there is to be a United States. The phrase is the United States is not The United States are.

    • Leftnot

      Jeremy, the entire point of your discussion is our having the freedoms provided by the First Amendment. Without the power to revolt with fisical force (the Second Amendment) the rights of the First Amendment will be meaningless. Soon after our personal weaponry is reduced to single shot arms with little power to reach out and touch something, the First Amendment Rights will be more and more infringed upon until speaking out against the government in any way will be cause for imprisonment and worse.

      You mistakenly believe we can give up our guns and still be powerful through word. I would ask how that worked out for the countries you mention. Germany under the Hitler years and Russia during Stallin are examples you provide. More recently look at what has happened in Mexico, Africa and South America. In almost every case where totalitarion government has presided, disarming the citizenry was paramount.

      Let’s get back to the cause of this discussion which is mass shootings committed by mad men. Cause and effect. These shootings have all been committed where the shooters knew there would be no resistance for some period of time. They also knew they would be imortalized by the media. Those are the causes. There is nothing we can do about the media. There is everything we can do about the mistake of creating “GUN FREE ZONES” which have been just one more loss in our personal freedoms.

      Of all the gun control laws that have been passed in the United States, none have had a positive affect in reducing violent crime. The only affect they have had is to reduce the freedoms of law abiding citizens.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Left not it is my belief that in order to come after a peoples right to bear arms a tyrant or dictator must first destroy their rights to speech and expression and assembly. I use Nazi Germany as a case in point. When Hitler became chancellor of Germany all the rights I mentioned existed. Then when the Reichstag burned Hitler declared it to be the work of the communists and convinced President Hindenburg to declare martial law. Freedom of the press, speech, expression and public assembly were all banned. However freedom to keep and bear arms still existed. In fact the right of German Citizens to have weapons was not completely taken away until 1938 more than 4 years after Hitler assumed dictatorial power:http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html

        Dictators do not start confiscating weapons until after they assume power. If they attempt to do before they attain absolute power then they are driven off and their schemes exposed. In order to confiscate weapons you have to convince people to submit willingly.

        As for school shootings you and I are in disagreement on a few points. First I do not believe shooters seek out schools because they know there will be no resistance. The Columbine school had armed security guards at the time of the shooting and the shooters who were students would have known that. Second Gun Free Zones are designed to discourage children from bringing guns to school in order to show off or protect themselves from bullies. Those kinds of incidents have resulted in far more deaths and injuries than mass school shootings committed by maniacs:

        http://www.independent.co.uk/news/6000-expelled-for-taking-guns-to-school-1158180.html

        http://www.nssc1.org/guns-to-deal-with-problems.html

        http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/policy_statements/children_and_guns

  • The Gambler

    “Surely, there is no need for a civilian to hold that kind of power in his hand. In fact, why should anyone have that much power over another human being? Do we really trust each other’s judgment?”

    This is her quote. By stating this, she is giving the exact reason why we should have the second amendment…to keep the government from having too much power over others.

    • Capitalist at Birth

      Exactly!!! If you don’t think the Totalitarians understand that, then you are a fool.

  • Doug Moore

    Automatic weapons are already controlled. Lanza used a one shot at a time rifle, ie an semi-automatic rifle, This is how most guns work, one trigger pull, one bullet, Automatic weapons are something different.

    • Colorado Jim

      A police officer friend shared with me that the Lanza semi-automatic rifle was found in the car and NOT used in the shooting of those innocent children and school staff. How convienent of the media to not report this fact but that would not fit with their bias and desire to ban all semi-automatic rifles. The problem is the person behind the weapon, not the weapon. I concur that our forefathers wrote the Second Amendment to keep the government in check as a last resort for the people.

      • SOMA

        Jim, I thought that was true as well. I found it very interesting the first day of the shooting that the media kept saying all day that Adam Lanza used Sig Sauer and Glock handguns. That’s very specific information, but then suddenly the next day the media was all touting that he used an AR-15 rifle, which indeed is semi-automatic, not fully automatic. When the media then reported that the kindergarten children that all died in that classroom suffered from multiple bullet wounds up close by an AR-15 (5.56mm Nato) rifle, the first thing that went through my mind was a SWAT team style sweep of the room. How does 1 person enter a room and kill everyone in the room with a semi-automatic weapon up close with some children being shot between 7 and 11 times each?? How is it that not a single child can escape out the door while this lone shooter walks around the room taking the time to put 11 bullets into one individual victim? To me, there has to be more than one shooter which by definition creates a conspiracy (see the movie JFK) and someone was guarding the door to make sure no one escaped.

        Also, I remember on Friday when the shooting happened there was a news helicopter flying over head when the police opened the trunk of Adam Lanza’s car and pulled the AR-15 out into clear view. The next day the media tried to pass it off as a shotgun. Hmmmm…

      • CZ52

        Actually they did report that fact initialy. However, after most of two days had passed the story suddenly changed to the rifle being used to do all the shooting.

      • http://personalliberydigest big wyo

        The fact is we don’t know much about what really happened at Sandy Hook.
        The gun in the trunk filmed from the News Helocopter was a autoloader shotgun.
        Film of two men in the woods , one cuffed and captured.
        Boy and mother stating man cuffed prone on sidwalk and taken away in cruiser.

        check out Ben Swanns Full disclosure on you tube.

        WE DON’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED

    • eddie47d

      Although there is confusion on the term automatic vs semi-automatic is the difference really that great? If someone is pumping out 30 rounds in less than a minute with a semi-automatic but you can spray 40 rounds in the same time frame with a fully automatic there isn’t much difference. I think this is one of the biggest con games pulled over our eyes where you can kill just about as many people with either weapon then attempt to say semi’s are so much safer or not as deadly. Smoke and mirrors!

      • dalek

        My brother could shoot a semi-automatic so fast, it sounded like a fully automatic rifle. He had one fast finger on that thing. There would be several rounds gone before the first shell hit the ground. He may not be as fast as a fully automatic rifle but I wouldn’t want to live on the difference.

        Me, I think the 2nd Amendment means anything a man can carry. I don’t think it means tanks but I’d be open to the idea given the current path of the Government. ;-)

      • JC

        eddie47d says:

        January 7, 2013 at 7:36 am

        Although there is confusion on the term automatic vs semi-automatic is the difference really that great?
        ________________________________________________________________________

        There’s no confusion there…none at all.
        Fully Automatic: Gun unloads itself in a sustained burst with one held pull of the trigger.
        Semi Automatic: Requires a pull of the trigger for each round discharged.

        How is that confusing?

        The Second Amendments says the “Right to Keep and Bear” so why the confusion over what kind of arms can be kept? I can “bear” a full auto just as easily as a semi auto.
        The distinction is irrelevant, and the choice should be mine.

        Thanks for helping put that in perspective eddie. :)

      • phideaux

        To: JC says:
        January 7, 2013 at 9:19 am

        Now JC you know eddie is always right if you don’t believe me just ask him. eddie wants and needs there to be confusion so he can use it to argue for ever more restrictive gun control.

      • Steve E

        You may want to have a 30 round magazine in case the corrupt government forces send 30 thugs to arrest you without a warrant under the NDAA act. You see, there is a justifiable and logical reason to have large capacity magazine to protect yourself.

      • eddie47d

        A speeding Volkswagen call kill as many people as a speeding Maserati even though one is considered for insurance rates much more expensive to operate. Who cares if you have to pull the trigger each time! If it can can kill as many people with either weapon then there isn’t much difference is there!

      • phideaux

        ” If it can can kill as many people with either weapon then there isn’t much difference is there!”

        It would seem you want everything but single shot rifles and pistols banned eddie. A revolver with speed loaders can be shot extremly fast and accurately with only a minimal amount of practice.

      • eddie47d

        I See no logical sense in automatics or semi-automatics in the hands of civilians. Rifles and handguns absolutely.I think I made that clear to you the other day but you keep on asking.

      • JC

        eddie47d says:

        January 7, 2013 at 11:10 am

        A speeding Volkswagen call kill as many people as a speeding Maserati even though one is considered for insurance rates much more expensive to operate. Who cares if you have to pull the trigger each time! If it can can kill as many people with either weapon then there isn’t much difference is there!
        _________________________________________________________________________

        Good Point! So why are actual Assault Rifles illegal?

      • eddie47d

        Because they are bought to do maximum damage in the quickest time. That is hardly a valid reason to own one! We’re not talking about boxing gloves here but taking human flesh and blood. Sorry I won’t feed the sickness.

      • JC

        eddie47d says:

        January 7, 2013 at 2:16 pm

        I See no logical sense in automatics or semi-automatics in the hands of civilians. Rifles and handguns absolutely.I think I made that clear to you the other day but you keep on asking.
        _______________________________________________________________

        Noted.
        Irrelevant, as we have laws that say differently….but “noted” . ;-)

      • JC

        eddie47d says:

        January 7, 2013 at 4:17 pm

        Because they are bought to do maximum damage in the quickest time. That is hardly a valid reason to own one! We’re not talking about boxing gloves here but taking human flesh and blood. Sorry I won’t feed the sickness.
        ________________________________________________________________________

        But you yourself said there was virtually no difference between an actual Assault Rifle and a Semi-Auto….

        You’re really having trouble getting yourself established in this so called debate, aren’t you eddie?

  • CJ482
    • Rob

      I guess Ms Malia’s wishes are satisfied like Mr Moore said automatic weapons are already banned. Apparently Ms Malia didn’t know quite as much about gun control and the purpose of it as she thought she did. I bet she didn’t know it is against the law for a criminal to own a firearm and we all know they they obey the law.

      • windage

        Rob, you are misquoting Doug Moore, who said, “controlled”, not banned. They are regulated as a class 3 device under the NFA (national firearms act)…many Americans legally own and use “fully automatic” weapon…..fun too.

      • CZ52

        And, I there has been only one incedence of a legaly owned and posessed full automatic firearm being used in the commission of a crime since the 1934 NFA. That was an officer of the law using a department gun to commit the crime.

    • eddie47d

      The problem with your thinking Rob is that a gun owner is not a criminal until after he commits his crime. James Holmes (Aurora shooter) was totally legal and not a criminal. He was allowed to own and buy all the weapons he wanted from various sources and all the ammo he wanted. Saying we have to wait until a gun owner does his deadly deed to correct some of these glaring problems is ludicrous. Actually Bailey did get it right in saying gun rights “within reason”.

      • Capitalist at Birth

        Within who’s reason??? HMMMM? If you mean you have control over my rights as guaranteed in the Constitution, will you have the guts to come and disarm me yourself? I doubt it. Like all of your Totalitarian Comrades, you will send a gang of thugs. You are a coward that deserves to live in Russia or Cuba where there are plenty of people who like that type of control.

      • Capitalist at Birth

        Do you understand the meaning of “shall not be infringed”? Evidently you have a very low reading comprehension, and need to be re-educated.

      • phideaux

        As has been pointed out before eddie your idea of “within reason” is ever more restrictive gun laws.

      • JC

        Gee eddie, I never thought of it that way…
        You’re right, we should be doing something to prevent possible criminals from ever committing a crime. And sinse there’s no way of knowing who that might be…
        maybe we just build a prison society where no one has any guns, or any freedom, or any rights and just rely on our benevolent masters to feed and clothe us…and if we’re really really lucky they will let us actually live…in a cage.

        I’m very impressed with your “progressive thinking” eddie.

      • speedle

        Ed, it doesn’t matter – none of it. No tragedy involving the use of firearms changes anything with regard to the right to firearms. It doesn’t matter how many nut jobs kill how many people of whatever age, the answer to the problem is not now (nor will ever be) denying the public second amendment rights. The real nut bags (Progressives) sit around and wait for the next event to drag out the “there oughta be a law” mentality from the public sheep. Get this Ed. It’s not gonna happen with firearms. If it is tried, there will be bloodshed.

      • Chris

        One of the main points to be taken here is that James Holmes would not have chosen the venue he did if that particular theater’s management had not chosen to tell the law abiding citizen that they were not permitted to carry weapons of self defense into that establishment, establishing a “Gun Free Zone” That fact made that particular theater a prime target for a madman who wished to build up a high body count. Had there been the possibility of armed citizens in that theater, James would have most likely gone somewhere else, like to one of the local public schools where our government has declared the area to be a “Gun Free Zone” , We need to wake up and tell our government to leave our rights alone, Even further, we should tell them to remove any and all restrictions on the second amendment rights of law abiding citizens of this great country! the “Gun Free Zones” created by the governments at all levels have caused a lot of collateral damage from Cowards such as James Homes,

      • http://www.facebook.com/ronald.campbell.391 Ronald Campbell

        We the people must have the same arms that the goverment has. If we Don’t may God have mercy on our souls

      • eddie47d

        Speedle: Yes it does matter and yes everytime one of these mass killing occur you attempt to loosen the laws that allow these killers to obtain their weapons. It works both ways and there are plenty of Right Wing “nutbags” out their too. The 2nd isn’t going anywhere but I wouldn’t trust you extremists on the other end either.

      • http://carlwk3c carlwk3c

        Eddie, “Shall not be infringed” doesn’t say “except within what someone else determines to be ‘within reason’” it is clear andd unambiguous.

  • bluidevil

    No matter how many times one hears the anti-gunners screaming ‘why do civilians need military weapons”. The fact is the civilans have no where near the firepower the government forces both military and domestic agencies have. AR’s,AK’s are not even close to drones, full auto hardware and even more we know and don’t know about. Some leftist think tanks better realize the government is not always going to be utopian dreamers
    with these things at their disposal. Some balance of power not within government but
    with private vs government needs to be in place.

    • czman75

      Do some research. American Citizen firearm owners hold (collectively) more weapons (yes, small arms) and ammo than than entire Armed Services. There are more of us than them, and yes,they are afraid of us. They know we know what they are up to…

      • SOMA

        czman75, yes we may have more guns than the military, but do you really think a double-barrel shotgun is going to hold up against drones, night vision, satellite imagery, handheld guided rockets, smart bombs, and even the small arms that they carry??? Plus they’re listening to our conversations, tracking our movements, and using information gathering techniques and technologies that we don’t have access to. On top of all that, they’re well organized, trained, and supplied with all the tools to fight a war, anytime and anyplace. You really think the people of this country all spread out across this nation with little training or organization, with less advanced weapons could stand up to the greatest military force in the world? You better do some research.

        Note: I don’t believe the military would be used to attack the citizens of this nation. All military members take an oath to defend the Constitution from all threats foreign and domestic. I fear a quiet war against the FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, and FEMA which work as the Gestapo, the SS, and the KGB.

      • JC

        SOMA says:

        January 7, 2013 at 8:21 am

        czman75, yes we may have more guns than the military, but do you really think a double-barrel shotgun is going to hold up against drones, night vision, satellite imagery, handheld guided rockets, smart bombs, and even the small arms that they carry???
        ________________________________________________________________________

        If you really think the US Military will turn on Americans then we might as well just start reporting to the camps for extermination right away don’t you think? Might as well just give up…

        I think it’s the UN boys we need to worry about. And I think we can kick their asses all over the block. How many doors do you think they will be kicking in even if there is “only” a shotgun on the other side of the door? Not to mention America has 20 or 30 million snipers….

  • Warrior

    Somehow the “elites” think it is just fine to provide “arms” to “freedom fighters” in other lands. I wonder, if the “progressives” succeed in their quest to disarm “AMERICANS”, do you think China or Russia has methods in place to “re-arm” us? Hmmm, better check out their local “consulates”.

    • http://carlwk3c carlwk3c

      Yes, Obama loves to arm radical muslim “freedom fighters” but wants to disarm us. Doesn’t that tell you something.
      I’m NOT defending Assad in Syria. He is a brutal dictator.
      However, Obama is conflicted on Syria … He wants to see Assad be overthrown by his alQueda and Muslim Brotherhood allies, but he can’t help himself but to admire Assad’s brutal dictatorial tactics.
      Obama can hardly wait to employ them here on us … All that’s standing in his way is that he hasn’t been able to disarm us yet.
      Obama also admires Mao …. and the way he ruthlessly grabbed power in China. The fact that he murdered about 100 million Chinese to do it is, to them, a “feature,” not a “bug.
      “Anyone who tells you that ‘It Can’t Happen Here’ is whistling past the graveyard of history. There is no ‘house rule’ that bars tyranny coming to America. History is replete with republics whose people grew complacent and descended into imperial butchery and chaos.” — Mike Vanderboegh.

  • Bob666

    She makes a very good argument. Our founding fathers would probably have a slightly different view on many of the ammendments today as the world is very different.

    • czman75

      I doubt it. The FF were very prophetic in writing the Constitution and the Amendments. They well aware of human nature and knew that governments were very capable of tyranny.

    • Warrior

      Doubt it. Seems as though Human Nature hasn’t changed one bit.

    • Johnc

      You state the world is different, when in fact it has not changed, Cain murdered Able this has not changed since the beginning of time. It still goes on today with drug dealers murdering each other and street gangs murdering each other. Human nature has not changed one Iota. There are also those who crave power and wealth, and will keep it no matter who they murder to keep it. Stalin,Mussolini, Hitler, Saddam, the list goes on and on. The founding fathers were fully aware of tyranny and wanted the rule of law but not of tyrants or kings they envisioned a REPUBLIC where the citizens held the power and the state implemented the will of the citizens but to preserve that Republic the government had to fear the wrath of the citizens should they cross the line to tyranny. That is the soul purpose of the 2nd amendment to preserve that power the citizens have over the government. Our Current leaders want what is natural for them that is the elites feel they have the right to RULE over the masses because they are educated (indoctrinated) in college’s they feel it is their birth right to rule, that they are better than everyone else and deserve to rule and with that then comes greed to steal from the public purse to continue themselves in power they will stop at nothing including murdering a few million peasants. So you can see Man has not changed in his lust for Greed, Power, enslavement, murder, rape. and all the other sins against fellow men

      • dalek

        I don’t have a “like” button so consider this a “like” button click. :-)

      • http://aol Gene

        a theater in Colorado and a school in Newtown come to mine about stop at nothing to continue their agenda, the dark side of mind control

      • david

        Johnc, it is not only a tyrranical government that the people MUST be protected from. It is the totalitarian form of government that turns tyrranical. We have had this form of government since the inception of any form of government. Capitalistic forms of government are everywhere around us. Look at nearly every one of the corporations in existence worldwide. This is a true form of totalitarianism. It is their way or the highway. Look at every mom and pop store. Every business has its rules and regulations and this extends to our present system of government we live with.
        If you look at every rule, every regulation, and every law, you will find that these are nothing more than contracts. BUT are you personally signed to every contract there is? I really doubt it. If you are not signed to those contracts are you bound by them? I would say NO. Even if you are invited upon that company’s property to visit and tour or shop, you have your own rights and those companies can not violate them. If you violate a company policy while under invitation, you are either warned and continue or are escorted from the property. Without invitation, you have trespassed, a criminal act, [this is becoming a felony more and more every day] and are prosecuted for such.
        This above scenario extends to our own governments [Federal, State {Republic}, or Local] and although we believe we have representatives speaking for us, why is it that those laws, if they are ours, are not in our own words and not in the co-opted wording and personal agenda of the Representatives themselves? If the Representative changes the wording as we supplied to them, then the Representative is the only one that is a consideration to sign that law. If the wording is exactly as, we the people, provided, then each of us are required to be signed to that piece of paper or contract.
        People do not recognize the fact that if the Representative inserts his own agenda into our matters and we accept that, then we have accepted the fact of the Representative speaking directly for us in all matters we consider sacred and his words are our words. [each of us are sacred in our own right but his words are his words not ours unless presented exactly as we spoke them]
        Until such time as we all wake up and see this totalitarianism around us and react and control that, then all of us are trapped in that world of deceit and despotism.

        Having our 1st Amendment Right is fine, if we totally understand and present exactly what it is we are saying, publicly saying in the press [theirs or our own], expressing ourselves in our assemblies and meetings, and expressing our grievances that we have against our government and typical totalitarian societies around us, in a clear concise and personal manner. The 2nd Amendment gave us the right to defend ourselves when we feel danger coming to any of us on a personal basis. 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendments concern our Jury system, and how as our direct representative of the people can not be reviewed in their decisions “BY ANY COURT OF THE LAND”, including the US Supreme Court. These courts are comprised of all officers including the POTUS, Governors, and all lower officials.[even Law Enforcement] These are rights guaranteed not granted. Other rights guaranteed were Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. These RIGHTS are INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS not the COLLECTIVE RIGHTS of the people.

        Until you understand the contents of the contract ……………… people, you are screwed.

      • Don

        in you comment you called our government our current. funny how the leaders cane from servants of the people, who did ad the people wanted them to. it don’t work that way anymore because our leaders are like royalty deciding what we have and what we can do with their approval. that is a leader. in the article at the top the author said he would feel free knowing his neighbor had a ak47. i would not give it a thought because just because they possess the gun does that mean they’ll go out and blast everything. i must be that kind of feelings in dc. if you have any gun you will blast everyone. dianne fienstien has a concealed carry permit. she’s trying to pass all kinds of bills to rob most gunowners. if everyone had the retarded mentality of antigunners she’d be a timebomb waiting to blast everyone.

    • CZ52

      While I doubt they would have a different view today if they did they would change (amend) the constitution to reflect their revised views not continualy pass more and more laws restricting rights.

      • Veteran

        The antis want to pass law after law because they KNOW they would NEVER be able to pass an amendment which would change the 2nd Amendment, so they take the easy way out. If they felt they could, they’d try what the anti-alcohol people did with Prohibition – and see how well that worked!

      • CZ52

        Veteran you miss my point. My point is if the Founding Fathers did not agree with the wording and application of the 2nd as it applies to today they would follow the constitution and amend it to make any changes they believed neccessary rather than pass laws of at best doubtful legality to do so.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      People’s nature is no different today than it was 200, 500, or 1000, or millions of years ago so get over yourself wanting gun control.

    • 2forEnglish

      WRONG! Things are no different. If anything has changed as far as megalomaniacal elitists wanting to control the world – it is simply that due to time marching on, their list of heros (tyrants of the past throughout history) from whom they draw inspiration and follow the blueprints of ………has grown.

    • Steve E

      Bob666, you stated; “Our founding fathers would probably have a slightly different view on many of the ammendments today as the world is very different.” That tells me that you believe that you know more than what the FF knew. I got news for you, you don’t. When you went to public school and they indoctrinated you to believe that you are special, you’re not.

  • http://www.facebook.com/christopher.coolidge1 Christopher Coolidge

    Here’s a modest proposal: either allow EVERYBODY to be armed or disarm everybody, including the government and police. As long as criminals have guns(which they will any way they can, that’s what makes them criminals) neither is going to happen, so there’ll be half measures in either direction either way. I don’t own a gun, that’s my choice, but if things go south in a hurry I’d better hope my neighbor has one and likes me.

    • Bev

      This is a totally stupid idea – arm everyone or disarm everyone. When they come for my guns they will get the ammo first.

    • SOMA

      Christopher, your mentality is that of the weak. You’re a perfect victim just waiting to be assailled. And when the crap hits the fan you’ll be a leach, a burden, looking for others to help you when they’re just trying to help themselves and their loved ones. The time to prepare is not after the catastrophe has occurred. Why do you need your neighbors to help you? Why don’t you do something right now, starting today, (like taking a gun safety course to at least get educated on the subject) to be there for your neighbors and be beneficial member of your community? Use some foresight and planning, and for Pete’s sake, take responsibility for yourself and stop looking for others to take care of you!

      • JC

        Good Idea!

      • Steve E

        No unarmed person can tell an armed person what to do. But an armed person can tell an unarmed person what to do.

      • JC

        That’s right Steve, and armed people kill unarmed people with monotonous regularity.

    • david

      Christopher it is your personal responsibility to defend yourself and not your government’s or your neighbor’s responsibility. Your choice to not own a gun and protect yourself is your decision and no one else’s. Whatever happens to you is on you, unless your enter into a treaty with someone else and name them specifically as your defender. Like I said in one of my prior posts, All of your RIGHTS are your personal Rights, not the collective RIGHTS of the people. Until you learn what your personal responsibilities are and protect those of yours and your family, then you are on your own until you personally ask for the help. You ask me for help, then I will come, but until such time, you are on your own. That is your own decision, and I can not make that for you! If you allow your government to make that decision for you, then the government is your parent, and they will take care of you as THEY see fit. You have no say in the matter. You gave that up to those others that you want to run your life.

      I would suggest to you to get right on over to your neighbor’s house and get the agreements settled between you before any inkling of anything going south happens.

    • charlie

      I understand that you are not willing to share the burden or cost of fighting for freedom, but you will be looking for ‘help’ from others, for your rescue.

      That is THE Liberal disease.

  • http://www.outdor-camping-guie.com Don Wlliamson

    There is absolutely no question that the 2nd amendment was adopted based on a citizen’s righ to fight back nd dissolve the government if necessary. As more nd ore gun controls re put in lace, there will be more nd more terrorist events here he law nforcement is trgeted bcause the terrorists will now ll itizens have een tripped of heir firearms.

    • eddie47d

      Its rather unfortunate that some are calling everything and anything a “terrorist act” .Fairly soon it won’t have any meaning at all. When we had the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 all the guns in the world wouldn’t have stopped it from happening. Unless every van and every car is going to be stopped and searched every day. McVeigh still would have blown up the Murrah Building no matter how many millions of guns are out there. Maybe you ought to think about who is trying to “dissolve the government” by way of violence Don. There are also dozens of extreme groups in America using guns to “dissolve the government” and I don’t think you’d want to live under what they have to offer either.

      • Capitalist at Birth

        On what facts do you base these assertions? I double dog dare ya to prove any of your lies. Coward!!!

      • JC

        eddie’s “utopia” is a prison society. Nobody moves, nobody gets hurt…

        • http://aol Gene

          Humm FEMA camps come to mind

      • eddie47d

        Yes and we Progressives aren’t going into your FEMA camps at the point of your guns either!

      • JC

        eddie47d says:

        January 7, 2013 at 2:33 pm

        Yes and we Progressives aren’t going into your FEMA camps at the point of your guns either!
        ________________________________________________________________________

        Then we are agreed….EVERYONE should be armed to the teeth because No one is putting ANYone in a FEMA Camp.

        Well said eddie. :)

  • http://www.facebook.com/dave.weaver.7359 Dave Weaver

    To all gun control advocates:

    I am will to give up my means to defend myself. I have but one pre-condition.

    That all men shall be deemed to be of perfect moral quality; and that disregard for life, liberty, and personal freedom has been permanently removed from the hearts of men.

    Until then, I will remain armed and ready.

    • Capitalist at Birth

      Ditto, and I challenge all of them individually to attempt to enforce their controls over any one who follows the Constitution. I did not own a fire arm until after the election on Nov. 4th 2008. I still need two to three more and thousands more rounds of ammunition.

      • Wildturkey

        Jimmy Carter made my wife a Republican and Obama made her a gun owner. That is about the only good thing can thing of that Obama has done!!

      • Steve E

        Obama knows everybody is buying more guns now. So that is why he is trying to take them now.

  • Charlie Sewell

    Until Amercians grasp the supreme court case Barron v City of Baltimore, Americans will live and walk in deception. Justice Marshall was clear and concise:
    “The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual States.
    If these propositions be correct, the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the General Government, not as applicable to the States. In their several Constitutions, they have imposed such RESTRICTIONS ON THEIR RESPECTIVE GOVERNMENTS…
    We are of opinion that the provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the Government of the United States (Page 32 U. S. 251), and is not applicable to the legislation of the States.”
    Justice Marshall never mentions the people because our rights come from the 1776 Declaration of Independence when stating “… endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights”!
    This is confirmed in the government’s title 18 United States Code 7.3 and article 1, section 8 clause 17 of the constitution defining the specific limited jurisdiction of the constitutionally defined “United States” titled “the Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction of the United States Defined”:
    “(3) Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States by consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building.”
    So as the “United States” was defined in 1787 in the Constitution so as it is defined today in title 18 of the United States Code and many other sections of the code. As Justice Marshall says… if you are not an officer, employee or elected official of the United States government… the Constitution does not apply to YOU!

    • dalek

      “As Justice Marshall says… if you are not an officer, employee or elected official of the United States government… the Constitution does not apply to YOU!”

      Do what?! Does not apply to the people you say? Why does it say in the 2nd Amendment “of the people” then?

      I think you need to try this again. You seem to be so far off your rocker that I’m not sure if you were even on one. lol

      • JC

        “Justice” Marshall, doesn’t apply…to anything.

      • GRusling

        Simple — each and every article in our Bill of Rights confirms an already existing RESTRICTION on the federal government. The Bill of Rights simply enumerates a FEW of the things our federal government is not allowed to even touch. The entire constitution is a designation of what our federal government is ALLOWED to do, and what is NOT ALLOWED is authority retained by the “States” and/or The People, as individuals. The 10th Amendment says precisely that, in no uncertain terms.

        The constitution lays out the form of the federal government, then identifies what that federal government is authorized to do. All things NOT INCLUDED in that document and/or its Amendments are not subject to rule-making by the federal government. It’s just that simple and unambiguous.

        This all seems to me to be a simple concept, which only the terminally stupid could possibly misunderstand. The “STATES” created the federal government as an “AGENT” to do for them collectively what they could not reasonably do for themselves individually, like properly defend our borders. Such activities are the only reason for the federal government to exist. Any utopian “dream” that our Founding Fathers created a “MASTER” for themselves is totally beyond reason or logic…

      • oh oh

        Notwithstanding later developments such as the Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 government formed in 1871, Justice Marshall was correct. The federal government couldn’t compel anyone, except those federal parties he mentioned. The reason the 2nd Amendment mentioned the “people” is consistent with this. It was to restrict the federal government from exceeding its limited powers (i.e., limited to its enumerated powers and the persons under its jurisdiction). Marshall made perfect sense. It’s a shame that so many have lost touch with these fundamental concepts.

        • dalek

          Curious. Can you explain the 4th and 5th Amendment which are for the people? Maybe the others too. I understand that the 1st limits the Congress, it says so but the 2nd is to make it so the States and the individual people can bear arms, against the Government(s) if needed.

          Basically, if the States believe the Federal Government is going to far, it can rise up on behalf of its people. If the people think the Federal Government is going to far, then the people themselves can rise up, without the States if needed. Could even be against some States as well.

          Putting somethings into text and the someone get what is meant can be difficult. I’m trying to read your meaning. I read some of your other posts so I don’t think you are some liberal loon off its rocker. ROFL That said, we do have a couple around here lurking about. o_O

          • Jeff

            The 4th and 5th Amendments did not bind the States until 1961 when the Supreme Court decided that the 14th Amendment applied the protections of the Bill of Rights to the states. Mapp v. Ohio.

          • dalek

            Jeff, that question was NOT for you to answer. That question was directed at oh oh. Your answer has nothing to do with what I asked anyway. You missed the whole point. I would try to explain it but I see no point in it.

          • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

            The Framers placed the requirement for “Oaths of Office” in the Constitution. These Oaths are to function as “checks” on the powers of the federal government and protect us from usurpations.
            Each Branch of the federal government has “the check of the Oath” on the other two branches. The States, whose officials also take the Oath of Office, have the same check on all three branches of the federal government. And “We the People”, the “original fountain of all legitimate authority” (Federalist No. 22), have the Right to overrule violations of the Constitution by elected and appointed officials.

            Hope this helps. Sorry, this is actually to oh oh.

    • david

      Charlie you are correct in your assessment. The United States is NOT the United States of America, which the latter is a UNION of collective Sovereign Republics (I hate using the term States) under one agreement comprised of rules and regulations through Treaty or Compact between those Republics. Representatives are NOT speakers for the people. People speak for themselves through the referendums they create and publicly announce to all through contractual agreements and signatures. Representatives are speakers for themselves and their agendas, because the wording, provided to them from the people, has been changed to include those Representative’s agenda for which those Representatives sign for. If the wording provided by the people are not changed, even by one word, to that Representative, and he or she speaks for that wording, then it is representative of the people and the people retain their powers. BUT that does not happen and will not happen as every piece of legislation is changed or discarded in the respective committees they are assigned to.

      The Corporate state of affairs is the United States in its designation in the main body of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution after the Constitution was drawn up and signed [Both the Constitution and Bill of Rights have signatures attached] with the provision of providing protection of the people themselves with the first ten Amendments and adding the stated Rights in the Declaration of Independence as inclusive in those Bill of Rights of the people. I believe Madison, Jackson, and possibly Franklin expressed concern of adding the Bill of Rights to the Constitution before submission to the formed Communities at the time. This was a good thing as the Bill of Rights, although attached to the Constitution, was signed separately from the Constitution as an independent agreement extending the powers back to the people themselves.

      • david

        As for the acquisition of lands and retaining lands, Governments took the lands by force or coerced the applying Republics out of parts of land as requisites for ratification to the Union. (Missouri admission into Union contained such clauses in its ratification) Land can not technically be owned by a dead organization because that dead organization can not maintain the land on its own, without manipulation of a human being. What is a dead organization? It is a Contract of letters and symbols on a dead piece of wood. It has no life of its own. It does not breathe, think, or consume of its own being. A dead organization requires the slavery of a human being to manipulate it into being or existence, and that human being can not escape that slavery until their death or they walk away from it, and then it is left to their heirs to keep the existence ongoing. Without human beings to control the organization, the organization has no existence.

        That is why any of the Bill of Rights is non existent until a human being makes it existent or forces it into existence. A human being is the owner of the Bill of Rights and what they do with those rights is personal to them.

  • Ray Schmitz

    Are we a Republic or an Army. We do not need Army style weapons. Your neighbors aren’t the bad guys.

    • czman75

      How are American Citizens able to protect themselves if they don’t have the same fire power as the enemy…and yes, if the government is attacking us ( and they are) they are the enemy! That is what the 2nd Amendment means!

    • Jon

      some are and that is not the point

    • eddie47d

      CZMA75: Some of us don’t support the tyrants who are attempting to overthrow the government. They are arming themselves using the same laws that you portend to support. These homegrown fringe groups are dangerous and hardly friends of our nation. In other words you are to some degree arming the enemies. What do you really think organizations like Confederate Hammerskins or Northwest Front are willing to do in order to set up their “utopia”?

      • CZ52

        eddie the FBI has done studies on the militia groups and determined that only a very very few pose any kind of threat and those very few are watched closely. They have said that most of the militias are just groups of “good ol boys” that get together to do some shooting and shoot the bull then continue their law abilding lives at home.

      • eddie47d

        There are over 1,500 such groups and several are extremely dangerous in what they will do once in power. Some are indeed Nationalist and controlling in nature.I didn’t mention militias as a primary source or at all. Although the Minutemen Defense could be considered one since Shawna Ford and Chris Simcox have committed criminal acts.

      • Dennis48e

        eddie you have used the expression “These homegrown fringe groups” and militia interchangeably so many times in the past it is logical to conclude you mean them to be interchangable now as well.

      • Candyman

        Eddie47d. I think you are making a false statement here. You do support people who are trying to overthrow the gov. They do it every day with new restrictive and unconstitutional laws and presidential edicts. The groups you refer to have no hope of doing the damage that the people you support do every day 24/7.

      • GRusling

        No one knowingly supports “tyrants” and their supporters are usually fooled by what’s known as “good ideas,” until it’s too late to oppose the tyrant. Fait accompli, he’s in charge and you’re now a subject or “peasant” and no longer a free citizen! Castro came to power in Cuba in exactly that fashion, as did Hitler in Germany.

        That’s why the 2nd Amendment is important and why I maintain a full compliment of “arms” designed for various different uses, as circumstances may require…

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

        eddie, teddy 47 demon’s and all liar’s, needs to push his commie ways on everyone else. Like the lie about 2 armed policemen at Columbine, that is in his sick brain but not true. He hates the idea that his socialist soon to be marxist communist government might not take place. eddie teddy would shoot his own family to get his commie ways forced on all of us. a little man with little or no mind. Every post he makes is to promote his nazi idea’s and won’t ever learn because his god satan teaches him, leads him and makes him a danger to anyone who disagrees with him. A typical left wing nut job, brainless and lives on his feeling which all come from hell itself. Do the world a favor you sick commie, take to many sleeping pills, no one will miss you.

    • Bryan George

      Yes we do!! A gun society is a polite society, and yes we are a Republic, that USED to be FREE. Guns will prevent the military from attacking our Republic as they prevented the Japanese from attacking during WWII. Don’t trust your government with your LIFE!! The government will do Anything to increase it’s power, size and money to steal and ultimately create a one world government, but make no mistake that is what they stand for not the sheople! Our gun’s stand in the way of this plan, that is why they want them. If all gun’s were taken from the people do you think the president would disarm the Secret Servive?? NO!! because Criminals would still have gun’s and he knows it, but it would be OK for us to all be victims though!!

      • eddie47d

        That may make you warm and fuzzy saying that but armed societies are not always “polite societies” which is another reason we do need gun control. Not all gun owners are polite or honest (although most are). In Columbia the right wing forces and the left wing forces had more guns than the government and it wasn’t even a civil war. A few thousand died because the government didn’t have the power to control the pitched battles between these armed citizens. These extreme groups were allowed to have their automatics and semi-automatics leaving the populace and the government vulnerable. Same thing happened in Afghanistan were the populace was armed and the government was almost non existent. Those citizens who controlled the guns controlled the country and we know how they terrorized that nation and subjugated others. They like some American gun owners wanted the government to be wiped out so they could control the nation. No thanks I much rather have a civilized balance and some common sense in who gets to have power over my life. In other words these wacko militias groups vying for control in America are armed to the teeth and are willing to send America into a tail spin for their own agenda.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      You are so omniscient that you know exactly what goes in every human heart and mind.You don’t know the heart and mind of the people in your own household and you definitely don’t yourself and what evil you are capable of.

    • alpha-lemming

      So…. only the police or the military should be armed????

      I saw a movie once with this exact utopia….. I think it was called??… “Schindlers List”??…

      Take another peek at that that one and tell me how well THAT worked out for the poulace??

    • Steve E

      Ray, you are a perfect example of why the people need guns. To protect themselves from the likes of you.

  • Galord Smith

    Bailey O’Malia is incorrect in her statement about automatic weapons. They have already been banned in the US. It is only legal to purchase semi-automatic rifles at the present time. The partial ban of firearms will only be the beginning to a total ban on firearms for personal protection. If our government decides that they want to eliminate any opposition to socialistic ideas; then the elimination of the opposition will be much easier if we have no protection. We are already at a severe disadvantage with the gun controls already in place. Every right that is taken away just brings us closer to socialism.

    • windage

      Galord , it is legal to buy fully automatic weapons here (machine guns), just requires an NFA, class 3, $200 tax stamp, FBI B/G check and approval of your local sheriff or chief. Some areas may poo-poo.
      Where are you getting your info?

    • czman75

      Automatic weapons ARE NOT BANNED in America! They are/can be transferred to individuals provided you jump through all the hoop necessary to purchase one. People, check it out BEFORE you spout off things you nothing of! Use facts, not feelings!

      • SOMA

        You gentlemen are correct, automatic weapons are not banned in the US. However, I think it’s important to point out Bailey’s common misconception (perpetuated by the media) that automatic weapons were used in the recent mass shootings. None of the recent mass shootings used automatic weapons, yet the media constantly gets that wrong. As a matter of fact I find it very suspicious that James Holmes, the Sikh Temple shooter, the Portland Mall shooter, and Adam Lanza all used AR-15 rifles and Glock pistols: Standard FBI issue weapons, or at least of the same caliber. There are many inconsistencies and similarities between these 4 shootings that make them suspect, not least to mention is the timing of all 4. I will not go into detail at this time but I am going to prepare an essay examining these 4 shootings in greater detail soon. Best…

      • eddie47d

        Thank You SOMA whether intentional or not that is exactly what has to be addressed. Those AR-15′s and Glocks that are the favorite choice of mass killers who use guns which need to either be banned or severely controlled . There really isn’t a whole heaping lot of difference in the damage that most automatics vs semi-automatics can do so its easy for the public or media to have these misconceptions. Some automatics do have larger caliber bullets yet some have little difference over an semi-automatics.

      • GRusling

        eddie47d says: “some automatics do have larger caliber bullets yet some have little difference over an(sic) semi-automatics.”
        ___________________________________________________________________

        Not true, and not even close to being true. The largest “single operator” rifle in use these days is a .50 caliber, and all I’ve ever seen are single action or bolt action. Fire one round, eject the spent cartridge and load one more round. You can, of course, point to a “.50 caliber machine gun” but I dare you to try and CARRY that thing, much less operate it by yourself! Most of us couldn’t even LIFT one, much less transport it by man-power! They’re usually “vehicle mounted” for very good reason.

        The Glock semi-automatic pistol comes in 9mm, .357, .40 and .45. These are all common rounds. A Sig comes in the same calibers.

        The “AR-15″ fires a .223 caliber round, the same round our Military Infantry soldier uses in his M16. The difference between those two weapons is that the M16 is “select fire” (automatic or semiautomatic) while the AR-15 is semiautomatic only. The .223 round is used by our military because it is LESS likely to kill, more likely to simply injure, thus tying up MORE of the enemies resources to care for their own wounded. The caliber is VERY SMALL (.223 is just very slightly larger than a .22 rabbit gun), just enough so the round can never be chambered by any variation of our .22 caliber hunting rifles.

        Fully automatic military weapons go up to 7.62 mm (m-60 machine gun) and that round is the same as our .30-06 caliber deer rifle. The AK-47 uses a similar round, and semi-automatic hunting rifles get A LOT larger, for shooting very large game like “Grizzly Bears” and “Moose” or “Lions and Tigers.” Try out an “Elephant Gun” sometime. I DARE YOU!

        Show me the man who can fire a semi-automatic rifle at or near the same rate as an automatic weapon of the same kind and I’ll show you a “Professional” who does virtually nothing else with his time…

  • Mark

    Anyone who believes that we need ANY FORM of gun control is a complete MORON! I am so bewildered by the ignorance of these people. I thank GOD everyday that I can think on my own two feet and can see through the [expletive deleted] before it comes even near me. Wake Up!

    • eddie47d

      [comment has been edited] You may be an excellent poster boy For absolute gun control. I won’t support YOUR Taliban tactics in controlling the populace anymore than I would want the government to do so.

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

        Your lie’s don’t fly eddie teddy the hitler of the site, the little brown shirt who thinks Marx was just great, I hope someone is paying you to be so stupid and such a out right liar.

      • JC

        For what little it’s worth, eddie’s “liberal” education seems to be complete.
        Firmly establishing him as an emotionally hysterical and generally unbalanced human being.
        Hey! has anyone else noticed that liberal men sound just like liberal women?

      • oh oh

        Whether the tyranny is imposed by the “Taliban” or the government, we would be better able to defend ourselves appropriately armed, rather than outgunned or disarmed…and the less either the “Taliban” or the government knows about our arms, the more fearful, respectful and civil they will remain.

  • http://www.facebook.com/michael.swanson.1675 Michael Swanson

    So many claim historical justification for the Second Amendment, and so many don’t know the history BEHIND the second amendment. These are the same ones which glide over the “well-regulated militia” as if it wasn’t there or didn’t count. Here’s the real story. Don’t let the fact that it was printed in AlterNet stop you from reading it. http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/real-rationale-2nd-amendment-right-wingers-are-totally-ignorant-about?paging=off

    • http://www.facebook.com/dave.weaver.7359 Dave Weaver

      The article cited is devoid of quotes, conditions, and beliefs of the founders. It is simply an opinion piece done by another gun control advocate.

      • http://www.facebook.com/michael.swanson.1675 Michael Swanson

        All the original documents are online if you care to look them up. All the documents are available on line. Some sites are available by subscription only. You’ll find some of them in the Federalist Papers, Some in the Papers of George Washington. Here’s something to get you started, assuming you really care about the historical record. http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/whiskey/index.html

        • http://www.facebook.com/dave.weaver.7359 Dave Weaver

          I am concerned – and bit perplexed as to the reason you cited the original article – and then tried to defend it with alternate information not cited in the original. Furthermore, the secondary source speaks of the rational for using a state military force to enforce compliance to a generally unpopular, but constitutionally valid law.

          I have read, understand, and most importantly believe what the founders meant when they created and ratified the Constitution. I am well versed in the Federalist Papers, the writings of Thomas Paine, and the descriptions of American style democracy by de Tocqueville.

          My original comment stands.

      • http://personalliberydigest big wyo

        DICK ACT of 1902 . . .
        CAN’T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) The Trump Card Enacted by the Congress Further Asserting the Second Amendment as Untouchable
        The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.

        The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

        The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

    • eddie47d

      Thank You Michael for there is always another side to every story. When the Second Amendment was written there was barely a standing army if you could even call it that. The government (Founding Fathers) enacted this Amendment knowing full well the government had to be PROTECTED from internal rebellion and foreign invasion. Every eligible man had to be willing to come to the DEFENSE of this new nation thus we had civilian militias. The problem today is that we have those who use the Second Amendment as an excuse to overthrow our government not PROTECT it. Although citizens do have the right to change our government even by shedding blood we also have many other means to evoke change. “The power of the pen is mightier than the sword” is just as relevant today as when that was written too. Pro gun owners use the Second as their only and final solution for everything thus becoming rather disingenuous in thought. We have a strong standing army today to protect us from outside invasion so their “need” or excuse to have a military style weapon is mote. Their need to have a weapon for home protection is valid and a basic human right. There are FEW who have even suggested that home protection will be taken away. The right to hunt with a rifle has never been infringed upon. Maybe the territory in which to hunt has been diminished but not the legality to do so.

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

        Eddie, teddy 47 ways to be a commie, your comment just re-wrote real history, John Adams said a armed society is made up of citizens, unarmed people are slaves. The founders lived under governments that had all the weapons and they had no choice but, to obey their law, just or unjust. We got the first amendment which allowed us to express our feeling about government or religion and the second to defend the first. Where did you get your education, at the foot of Marx? There is no separtation of church and state anywhere in the Constitution, the Supreme Court used a document written by Jefferson where he said the wall was to protect the church from the state and not the other way around, idiot. You have distorted so many things on this site that anyone who believe’s your BS deserves to lose their freedoms, as another founder said, he who would give up freedom for safety deserves neither. Stick that in your commie pipe and smoke it.

    • Capitalist at Birth

      All of you Totalitarian anti Constitution people will send armed thugs against the true patriots who have read the writings of Franklin, Madison, Monroe, and Jefferson said about freedom and how to insure it. Constitutional law experts have also written on this subject. Why haven’t you referred to any of them, Hmmm?

      • eddie47d

        I will continue to do battle as I have in the past with Totalitarian and anti-Constitutional folks who misinterpret Amendments for their own personal gain. America is about Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness for every American. Too many right wing fringe groups want to take away or not even give rights to all which is supposedly guaranteed. On this topic I don’t think either side of the Second Amendment are accurately interpreting its meaning. That is where this debate is going and that doesn’t make me anti-gun or anti Constitutional.

      • JC

        eddie47d says:

        January 7, 2013 at 9:47 am

        I will continue to do battle as I have in the past with Totalitarian and anti-Constitutional folks who misinterpret Amendments for their own personal gain. America is about Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness for every American.
        _____________________________________________________________________
        Well you’re obviously very conflicted then aren’t you?

    • oh oh

      The article is also narrow in its scope, ignoring the other purposes for the 2nd Amendment, which went beyond the “domestic tranquility” argument of this opinion piece. The principles of the Declaration of Independence and the statements of founders besides Jefferson would include these narrow circumstances as legitimate, but they would never have used them as a rhetorical device to limit the broad purposes intended. This is typical of the progressive left, who become strict constructionists only in manipulative and disingenuous ploys such as this.

  • AL CRACKER

    As the first POINT stated Jeremy..what a bunch of crap. You are a typical blind Zombie to what is really going on. Any control of our freedom of choice is a violation of liberty. American companies make these weapons and send them worldwide, with the Governments approval, did you forget Fast and Furious? Who do you think is supplying arms to Syria? We collectively export death. So by Proxy you are a murderer.
    In the days of Muskets, most carried 2 to 4 side arms as additional firepower.
    They did the killing for you so you could post your anti-freedom of choice sewage on line.
    It is ok for the Military to murder children with Drones and bombs, and when it comes home to roost it requires removing basic freedoms. This has nothing to do with the innocent children but the tyranny of a corrupt government seeking to control everyone, and a Insane drug induced person.
    Why does Obama travel with a complete war machine, his daughters have 11 CIA fully armed with Automatic weapons terrorist as do most members of Congress?
    I will give up my guns…bullets first.

    • eddie47d

      Cracker: Do you honestly challange these foreign wars under all administrations or is this just more of your smoke and mirrors? I’ve written to Congressmen/women until I’m blue in the face since the Presidency of Lyndon Johnson. That includes Nixon,Reagan,Bush and Obama,etc. I’ve also protested Fast & Furious but why did it happen ? Because of rouge DEALERS along the border who have been selling weapons to the Cartels for DECADES. F & F was a blunder but have you been equally furious with those “legal” gun dealers who originally caused these problems. If you say no then you are a hypocrite. You said another mouthful “American dealers make and send these weapons worldwide” . Something else I’ve been protesting about for 40 years. Why are we the number one arms dealer in the world and why is it still going on? Have you contacted our government under all Presidents to cease and desist these operations/gun smuggling? I have so can you be honest about it or are you playing political favorites? The number one arms supplier to the rebels in Syria is Saudi Arabia. Now that could be by way of the USA since they buy all kinds of military hardware from us. Yes this gun debate has much to do with innocent children and your not going to get away this time with writing these tragedies off as a God govern right for yourself. Your excuses are about as lame as the government using drones and “accidentally” killing children.

      • independant thinker

        “I’ve also protested Fast & Furious but why did it happen ? Because of rouge DEALERS along the border who have been selling weapons to the Cartels for DECADES.”

        You constantly make this claim eddie but you have yet to offer ANY kind of proof that there is or was a pervasive problem with gun dealers along the border knowingly selling guns to the drug cartels, gangs, or anyone else illegaly.

      • david

        eddie47d, you state that you have written your Congressmen and the like since Lyndon Johnson. Have you gotten any good responses from those? Doing protests are fine but with no follow up action to do anything about it, what good was the protest? Congressmen do not Represent you, if they changed or signed any bill that was changed from the original wording of the people. If the wording is NOT exactly as the people presented it and passed, then it is the wording and Agenda of the Congressman and he is signed to it, not the people. Those laws do not apply to the people, if they are not the words of the people as spoken and unchanged.

        What part of “that is not what I said” do you not understand?

      • JC

        eddie47d says:

        January 7, 2013 at 10:11 am

        Cracker: Do you honestly challange these foreign wars under all administrations or is this just more of your smoke and mirrors? I’ve written to Congressmen/women until I’m blue in the face since the Presidency of Lyndon Johnson. That includes Nixon,Reagan,Bush and Obama,etc. I’ve also protested Fast & Furious but why did it happen ? Because of rouge DEALERS along the border who have been selling weapons to the Cartels for DECADES.
        ________________________________________________________________________

        Rouge Dealer’s? Do you mean they’re wearing make up?

        You’re already a proven liar on this point.
        The dealers REPORTED the Straw buyers to the ATF.
        Turns out the Straw Buyers were working FOR the ATF…and you know it.

      • Steve E

        The straw buyers were working for the ATF and the gun dealers were told by the ATF to sell them to straw buyers, even if it was illegal.

      • eddie47d

        That “evidence” was shown last year Independent Thinker and was out of two different Phoenix gun shops and happened before F & F. There are also 100 gun dealers within 50 miles from the border throughout the four border states. There’s alot of desolate land in those stretches and I doubt if rattlesnakes are buying their guns.

      • JC

        eddie you are so full of Sh!#.
        Operation Gunwalker was ostensibly begun under Bush…that predates your “assertion” that anything new came to light last year, which as usual come with no more backing than your say so. (you have no credibility, not even with the other communists)

        And the idea that drug cartels are getting their guns one or two at a time from
        “Fred’s Sporting Goods” in Tucson is ridiculous at best…
        These cartels have “billions”….BILLIONS at their disposal.
        They can and do get their guns brought in by the boat or plane load from all over the world, shipped into southern Mexico and the weapons trucked north. Then they burn the plane or sink the boat without even feeling the pinch.

        How absolutely ridiculous to think they would be screwing around with the border and American gun dealers when they can literally buy anything they want “wholesale”.

        No, my simple little friend….Fast and Furious was a Government sponsored program designed to instill anti-gun sentiment into the very simplest among us….that’s “you”.

    • eddie47d

      I’m still waiting for Cracker to re-appear.

  • Barb L

    I’m starting my point of view directed at Jeremy’s 2nd. sentence. The right to bear arms IS most definitely a liberal vs. conservative issue, has been since the late 1950′s. It’s just getting to be a major issue because of the liberal media and their “agenda”. Not to mention how this is empowering the illegal president to yet again tear down our Constitution. The term I hear more and more is Americans must turn in their weapons or their assault weapons, not guns, weapons. Well let’s see baseball bats are used to assault people everyday, cars and trucks too, then there are bricks and blocks and rocks, knives of every category, fists, feet, elbows, knees, heads, shall I go on? Certain knives and swords can kill as many children in a school as guns can. Hell one bomb could kill just about all of them. Where do we stop once this dangerous precedent is set? Almost anything could be used an “assault weapon”. Dear God save us from this idiocy!

    • eddie47d

      Apparently Barb approves of baseball bats being used to kill someone. LOL! I use a baseball bat to hit balls how about you? I use a car to drive to the store how about you? You are using lame excuses to hang onto you gun fetish with the thinking that because someone dies in a car accident you have the absolute right to kill someone with a gun. Hardly!

      • phideaux

        “Apparently Barb approves of baseball bats being used to kill someone.”

        If you honestly got that from Barb’s post eddie you need to quit posting here or anywhere else for that matter for you have NO ability to comprehend what you read. I suspect however you are up to your old tricks of deliberately miss-representating what she said so you can make an illogical argument against it.

      • eddie47d

        Maybe Barb should leave since I was only replying to her slick and devious comment!

      • Barb L

        Slick and devious comment?? Wow, Mr.Ed, I never expected such a compliment from you!!!! You just don’t like the obvious pointed out to you, tends to show everyone where you are on the intelligence scale!

  • ReaperHD

    Twenty four million Americans out of work going on five years now with this regime and no bills to produce jobs. Drugs pouring accross the Mexican border and going on five years now with this regime no bills to close the border. Two months after shooting 10 bills to disarm Americans, this regime after five years cannot destroy the Constitution and the American People as long as they are armed. If you give up your arms with this anti-american muslim commie terrorist in the WH we are all in trouble, you give up the weapons that ensure your freedom and this country is third world in no time.

    • Barb L

      Don’t worry Reaper, We don’t know anyone who legally have guns who are going to GIVE them up! They all feel as we do, That they will have to pry them from our dead hands and the beauty of that is we will be taking a large bunch of Obama’s “storm troopers” from Chicago with us! Our Military AND our police officers will not do it for him, so his Black militia will have to and quite frankly, I think we would win!

      • david

        Barb L, I have said this time and time and again. Legal is not the same as Lawful. Legal is the interpretation of written rules. If the written rules are vague, they must be enforced vaguely, or in other words, no enforcement at all. Only written laws are enforceable. Legal is interpretation and insertion into law something that was not written into the law in the first place, If you are not named in the law then it does not apply to you. If the law does not describe YOU to a “T” then it does not apply to you. Are you a criminal? Then the law does not apply to you. You are who you are (Barb L or whoever you call yourself). You are not the name “criminal” are you? So how does that law apply to you? If some other law is used and says you broke it supposedly (did you harm or damage someone – if not – no crime) and names you in it, then the other law would apply. Your name has to come to the top of the list of one law or you are signed to that contracted law, for any other law at all, can apply to you!

        Until you can break into this consciousness, you will not understand!

        To understand law is not unlawful. To understand legal can be illegal for you unless you have a license to practice that. All licenses are permissions to do something that is illegal, but is not unlawful. If it is lawful, such as freedom of movement by any conveyance, [by foot, animal, or motor vehicle <- that is in the Constitution] then you do not need a license to do that.

    • eddie47d

      Its Congress who sets and enact the laws Reaper. No border closures (you implied) well then have a chat with Congress! Your loose lips about “regime,commie,Muslim,traitor” shows you are an out of control nutjob. Same goes for Barb and her black militia comment trying to turn this into a racial issue! I’m use to seeing these kinds of comments on PLD so no surprise there but you’d think you all would use a different tact in presenting yourself!

      • phideaux

        “Its Congress who sets and enact the laws Reaper.”

        Congress passes the laws then the president either accepts or rejects them (signs or vetos). If he signs them it is up to the justice department (which operates under the executive branch) So, if they are not being enforced it is certainly not the fault of congress.to enforce them.

  • http://aol Marshall Hill

    If the guy next door legally owns Firearms,I know that he is watching
    what occurs around him and me! (WIN-WIN) Most people against that are
    against things have little or no knowledge of the subject! Fear of the
    UNKNOWN!

  • http://MSN Bearkrause

    I believe Mr. Young is correct in his rebuttal piece. From the inception of our Republic the focus has been on equality and freedom not the evolution of weaponry. The 2nd Amendment speaks to an equality of like force in the maintenance of our freedoms against any and all despots. It was never intended to create or perpetuate a disparity of balance in the ability of all Americans to protect their God-given freedoms,, as well as promote safety.
    Liberals, as usual, are quick to grab the first emotional opportunity to advance their cause and reasoning regardless of the historical facts which point to the exact polar opposite of their premise. If they need any further proof just look at the homicide rate in “Gun Free” Chicago and compare it to any other location in our country where Conceal Carry is allowed or encouraged. If you are a Liberal you won’t care much for the statistical imbalance in favor of the safety afforded when the bad guys are unable to determine who may be able to protect themselves in areas where law abiding citizens have the ability to exercise that freedom.

  • brabbie2002

    Our Forefathers probably knew that sooner or later money, freedom and gun grabbing goons in the senate and congress would rear their ugly heads and demand everything we own..IE oblowhole administration and their share the wealth plan. Thus, they put in the 2nd amendment to give us the right to take back our government from the tyrannical a-holes that seem determined to let America fall into a third world country! Anyone with brains, this does not include liberals, knows that the government is supposed to be by the people and for the people – NOT let’s tax them to death, give it to those that won’t work, take away their protection so the criminals will have free rein, and cheat on the voting so we will always be in office while the dictator-in-chief breaks out his magic pen and signs thousands of executive orders that we can’t even keep up with!

  • Brett

    Bailey couldn’t be more wrong. My Government won’t be restricted to non semi-automatic firearms therefore our Founding Fathers would not want me limited in such a way. Anyone trying to make a case for gun control should do themselves and the rest of us a favor by educating themselves before beginning their argument. First off, average citizens do not have access to military grade weopons. This is not arguable. Military grade weopons are fully automatic select fire rifles. They would be at a heavy disadvantage armed with AR-15 rifles. 100 shots per minute? While humanly possible with a semi- automatic there would be no accuracy for you average maniac. As I recall random “spraying” of bullets is not what these clowns do. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or sport shooting. It was put in place to protect us from tyrany. Therefore it is obvious that they wanted to insure that the citizens had weopons on par with whay the Government had pr there would be no protection in the 2nd Amendment.

  • sandy

    please get your facts right. there was no 100 bullets a minutes used on the school. revolvers were used and the administration used this opportunity to take away are 2nd amendmemt rights. remember fast and furious? both of you need to take the gun glass for 8 hrs and learn more. please inpower yourselves.

    • eddie47d

      Thank You Sandy for reiterating that point that automatics weren’t used in any of these mass killing. They were mostly done with semi-automatics and thus the outrage against THOSE weapons of choice.

  • Jon

    To The long winded (and left sort of fellow) Jeremy poo!(that is nice for B$)
    As to your article you are correct in thought but you did not address ether the lies or stupidity of Bailey O’Malia for all intents automatic weapons are outlawed have been for a very long time the requirements for getting one are expensive and detailed, the yearly filing and tracking is a pain. Her “feelings” based on the possible possessions of others is an emotional disorder that others should not be forced make allowances for. She apparently has not noticed that almost all such attacks have been in “gun free zones” they did not go and shoot up a gun range where they would undoubtedly be shot very quickly and she would probably have trouble explaining the 28 children lost to Knife wielding sicko in China, but hey they do not allow folks to have guns there. Hey lady a compromise with bad is NOT GOOD.

  • Persist Continuously

    The guns won’t make much difference as long as the government itself is corrupt. First clean out the self-serving traitors in government and a lot of these issues will invisibly solve themselves.

  • Jim R

    I completely agree with the rebuttal. In addition it appears the writer is ignorant of guns, since the proposed bans are for semi-automatic firearms. Automatic firearms are already banned except to specially licensed and registered owners. She is unaware that a gun is just a machine that throws a projectile downrange. The choice of target is up to the operator. The potential rate of fire has nothing to do with the target. it is the shooter’s choice to determine what rate of fire is suitable for the type of shooting being done. I and my wife prefer a semi-automatic for every type of shooting. In hunting it means a fast follow-up should the first not bring the game down. In target practice the higher magazine capacity allows for less time reloading at the range. In self defense it allows the fast follow-up. In all sports and defense it reduces recoil and muzzle jump to allow faster reacquisition of the target in the sights.

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

    The gun debate is missing an important point: the greatest mass murderers of the last century were heads of state. You know, like Adlolf Hitler, V. I. Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot. Likewise Obama has set up his own enemies list of “terrorists” whom he wants killed. Under the NDAA, so-called “terrorists” are denied any civil rights and normal due process as provided for in the IVth and Vth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, provisions in every state Constitution, and Article XXXIX of Magna Charta.

    The term “terrorist” is left vague. In other documents as a Ron Paul supporter, someone who quotes the Constitution, and supporter to Right to Life, I have been declared a “terrorist.”

    Plus Obama is a hypocrite and a murderer having been using drones to attack places with concentrations of children in other countries in the hopes of getting one or two suspected “terrorists.”

    There is an excellent article on this aspect of things in, believe it or not, Pravda. The article is by Stanislav Mishin entitled, “Americans never give up your guns,” http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/28-12-2012/123335-americans_guns-0/ The article has a definite “voice of experience” air about it. Remember Lenin and Stalin murdered anywhere from three to 10 times as many people as Hitler.

    The American founders understood the greatest threat in any society potentially comes from those who had the government power in their hands. That is why they wanted an armed citizenry—so citizens could protect themselves from rogue politicians. So the idea of leaving guns only in the hands of government officials is madness.

    Wayne Allyn Root, himself Jewish, makes the point that one of the first steps toward the “final solution” of the Jewish problem by the government controlled by the National SOCIALIST German Workers Party (Nazi, NSDAP) was disarming all Jews. For any Jew to support gun control is both astonishing and bizarre.

    The modern National Guard is little more than an adjunct of the regular standing Army and Air Force. If I were in the legislature or Congress I would propose legislation to reorganize the National Guard along lines more consistent with the May 8, 1792 U.S. Militia Act and long standing practice in Switzerland. Albeit in my libertarian heart I could not tolerate making militia membership universal and compulsory as required in the above, I would certainly want it made much more widespread and the lower officers and NCOs elected by the unit members.

    But let’s make this absolutely clear: from the 1792 U.S. Militia Act, it is clear the Second Amendment protects so called “assault weapons,” and, in fact seeks to put them in the hands of every peaceful citizen.

    I would also propose that schools be encouraged to offer two semesters of gun training and make target shooting a recognized sport for high school students. Naturally private organizations, like the NRA, should set up annual contests for teen marksmen just as the Canton of Zurich does in Switzerland. Refer to http://www.newlyswissed.com/?p=7768. I like the picture in that article of the cute little girl blasting away with her Glock. For centuries the contest was restricted to boys. A few years ago they started to let girls compete and a latter-day Annie Oakley beat the daylights out of the boys.

    Please note, that while every other country around it was invaded and conquered by the Nazis, Switzerland was never invaded. For good reason, the invaders would have faced a gun behind every rock. One should not only wave the stars and stripes and Gadsden flag in the face of gun-controllers, but the white cross flag as well.

  • http://thetruthnotbs.wordpress.com clearglobal2013

    Fellow American, our rights to keep and bear arms are in jeopardy; the second amendment of our U.S. Constitution in very clear. “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”
    Fellow Americans, President Obama is so concern about the killings of the 20 children an six adults, that took place at the Sandy Hook Elementary school in Connecticut, that he want to use this tragedy to pass a gun control legislation. We Americans must understand that any legislation to deprive us of our rights to keep and bear arms is a violation of our Constitution and our freedom; we cannot allow anyone to trash our constitution. Obama as always take advantage of bad incidents to destroy our freedom. We need to ask Obama, if he is so concern about any killing, why we have our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, why he wants to invade Iran, Syria and any other country, using the same excuse that Bush used to attack Iraq. “to prevent them or any other countries to use weapons of mass destruction”.
    Fellow Americans, if Obama and the Washington politicians are so concern about the killings that take place in this United States every year, they should address the killings due to drugs; 20,000 due to illicit (illegal) drugs, the motor vehicle deaths 30 thousands and more every year and the killing of our soldier that are send to fight under the pretense of promoting democracy
    We must stop the trashing of our Constitution and the demise of our freedom, nothing justified the promotion of any legislation that will void our rights to keep and bear arms. Our founding fathers written the second amendment, to secure our freedom and defend ourselves from tyranny.
    The solution to prevent this type of tragedy, is education, we must change the way we live and become more friendly to each other, show your love, respect and care for others, be helpful, share with other, be a leader, a teacher of good moral character, we can change our world we don’t need laws to tell us what we must do to create a world of love and trust on each other. The biggest enemy to humanity is man himself; an educated society is a safe and prosperous society
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146212,00.html

    http://rt.com/usa/news/drug-deaths-prescription-car-883/

    http://drugfactsweek.drugabuse.gov/chat/chatfaqs_topics/general_questions.php

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
    Posted by Juan Reynoso – Americans- R- US
    teapartyoftx@gmail.com

    • Arlene

      The Ten Commandments deal with this. Our leftist government has taken them out of every place that they can. They do not want this unless it adds to their power to RULE.

  • 48tacocharlie

    We’re missing the point, People! Wake up! This not about gun control, it is about people control. This is one more step toward a socialist government and anyone who believes otherwise is hiding their head in the sand. The Obamacare bill bringing us socialized medicine was the first test. Remember the crowds at the town hall meetings where the senators and congress people hired armed guards to protect them from the “angry disenters”? The were scared because people were upset about something they didn’t understand and didn’t want, but, they went back to the safety of Washington and passed it (forced it on us!) anyway. Now our childrens children will never be able to pay it back.

    Look at the Feinstein bill. Confiscating and registering Semi-automatic guns will not stop lunatics, but it will give thegovernment a starting point to confiscate all guns before it’s over. Once they have them all they can do anything to us they want. I personally am not willing to give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, for if I do that, I deserve neither liberty or safety! (apologies to Benjamin Franklin)

    Also, remember this:”A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.”
    Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.) Roman Statesman, Philosopher and Orator
    Source: Attributed. 58 BC, Speech in the Roman Senate

    • Arlene

      Absolutely TRUE. This is TIMELESS.

  • Dr Sir Richard Wright-Hogeland

    The readers and writers are mostly correct –
    but to go further self defence is a basic right found in “natural Law” and “Nature Rights” it is basic to Freedom and Liberty – Natural Rights were incorporated in the Constitutions and Charters of every colony and state – There would have no constitution without the ratification of the Bill of Rights – for just the reaon that we are having this dabate over and over again – We are Free individuals until we break law – andf basically we can’t break or violate a law unless we hurt another individual or attempt to hurt their property –
    -
    Part of self reliance – is defending yourself – being able to obtain food -and throwing out governments that violate the law
    under the last reason – logically an individual has a right to any weapon – available to government forces

    Dr Richard Wright-Hogeland

    • david

      Dr Hogeland, Sir, the laws of our land are Contracts contracted by others with their Agendas. The people of the country rely on those Representatives speaking for them. Not all people who write referendums are not understanding. Private individuals with the knowledge of the people and what they want present the wording of the people in the language the people all agree to. When those writings are submitted to the Representatives, and those agents change the wording into clauses more suited for them, then the wording is representative of those Representatives who changed the original wording of the people, not the people themselves. So being represented by those who do not present the original words and support them, the people have been duped to believe their words have been accepted as stated, which if changed, has not.

      All oaths taken include the wording to protect the Constitution in its entirety, and it is, essentially. What people do not understand is a small clause in the Constitution that puts any wording, from Federal agents, as law is Supreme Law of the Land. This is hidden in plain sight and the Federal Representatives take advantage of that clause daily. Only Federal laws, Treaties, and the like, agreed to by any Federal Sovereign, is counted as Supreme Law of the Land. State or Republic laws do not carry this distinction in the Constitution, but Republic Treaties are recognized as Supreme Law of the Land, through the Republic Constitutions independently and via the Union agreement, which happens to be a Treaty or Compact. The Federal Constitution does not allow Federal agents to undermine the Sovereign Law of the Republics, per se. Violations of these Treaties come under guises of the Common Good, but Governors and other elected officials of the Republics have the final say in their Republic and Districts contained therein. These elected officials are the stop gap of the Federal insurgence of the Republics. The Electeds feet need to be held to the flames, to insure the protection of the people, from the Sovereigns the people put into place, to stop the foreign insurgences.

      Protection comes from below and not from the above or top down.

  • Douglas

    We all “should” understand by now that the 2nd was created to prevent tyranny from the government…..so I’ll come at this from another angle. My mother is 77, lives alone in a mobile home park. She is “very” vulnerable to any sort of physical attack……for whatever reason. Can someone answer this simple question?……how can she defend herself, should someone attempt to break into her home or attack her? They call the gun “the great equalizer” for a good reason……we are not all created equally. We have elderly, disabled, physically weaker, etc, that would be easily victimized…..prayed upon by criminals. It’s so commonplace for everyone to get tunnel-vision, and only focus on the “scary looking” assault rifles……but the fact is, we need handguns (semi-autos included) to maintain some sense of self-defense for the weaker…… like the saying goes….an armed society is a polite society. So if someone wants to put themselves in my mothers shoes for a moment here, and honestly tell me how else they should defend themselves….I’d like to hear it. (and please don’t say “a baseball bat”)

  • Karl Glessner

    Bailey O’Malia is not only wrong about the core purpose of the 2nd amendment, but is mistaken on almost every assertion she makes in her post. As has been pointed out, automatic weapons are already mostly banned and it is already illegal for most felons to own firearms. She follows with a warm, fuzzy psychobabble assertion of a right to “feel” safe. Feeling safe and being safe are very different things. You can feel safe right before you get mowed down on the sidewalk by a drunken driver. Should we ban cars so you can feel safe? Or maybe just cars above a certain weight or horsepower? Also, rights and feelings are entirely different things. No one has the right to tend their own feelings by restricting the lawful activity of others.

  • Johnc

    Since the beginning of time there has always been good and evil. Evil wants you powerless to oppose it. Tyrants want you completely disarmed so they can take what is yours freely without worrying about that they might be killed in the process and that you might revolt. Tyrants can’t be tyrants unless they have complete control this is their sole aim and reason to disarm Americans, It is to enforce their tyranny on us without opposition

  • r b

    the very people who fight against gun restrictions, are the very people who support gun restrictions.

  • William

    We as a nation have been and still are subject to invasion by hostile forces of other nations…….today’s allies may turn into tomorrows adversaries…….after Pearl Harbor the Japanese Imperial Army seriously considered sweeping east to California and invading our nation. The only deterring factor was that the invasion planners knew that there would be an American behind every tree with a rifle……..the plan was discarded after consideration and the population of the western United States was saved from suffering loss of lives, liberty and property that would have resulted from such an invasion….simply because of the second amendment rights of our citizens to keep and bear arms……Ms Feinstein and her ilk are perfect examples of why our founders were eager to ensure that the citizens of our nation have the means and ability to defend the personal liberties endowed by our creator, the Constitution and the Bill of rights. I find nothing in the documentation that founded our nation that ensures one the right to feel safe in their home from their neighbors……on the other hand the founders went to great lengths to ensure the the populace retained the rights and means to defend themselves from an over reaching central government.

  • Jim B

    I feel the same way, many a neighbor have gun(s), a quarter mile from my home is a gun club and shooting range, it’s a fantastic place to learn, practice, and qualify to have a gun, and become safe and proficient gun owner. But hypocrisy and tyranny go together in almost every use of force incident perpetrated by our own government. We (our government) have killed innocent men, women and children in their resolve to crush others from expressing themselves, or wishes to be left alone (Janet Napolitino’s attack on Waco, she had them gassed, gunned down, and then she burned them to a cinder). Overseas our government kills men, women and children in untold (yes UNTOLD) numbers. Our Drones have become indiscriminant killing machines and no one has ever bothered to report on what is really going on, in America its citizens are clueless as to what is happening. Locally, cross the government and you will be dealt with by force, and incarceration. Innocence is determined by the government and at their convenience, they have granted themselves Caesar over all citizens. Our problem is that so many have become government serfs (zombiefied) and forced into thinking that the government is good for them. Our founders new much differently. Imagine if they were alive to see that our government taxes its citizens far far more than the Brits ever did. If they were alive today they would lead the charge on Washington themselves!

  • voldemort

    I favor the removal of all restrictions as to type of weapon after passing the current instacheck background searches. I go to gun shows and have purchased there. All regulated weapons were paperwork filed and had to be picked up at the sellers store the next business day. I also believe all people should serve in the military and that should be part of the regulations, after graduation. Switzerland has at least one fully automatic weapon in every home and look at their crime rate.

  • TargetShooter

    Approximately 1 person is killed every half hour due to drunk driving – by gun control logic are you willing to give up your auto because someone else might drive drunk?
    Preventable medical errors are the 6th biggest killer in America – it is estimated 98,000 people die due to medical errors – so it would make as much sense to ban doctors and hospitals as they seem more dangerous than guns. Sure doctors save lives just as guns do, but look at the damage they cause. Any gun bills should also include bans on doctors and autos to make everybody safer.

  • http://ElectTheRightCandidate.us Bert loftman

    The original intention of the Bill of Rights was to only apply to the federal government. If a state, county, or city decided that convicted convict cannot have a gun that would be fine.

  • Bill

    I fear loosing my 2nd amendment rights more to someone who is misinformed. “Automatic weapons” are used in place of semi automatic weapons in many anti gun articles. Please get your facts right and don’t
    continue to misinform. If we buy into the anti gun camp then why are cities
    like Chicago and D.C. and NYC and LA leading the pack in gun crimes?
    They already prohibit citizens from protecting themselves.
    Idaho, Ga. Ok Mt. are states with easier access to guns yet have much lower
    gun crime statistics. Keep your guns, get trained, keep them secure and out of the hands of criminals, kids and the government.
    What would dictators rather rule. Citizens with guns and money OR subjects
    that are poor and unarmed? No other questions need to be asked.

    • http://carlwk3c carlwk3c

      Bill,
      The un(or mis)informed are simply useful idiots to those who present the real threat.

      That would be the tyrant wannabes with plans, ambition, and NO scruples.
      If you look at history and where we are right now in the cycle, we are right at the same place Germany was just before Hitler took over.
      Obama will, if we allow him, make Hitler look like an amateur.
      Obama is conflicted on Syria … He wants to see Assad be overthrown by his alQueda and Muslim Brotherhood allies, but he can’t help himself but to admire Assad’s brutal dictatorial tactics. Obama can hardly wait to employ them here on us …
      He admires Mao (he put Mao ornaments on the WH tree) and particularly the way he ruthlessly grabbed power in China. The fact that he murdered about 100 million Chinese to do it is, to Obama, a “feature,” not a “bug.”
      He is building and arming his “civilian security force”.

      All that’s standing in his way is that he hasn’t been able to disarm us yet.

  • CLAY

    Our current D.C. government is frantically (while they can) eroding all freedoms. Witness healthcare, taxes, deficit spending, inflation (unavoidable), spreading the wealth, entitlements etc. etc. All this is done under the guise of, “for the good of the middle and poor classes” and augmented by the FACT that the D.C. politicians (in their wisdom) are far superior to any entity on earth. Do you really believe that? The Second Amendment is the one thing most frightening to the liberals/socialists and is a main target.They find it repugnant! I’m very pleased when I hear my neighbors shooting and I do it myself. I’m very ready to die defending my right to continue doing so! The real dialogue nationally should be on the trash pumped out by Hollywood and the fact that politicians live under a different set of rules regarding healthcare, pay, and pension benefits! Americans are largely fat and lazy and lack the mental firepower to realize what’s going on!

  • AngelStar

    O’Malia is incorrect. No civilian has an automatic weapon, that is illegal and only for our nanny gowrnment to have to mow us down as so many blades of grass.
    I’ve always believed that the 2nd Amendment obligated us to bear arms in the scenario that ¨We the People¨ would need to form militias to protect our nation from tyrannical, illegal federal government administrations or invading interlopers,

  • ibcamn

    Well Mr. Young,i think you are right,i also think she hung herself the second she spouted”do we really trust other peoples judgment”she killed her argument right there!no i don’t trust a lot of other peoples “judgment”,Obama’s comes to mind.we all know that the white house is now filled almost to capacity with Marxist thinking people!when Obama ran for his seat,he said he wouldn’t come after our shotguns,rifles,handguns but never said our semi-automatic,automatic weapons and i told everybody that’s what this prick is after!everybody told me he said he supports the 2nd amendment rights,i said you watch,the first little thing goes wrong he will turn on you!ta dah!her it goes,and he has this beatch on his side to help his agenda!trust me,the first time any danger comes knocking on her door,she’s gonna come running to one of us for help!but what’s gonna suck even more is,were gonna help her!because were Americans and we can!…..thanks to the second amendment!

  • Veteran

    If Bailey ever read the letters and treatises written by Jefferson or the Federalist Papers, she would know that the armed populace was to defend against INTERNAL tyranny of the new government. Just read a history of weapons control in the UK from 1066 to the time of the Revolution and you will learn why the Founding Fathers were concerned – heck, just read the Magna Carta; they knew the basic prinicple in 1215 that today’s politicians either don’t recognize or deliberately want to ignore!

    When she says, “Surely, there is no need for a civilian to hold that kind of power in his hand. In fact, why should anyone have that much power over another human being? Do we really trust each other’s judgment?” she ignores the idea that thee GOVERNMENT is made up of ambitious people who have EXACTLY that much power over the rest of us because they can use the police, national guards and military to enforce their rules! [Has Bailey ever traveled on a plane since 2001? Has she ever told an TSA person she doesn't want to be searched? Try that and find out who has the power of the gun! And I'm assuming Bailey is a regular, law-abiding citizen.]

    And Bailey also shows her ignorance of the gun laws because she, like so many pundits, call the AR-15 an “automatic weapon”, an “assault weapon” or a “machine gun”. Automatic weapons and machine guns (one pull of the trigger fires the gun until it uses alll the ammo) has been illegal to own (without a very special permit) since the Gun Law of 1934!!!! And this is also true of actual “assault weapons” (like a military-grade M16) which can be fully automatic with the use of a toggle switch on the receiver (select fire).

    Today, over 30+ percent of all rifles sold are of the AR15 variety, in over 15 different calibers, including the ubiquitous .22 rimfire. And when the antis like Pelosi, Schumer, Boxer and Obama talk about banning all military-based firearms, they are including EVERYTHING out there, since even the bolt-action hunting rifles were based on the 1898 Mauser K98.

    The antis don’t mind punishing 80,000,000 law-abiding and peaceful gun owners to satisfy their limited constituencies who are screaming so loudly about the actions of less than a dozen mentally disturbed people – because it fits their agenda, and the media follows along.

    To find out what can really be done by law-abiding citizens, check out the Mayan 14 movie theater. Two days after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School. a San Antonio man burst into the Mayan 14 movie theater and began shooting, “Sending panicked moviegoers rushing to the exits and running for cover,” according to MySanAntonio.com. But instead of becoming the next James Holmes, the suspect was shot by a concealed-carry patron. Unlike the Aurora theater shooting, the incident ended with only two wounded – thanks to a good guy with a gun. This theater WASN’T a gun-free zone and a trained, licensed and responsible citizen (like envisioned by our Founding Fathers 237 years ago) stepped up and did the right thing – saving lives.

    Now you don’t hear about the “Mayan 14″ incident, do you!?!?!

    Just maybe the politicians and the media are exercising selective “education”.

  • John Wheatley

    As usual, the anti gun writer does not understand what she is writing about. “Ban all automatic weapons”- except for special circumstances, the public only has semi-automatic weapons. Not a big point but is shows lack of knowledge regarding the very subject she is writing about.

    • JC

      That and “Glocks” must be banned…
      They are a semi-auto pistol the like of which is made by almost every gun manufacturer out there. I would have bought one but I opted for the stopping power of a Kimber .45.
      Same damn gun though…..

  • Virginia

    The recent tragedy is being used for various reasons. As a great grandmother I was
    terribly upset by the school shooting as any caring person would be. However, I wonder
    if anyone knows how many children have been killed by abusive parents, or accidents,
    as compared to the times such as the recent schoold tragedy? Currently where we live
    many parents are trying to get the schools to hire security full time. While I do believe
    schools should have a secure learning facility, there is no way to insure that a huge
    tragedy will not happen anywhere, anytime. And, do you really want your children to
    have to pass armed security people every day going into school?? There are other ways
    to have a ‘check point’ by other means.
    As to the 2nd Amendment, yes, we should be able to protect ourselves.

  • Ron

    Her statement “But it’s also your right to feel safe in this country. And despite the theorists who say, “Arm every person in the country; that’ll scare ’em,” the lunatics who are shooting up movie theaters and schools don’t seem to place much value on their lives or the lives of others”, invalidates her argument. An armed person in the movie would probably saves lives.

    There was an example of just such a thing happening because an off duty officer (I think) was able to shoot the “lunatic” and save lives but it didn’t make the sensational news because more than likely not enough people were killed.

    In some countries, Mexico for one, you pass by banks and businesses and armed guards are standing there. It might be interesting to see how many murders or robberies (excluding the drug cartel murders) have taken place when these places have armed guards.

  • Tom Cook

    Tim I disagree with you on one important point. O’malia is not intelligent. She mouths the old tired wrong tripe that has been disproven by the absolutely validated evidence of Professor John Lott and many others. She is nothing but a spigot from what passes for liberal thought.

  • Larry

    Not directly to the 2nd amendment issue, but go to your closest Redbox and look at the movies available. Or – go to the video store and look at the nature of the video games that kids are playing. The reason for increasing violence in the US will become obvious. Until we recognize Hollywood and those profiting from video games as the problem, we will never begin to deal with violence and moral decline.

    Guns are not the problem. They are but one of the many otherwise useful and valuable tools available to those who are inclined to violence.

    • Arlene

      And in the fiscal cliff “agreement”, Hollywood get BIG MONEY given to them by we the taxpayers which is borrowed from China.

  • DavidL

    Three quick points in response to Mr. Young.

    First: You are incorrect as to our historical meaning of the 2nd Amendment. See United States vs. Miller (1939) It was a unanimous Supreme Court decision. Read Justice McReynolds discussion of the history and meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

    Second: It is more than ironic that you, presumably an “originalist: and Justice Scalia Conservative, are taking the position that our Constitution is alive and evolving. Only when you disagree with the decision is it illegitimate judicial activism. But you have no problem with engaging in some of it here today.

    Third: Stop with the left/right liberal/conservative axis crap. It’s ignorant and counter productive. If you don’t think so, I suggest you look at the recent election when conservatives and their “superior” views got their brains beat out by progressives and liberals. I know liberals who agree with you and conservatives who do not. The axis should be constructive vs. destructive. Using Liberal as you do is as ignorant and offensive as substituting it for the N-word. Please try to evolve on this issue.

  • Charles Mascolino

    Mr Young, you are absolutely correct . And I feel that the Obama admin will take away all our libertys that they can.

  • Major Fred Kirby, Retired USAF

    Much is said here that I agree with that does not pose the slightest hint of gun control. I do have a question that has me very puzzled. The group that wants our guns will take advantage of any shooting that results in lose of life as a reason for taking our guns.With results that by history are contrary to that desire. Check Washington, D.C. and Chicago for examples of gun control action leading to increased deaths from shootings. I point that out as they use each and every incident for their specific purpose of getting our guns. My confusion lies in what I have learned. Every case of recent shootings was done by a liberal, progressive individual, not one by any of us. I will say that again. No unlawful killings were committed by any person who supports the 2nd Amendment. What has me confused and wondering is how do the progressive liberals manage these crazies to make them gun happy using persons for kills to support their aggression for gun control? How? No matter how, it appears to be working and working very well, indeed.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jdsusumu JD Sparks

    Umm, this first person is an idiot because A) “Automatic” weapons are already banned. “Automatic” weapons aren’t used in these crimes.

  • Kendall

    The problem with the “feel good” gun banning is that it would only affect the law abiding. Those people are the very ones you want to have armed.
    In all of these mass shootings there were numerous laws broken before the trigger was pulled. Why did those laws not stop the criminal? What makes a liberal think that one more law would change this?
    You can in fact see the outcome of a near total gun ban right now. Look at Chicago. Almost impossible to legally own a firearm. Yet the number of shootings is climbing every day.

  • concerned citizen

    So, O’Malia’s points lead me not to the constitution, not even to guns themselves… but to one word … FEAR.
    Gun control is not about anything but the imagined fear of death from a gun that seems terrifying. When in fact, even that old musket, if pointed at your head with some whackjob on the other end of it would be EXACTLY as terrifying as an AK-47.
    Regular every day gun owners can’t buy automatic weapons that shoot 100 rounds in a minute. There are typical 30-round clips that have to be emptied and replaced, etc… and for any typical user, you wouldn’t be able to shoot that fast. Maybe a professional shooter or someone who practices making semi-autos act like full auto by techniques… But in the real world… that’s just not practical.

    It seems that most who are opposed to guns are ones who fear all guns. But do you fear the guns the police use? You could be near a dangerous situation and become a casualty of a stray police bullet just as easily as getting hit by the crazy gun wielder.

    I think it is more a societal problem than anything else. If you don’t know your neighbors and don’t want to… how do you know they are not manufacturing meth in their basement which might have a very good chance of blowing up their home and yours?

    Are you also afraid to drive to work? The roads are much more dangerous statistically than guns are…

    She asks, why would someone need a gun to have power over another human being…? Didn’t Mr Colt once say, a handgun is the great equalizer? This is when a 97 lb, skinny as a rail, toothpick man no longer has to be afraid of the 300 pound football player with an attitude coming out of a bar and thinking he is almighty… It is not about making the powerful bow down and become a slave…. it is about not knowing who is armed, so you should TREAT EVERYONE as if they ARE…. and respect each other.

    Do we all have to go back to high-school to realize there are the popular, the clicks, the power-hungry, the weak and defenseless, etc?
    Those are the times in life that lead to suicide, drinking, drug use and other abusive relationships…. These are social issues… not gun control issues.

    If I COULD own fully automatic weapons, AND have a place to shoot them safely, AND afford the ammo… I would ABSOLUTELY have that as hobby.

    Frankly….. I truly believe that the imagination conjuring images of potential death by assault weapons is the ONLY reason that people want gun control… and the kicker is… there are already enough weapons on the street that making new laws against future sales will do absolutely nothing to take weapons out of the hands of folks that would use them un-lawfully. It might raise the prices… but that”s about it.

    If you are fearful… go to church… study the bible… and maybe even go take a gun course… LEARN about what you fear… If you live in a bad place… consider moving… get wise counsel… make friends with people you can trust.

    Begin living people….

    • http://carlwk3c carlwk3c

      Actually the FBI’s own stats prove the following:
      1) Law-abiding citizens justifiably kill more criminals each year then the police.
      2) Despite that, you are more than 5 times more likely to be mistakenly/accidentally shot by the POLICE than you are by a private citizen using a gun to stop or prevent a crime.

      Recently NYC police fired at a bad guy with a gun in the streets of NYC. Result? 9 innocent civilians shot by the police.

      People who legally carry a concealed handgun are FAR less likely to commit ANY crime, let alone a violent one.

      Florida has issued about 1.8 million concealed handgun permits since the pasage of their “shall issue” law in about 1992. Over a million are active (people move, die, let them lapse,etc.) However as of the last data I saw, they had only revoked about 160 because the holder of the permit did something bad with his/her gun.

      Every state that has passed “shall issue” concealed carry has seen crime in general, and violent crime in particular, drop DRAMATICALLY.

      The facts are irrefutable. Law-biding citizens with guns are NOT the problem. (unless, of course, you’re a tyrant wannabe who wants a disarmed, helpless population to plunder and eventually exterminate)

      • JC

        Also according to the FBI, crimes are stopped by law abiding gun owners about 2 million times a year. That’s about 5400 times a day.

        • http://carlwk3c carlwk3c

          Yes, the best estimate from government data is that guns save about 65 times more lives than they take.

  • http://none Fred

    The founding fathers knew of the potential danger of a well armed government and they knew the citizens must be as well armed to protect themselves. Obama has stated we need a civilian army just as strong as our military. He is now starting one that is equipped with assault weapons and even armoured cars. The first of this class of 231 recuits (18-24 years old) just completed the course and will be armed with assault weapons, This civilian army with their assault weapons will be used against citizens in the streets of America. Obama or any other tyrant would do this; citizens better be as well armed for protection.

    • http://gillysdailynews.blogspot.com Gilly from Australia

      I think your being melodramatic but if you feel your own government is going to wage war with its citizens its time you started looking to move elsewhere…and perhaps our socialist country in Australia which only uses 23% of GDP instead of your government 41% for government expenditure might be an option and given that Australia is 2nd to Switerland as the best place to be born in where USA is ranked 47th i think..Melbourne Australia is the worlds most liveable city too and.I think we need a few more conservatives in Australia if your prepared to leave your auto weapons behind in the USA… well lets face it they wont let you carry them on the plane over will they… come for a holiday have a mosey around and tell me its not much much safer than your USA. .

      • http://carlwk3c carlwk3c

        No, it’s NOT “time for us to move elsewhere” It’s time to stop the tyrants.

      • http://carlwk3c carlwk3c

        By the way, I’ve been to Melbourne ( and Sidney and Cairns) and Melbourne SUCKED, so your good sense is immediately called into doubt.

  • http://gillysdailynews.blogspot.com Gilly from Australia

    I think its time you started sacking police and save yourself a fortune and reduce your deficit because you dont need them really until your neighbour becomes senile and thinks hes shooting rabbits but really shooting at local children in the streets…and thats where you are mistaken about your neighbours…they might be ok now but as we all age we start forgetting and some become nut cases who do strange things with automatic weapons. Hand guns are harder to aim and use in rapid fire like auto weapons where you can spray down 100 people in a crowded room before you realise your one of the dear departed.

    • JC

      I once thought of you as a sensible fellow…
      but now I see that you are just another Liberal whose imagination runs wild with what if’s and maybe’s….

      So at what age should we start exterminating old people…”before” they become senile?
      After all, they could think their car is a bull dozer, or their steak knife might be a scalpel…
      who knows? These people are an obvipous threat to the safety of all the children everywhere…oh the carnage …. the carnage….

      Get lost.

  • VickieShane

    “Founding Fathers crap”….,.Hummmm This says a lot about Ms. Omalia

  • Charles

    If our goverment,at this time has our best interest in mind, Than mayby you can tell me why, homeland security, social service, the Irs,and the enverimental agences have all ordered millions of rounds of holopoint ammo. I see no reason why they need this kind of ammo. If everything is alright in this Country

    • http://gillysdailynews.blogspot.com Gilly from Australia

      Charles your right ….They dont need it, but they buy it to give work contracts to keep those factory jobs going…which is important they dont lose those machinery and engineering skills going in case something really desparate happens. Can you imagine if the amo factories had to lay off staff due to lack of orders and suddenly they needed to start up quickly…those staff may move to other locations gotten other jobs and take too long to find skilled staff to set up tooling again…ITS CALLED STRATEGIC INSURANCE. Very important and no need to get edgy and read more into it than there really is.

      • JC

        Gilly from Australia says:

        January 7, 2013 at 9:13 am

        Charles your right ….They dont need it, but they buy it to give work contracts to keep those factory jobs going…which is important they dont lose those machinery and engineering skills going in case something really desparate happens.
        _______________________________________________________________________

        You heard the man….

        Everyone needs to buy lots of ammunition and firearms “Everyone”.
        We wouldn’t want the economy to slow down or those skills to be lost.
        Gotta keep those gun and ammo manufacturers busy by God!

        And why not? What’s good for Government “must” be good for We the People too..
        Buy buy buy :)

    • david

      BTW Charles, where were all of these ABC Corporations at when the killing went down at Sandy Hook, Columbine, and other mass shooting institutions? Why did not they not do their jobs in enforcing the Gun Free Zones? They are inept to do their jobs. Time to fire them and get rids of them and form our own protection organizations that will do more good! [and not talking about gangs either]

    • http://carlwk3c carlwk3c

      DHS and a few other alphabet agencies have purchased over 1.8 BILLION rounds -
      enough to shoot every man, woman, and child in the country 3-4 times – ammo that’s illegal for military use under international law. Considering that you and I and all of the other US taxpayers are paying for all of this ammo, it’s frighteningly reminiscent of the story of political prisoners’ families being forced to pay for the bullets used to execute them … isn’t it?

      If we allow these leftist control freaks to ignore and ultimately gut the 2nd Amendment, history will inevitably repeat itself. These “gun control” proposals have NOTHING to do with preventing crime, but EVERYTHING to do with CONTROL.

      Hitler disarmed the Jews and others, then murdered about 15 million.
      Stalin disarmed the Russians, them murdered about 40 million.
      Mao disarmed the Chinese peasants, then murdered nearly 100 million.
      The Turks disarmed the Armenians, then murdered 1.5-2 million.
      Pol Pot disarmed the Cambodians and murdered millions.
      Rwanda disarmed its ethnic groups, then murdered millions.
      The list goes on … over 170 million people murdered BY THEIR OWN GOVERNMENTS in the 20th century – AFTER they allowed those governments disarmed them.

      They ALL thought “It can’t happen here” – until they were disarmed and it started, then it was too late. Don’t make the same mistake. Don’t EVER let your government disarm you.

      The Founders knew that government, if not constrained at every step, will continue to accumulate power and control until it becomes tyranny. That’s why they feared standing armies and insisted that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

      “Never forget, even for an instant, that the one and only reason anybody has for taking your gun away is to make you weaker than he is, so he can do something to you that you wouldn’t let him do if you were equipped to prevent it. This goes for burglars, muggers, and rapists, and even more so for policemen, bureaucrats, and politicians.” – Aaron Zelmanm

  • http://yahoo Charles

    Once again when people who do not know (fiendstien) about the subjest that they are making laws about ,then stupid and unenforceable laws are passed. “Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges” So get ready for very dark days!

  • David169

    I believe you are spot on with your appraisal of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. However, I might add that the 2nd Amendment is part of the “Bill of Rights” which I believe is a section of the Constitution that is not able to be changed or eliminated by an ill political wind.
    I also believe it is ludacris to ask a young person to enlist and train them to properly use an M-16 in defense of our country and then tell that same person they are not trusted to keep that rifle in their home. That’s today’s musket. A light selective fire rifle. I don’t believe I am in any greater danger from a veteran with an M-16 than I am from the police with M-16s.
    Lastly there needs to be an honest discussion on the psychoactive drugs known as Selective Serotonin Re-uptake Inhibitors. Each and every one of the mass murders since the early 1990s had been prescribed these drugs. When each of this over 100 murderers committed their crimes they were either getting on the drugs, on the drugs or withdrawing from the drugs. When a gun was not available they used a knife, machete or car to kill their victims. Diane Fienstein has had her bill waiting for a crisis that could be used to bootstrap in new anti-gun legislation. Not one of these politicians has stated the only common link with all of these murderers is not guns; it is SSRI drugs that have been prescribed to them.

  • DTConcerned

    Weighing in. Bailey is absolutely wrong, not understanding the prupose of the 2nd amendment. Tim Young has accurately assessed and well worded his response. If there had been school staff with CCWs at Sandy Hook there woudl not have been such a tragic massacre, CT already has the tightest gun control in the country, which set them up to be easy targets. The mass murderer had an assault rifle, but left it in teh trunk of his car and di dnot use it, so laws against assault rifles would have made no difference. Arm the people like Switzerland does and give criminals a reason not to act.

  • Carl R.

    It doesn’t matter what progressives, socialist, communist etc say. Its their agenda to take away our rights and enforce there own socialist rules. I have right to carry and somethng must be done to help control crazy individuals that don’t and shouldn’t have it. The internet has helped created these idiots and so has movies and games and the socialist move away from religion and family, the state is big brother. Because society has changed we need armed presence at schools and right to carry as our 2nd amendment states. When someone violates laws, uses weapons, there whould be harsh laws and enforced !
    The states should have right to enforce gun control in there state. The right to carry sidearms or have shotguns, lever actions rifles and semi auto rifles is my right. I am willing to debate on large magazines (50 plus) for semi auto rifles to reach a fair ruling. I don’t think anyone needs a belt fed machine gun except collectors, but no sale on belted ammo.
    Don’t need motars etc. My friends and neighbers /mostly/ are armed. Remember what Jefferson said ” We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.” and remember what Dwight D. Eisenhower said. “Every step we take towards making the state the caretakers of our lives, by that much we move toward making the state our MASTER.”
    Every right they take away under there smoke screen, makes us slaves to government control. We need to protect our children and all citizens from sicko’s. i am retired US Army and Dept of Corrections and accept that like all things there are two sides just like a coin, one side for good and other can be used from wrong, its never ending struggle.

    Carl

  • ibcamn

    ALERT!Obama’s henchmen just told us Americans they(white house) are fileing for a law to do away with term limit on the presidancy!!ta-dah,what i tell you?Obama want’s to be king!if that happens we got a much longer and harder haul on this fight for our rights!(and i’m sure ammo will be on his list too)people like this woman(O’malia?) will help him out too!while Obama sit’s in his chair with tax payer money in one hand and Schultz giving him a lap dance for her rise,oops,i mean raise!(of tax payer money)Obama is loving this fight,controlled caose!?!watch my hand,i can make it disepaer!

  • http://www.facebook.com/GBHAPPY Gloria Allen Dahms

    I would like to hear your comments on the “Dick Act” of 1902.

  • G Q

    All of these replies and only one person points out how incorrect your historical facts are with regards to weapons. Only muskets!!! Really? Both writers should have been kidding, but I can excuse the liberal as they never let reality get in the way of the argument they want to make. But, the fact that you do not understand how important the men who carried the long rifle were in saving Washington and his troops from total annihilation after Trenton demonstrates your very limited understanding or knowledge of our Nation’s battle for independence. The long rifle was far superior to the musket and it was a weapon for which the British troops and the mercenaries had great respect and not just a little bit of trepidation. It may have used black powder and a lead ball, but it was certainly not a musket and it’s range was much greater than the musket. Which means that the Americans who won the war had personal fire power that was superior to the personal fire power carried by the government troops (i.e. the British).

  • hanbo

    I highly recomment the “appleseed program”,sponsored by the Rev.War Veterans Assoc.It teaches civilians how to shoot rifles w/iron sights accurately.they are on the web and in the Shotgun News in Freds m-14 stocks article.”Where marksmenship meets history”,you also get a little motivation at each event where the istructor tells all who are present the story of Lexington&Concorde 19April1775.

  • sacfox9

    As I read the article and then the comments, one argument arose which I have found myself and friends having: As our wise and insightful forefathers had endured in their period a oppressive government which ruled with an iron fist, they were fortunate enough to already have guns they needed to fight the British. This was because of the large majority of Americans at the time were self-sufficient and therefore needed a gun to produce much of their food while protecting themselves from possible unwanted intruders. So of course, they included the citizens should be allowed to arm themselves. But, is it really necessary for ordinary citizens to own and use the weapons which were used in this horrible killing spree? I really don’t think so, but I do fear what Obama has as an ultimate goal for our nation. So. do we really want the only people in this country to legally own guns to be the government? I vote, no. Do we need some type of fair, true meaningful conversation on what weaponry and who it is being sold? Of course, but fair legislation staying in line with what the original framers had in mind it always a necessity. We must never ignore their wisdom and foresight of a possible tyrant once again ruling our Republic.

    • 45caliber

      sac:

      From experience, I can tell you that when an enemy (being either an enemy soldier or a criminal) is shooting at you, you want something AT LEAST as good as what they are using to shoot back. When the criminals use these SEMIautomatic weapons in their killing sprees, I want to be able to use the same thing AT LEAST to shoot back. Taking away these guns will ONLY take them from the law-abiding citizens – it will NEVER get them away from the criminals. In fact, in England where guns are banned, it causes the criminal groups to switch to automatic weapons (real assault rifles) that they purchase from the various governments and smuggle in with their drugs. The same would occur here.

  • JW M

    At the time the Constitution was written a good share of the weapons held by the citizens were superior to what the military had. Both were muzzle loaders but the military had smooth bores with a range of about 50 yards, while a lot of the citizens had rifled muskets which were good to about 200 yards.

    • Capitalist at Birth

      We need to re-institute the advantage in our favor.

    • http://www.facebook.com/dave.weaver.7359 Dave Weaver

      ooops JW M

      you forgot to mention that the rate of fire was only about 1/4th of that of the assault weapon of the day? There was a reason the military used a smoothbore musket – and typically not a rifle.

      • 45caliber

        Dave:

        I’m not sure where you got that info but it is wrong. It was as easy to load a rifle as it was a musket when bullets (not balls) were used. The reason the muskets were used was because 1) they were cheaper than the rifles and 2) they didn’t require as much training to use. Rate of fire was the same. The idea of battle at that time was to march up to within sixty yards or so of the enemy and use volleys to simply put out as many bullets as possible at the same time. All the soldier using the musket had to do was point in the general direction of the enemy and pull the trigger. The American forces, particularly those with rifles, didn’t do this unless forced. They were used to fighting the Indians and preferred to stand off at a distance and hide behind something while aiming. Most of the British officers didn’t consider that fair, for some reason.

  • By George

    The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution, the right to keep and bear arms, simply grants Americans the right to be armed. Therefore, the 2nd Amendment tells the Federal Government the people can be armed and the Federal Government can’t prevent it. No specifics weapons are mentioned either by limitation or approval. This has been confirmed by the US Supreme Court in several opinions.

    Any limitations to possessing a gun, but not the denial of possession, must therefore devolve to the individual states as provided for in the 10th Amendment. What’s so difficult to understand? Ms. Bailey O’Malia, in her opening statement, immediately directs our thoughts on “gun control”, when gun control is not the problem.

    It’s the mentally ill, still wandering around in our society, from whence these brutal type of attacks have come, except for the Islamic Jihadists of course, who do their own thing for their own reasons.

    She further asks, “do we really trust each others judgement?” Well, basically, yes!. What we do not trust is the growing power of this Federal Government and there is the crux of the gun owner possession question and where the focus of attention should be directed.

    Until Ms. O’Malia called the Founding Fathers opinion “Crap”, I could have happily engaged in a dialog with her, but she reveals herself with that comment and debating with her would be tantamount to trying to convince a brick wall it was made of wood.

    • eddie47d

      I could use the argument that a car can be built without brakes but in reality you better not drive it without brakes. The same with any weaponry which if not appropriate for the circumstances doesn’t serve a purpose. Putting the brakes on certain weapons doesn’t take away anyone’s right to defend oneself. None at all!

      • phideaux

        “Putting the brakes on certain weapons doesn’t take away anyone’s right to defend oneself. None at all!”

        No it only takes away their means to do so. I am refering to your support for banning semi-auto weapons which are the best and most effective means of self defence from an aggressor.

      • eddie47d

        Why are your in-laws coming over?

      • JC

        eddie47d says:
        January 7, 2013 at 11:01 am
        I could use the argument that a car can be built without brakes but in reality you better not drive it without brakes. The same with any weaponry which if not appropriate for the circumstances doesn’t serve a purpose. Putting the brakes on certain weapons doesn’t take away anyone’s right to defend oneself. None at all!
        ________________________________________________________________
        Are you implying that the Second Amendment is about self defense?
        It includes the right to self defense…but it’s “about” putting down tyranny in Government.
        So, We the People will rightfully remain well enough armed to do just that, whether or not you like it.

  • Joe Proffitt

    I agree with Mr. Young. The 2nd amendment is not about hunting and/or sport shooting. It is about self defense and, most importantly, abut protection from a corrupt government.
    Also, I believe there are groups of socialist minded people who are behind most of this. Why all of a sudden in the last few years that these nut cases, as they portray them, start happening? Someone is using these people to promote their agenda.

    • http://aol Gene

      you bet they are and it is mind contorl, the Russians have proved it and now it is being used

      • Capitalist at Birth

        There were experiments in the 50′s/60′s using LSD and other mind altering drugs by the U.S. Military industrial complex. Not just the Russians.

      • independent thinker

        I read an article yesterday about the unibomber participating in CIA mind control experiments when he was younger.

  • Capitalist at Birth

    I have enough for today. I wish you all well except for those who would infringe on my rights to keep and bear arms. I wish you a happy landing in another country. Good Day!

  • Rachelle

    Read your history (and no, I’m not talking government school textbooks), as our founding fathers did.
    Do we trust all the other citizens (or are we subjects now?) with guns? No, but we should trust our government even less. Yes there is a problem, but gun control creates a Much Bigger Problem. The difference between What is Seen and Unseen. Our Founding Fathers knew the biggest threat to peoples freedom, throughout the history of the world, has been their own government. And all tyrannical governments (or those who would have their government become tyrannical) have always wanted to disarm the populace so they can be kept down more easily.

    • Capitalist at Birth

      The government in this country has been more and more tyrannical, especially since the dictatorship of F.D.R. continuing with Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, G. H.W. Bush, Clinton, G.W. Bush, and Obama. That only leaves us with 16 years of moderate governance in the last 84 years. Does anybody know anyone who will admit to voting for Obama in 2012?

  • Motov

    How many times must we inform liberal bed wetters the gun itself is not evil, the person firing the gun is. Passing laws only help the law breakers (law breakers is the same as criminals) I cannot imagine a crook getting all annoyed because the law said he couldn’t carry a weapon, No! he’ll find the nearest black market dealer and get one,. (remember prohibition and how effective it was stopping people from alcohol consumption?).
    That is precisely the reason why gun bans will never work, auto weapons are actually needed because of gangs. Criminals have started grouping up decades ago to ensure success in crime, IE Mafia to the current street gangs of today.

    Until you can deliver a promise me criminals won’t have guns (Which is IMPOSSIBLE) I’ll keep mine thank you very much.

    • eddie47d

      Oh yes Motov those good ‘ol American black market dealers. Another grand American tradition!

      • CZ52

        Lets see, black market dealers, in other words those who are unlicensed and operate outside the law. They are not the licensed dealers you are so fond of vilifying.

      • eddie47d

        Oh Yes those honest and legal gun dealers who sell under the table. Sure I can include them too if it fancies you!

      • CZ52

        eddie you have yet to show that there is any kind of problem with a large number of licensed gun dealers selling “under the table” or engaging in any other illegal activity. Until you do so you there is no reason to believe you for you have been proven to lie repeatedly many times over.

  • Vaughn Fifield

    Tim.
    the only way a semi-automatic weapon ban would work is if everyone in the world would turn them in — not even one could remain. there would have to be a ban on the manufacturing of them so everyone would be equil. now, both you and I know this would never happen so just to ban them in the United States would only make us vulnerable to invasion from anyother country that would not go along with such a ban. how safe would we really be — even from our own Government?

  • John Bradshaw

    I always fall back on the saying of Sam Colt. God created man, Sam Colt made them equal. Reading some statistics from the FBI the other day. More people are killed with hammers and baseball bats than rifles. Think we need to look at those rabid carpenters and designated hitters.

    • eddie47d

      Few are killed with traditional rifles and those statistics are misleading and don’t include handguns or any other weaponry.

      • CZ52

        “Few are killed with traditional rifles…”

        And just what praytell does that have to do with the FACT that more are killed with hammers and baseball bats then rifles of ALL kinds. There are also about 4.5 times more people killed with knives and other edged weapons than with rifles of ALL kindas

      • eddie47d

        Has alot to do with facts because there are some who think that rifles included in those statistics are AR-15′s and other semi-automatics. They are not.

      • CZ52

        “Has alot to do with facts because there are some who think that rifles included in those statistics are AR-15′s and other semi-automatics. They are not.”

        eddie eddie eddie just what part of ALL rifles do you not understand. There is NOT a seperate catagory for semi-auto rifles All rifles are included in the one catagory.

  • Don

    It was clear from the start that O’Malia did not have a clue what she was talking about. Really, how many Americans have automatic weapons? I don’t personally know anyone who has an automatic weapon. It’s not a simple solution as she says, she’s just a simple-minded liberal who hasn’t got a clue about firearms. How exactly does this simpleton know what kind of firearm the Founding Fathers had in mind, and which one of the Founding Fathers told O’Malia that the type of firearm they had in mind had to do with only safety and hunting. How about safety from a tyranical government? Idiots like O’Malia should not be given a platform to show their stupidity.

    • Capitalist at Birth

      I know several people that own and operate and sell fully automatic weapons, and pay dearly for the license to do so. I guess you realize they didn’t vote for Obama.

    • eddie47d

      Since most Americans believe that fully automatics are banned then Capitalist at Birth brings up a good point and gun laws aren’t working. Seems like we have a bigger problem here than pro gunners want to admit. Hmmm!

      • CZ52

        And just what is your point eddie? Oh I know you do not have one you just felt the need to make a nonsense post in reply to Capitalist. He clearly stated those people he knows followed the law and got the class III license neccessary to legally sell, purchase, and own full auto firearms.

      • eddie47d

        Why should I take his word for it ? Capitalist at Birth has been plenty wrong before but I’ll let it slide.

      • JC

        CAB, consider yourself lucky…
        Mr. “I have no point and I’m a liar with no credibility even with my own side.”
        Is willing to let you slide…

        Dodged a bullet there! LOL

  • donimn

    Personally, if you don’t have a weapon in your home, your asking for it. I have dog(s) as first responders, they will tell you something is amiss. Law breakers or felons have only one purpose, to do or take what ever they want, and if you think they won’t kill you to keep you from pointing the finger at them, then I wish you the best of luck, your going to need it!

    • Jeremy Leochner

      Well weapon is the operative word donimn. I do not have a gun in the house. However I have several bats and several knives. And I mean personal carry around knives, not just kitchen knives. And like you I have several dogs.

      • http://carlwk3c carlwk3c

        Never bring a knife to a gun fight. And, you can count on a tyrannical government having guns. If all you have is knives and bats, it’s not going to work out well for you at all.
        History proves it.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Protecting my home from a robber and dealing with a tyrannical government are two very different things. Since I still have the freedom of speech and press and expression and petition for a redress of grievances I do not believe I need a gun in the near future.

  • Elda

    The second amendment is ONLY for the protection of our families and rights it has nothing to do with hunting. Back then everyone was able to have a gun. That was not an issue. The RIGHT is for protection against the government and people like Adam what wish to do great damage. If someone in that school had a gun they would have stopped him. He is a symptom of something very wrong in this country and it has nothing to do with guns but the LEFT will not address it because most of the people suffering from mental illness are on the left. That is why they function on feelings and not rational fact like the conservatives. You notice I do not say Republicans….that is because they are mostly just as emotional as the left is. In truth the left has more to loose than the right when they succeed in taking away all our guns because the conservatives know how to take care of themselves better than the emotional toddler left.

  • Larry R

    You are exactly correct Mister Young in your assertion that back then we had muskets and so did the government. The Second Amendment was put in place to do just as you stated to keep the citizen’s on pace with any tyrannical government and to be the checks and balances that our 3 bodies of government were suppose to do for us citizen’s but we all know that the latter has failed us to no end.

  • Capitalist at Birth

    No one here seems to be aware that Obama is arming his national police force as we speak. Are none of you aware of the ammunition purchases by the Social Security Administration and FEMA have made over the last three years? Why on earth does the Social Security Administration, the TSA, and FEMA need over a billion rounds? There will be an executive order restricting guns by Obama, in the near future, mark my words.

  • http://yahoo Rebecca Reyes

    I believe that gun control is not the answer to gun violence. Two totally different things. People who commit crimes or plan to commit crimes do not care what the laws and regulations are.

    • eddie47d

      Then why are you so eager to arm those who commit crimes with the latest technology in weaponry? No restrictions mean they have the same access as you and can get those weapons much easier. So this whole question is intertwined and not different at all.

      • Don

        eddy, just because we stand up for our gunrights it does’nt mean we are handing nutcases guns to kill. this morning i read a bout a kid in alabama who wanted to explode a homemade bomb in a school. whats the difference. it was set up to spray shrapnel every which way. whats the difference between that and shooting someone with a fully automatic. in another one of your comments you tried to say a fully auto rifle and a semi auto rifle would shoot at the same rate. i don’t think so ask a military man. the auto would spit all the bullets in a 30 round clip in a blink of an eye. i can’t say semi autos are that bad in a normal sane person like me or even you,eddy. its the very low percentage of rhe population. i’d bet its lower than one five hundreths of one percent. people are making such a stink. why not work on stiffer penalties for crimes to scare people. maybe something like a very quick court hearing and a guaranteed death setence. even the nut case in colorado should be taken out of society. nut cases see it enough maybe they’d chicken out before the do something stupid.

      • phideaux

        “why not work on stiffer penalties for crimes to scare people. maybe something like a very quick court hearing and a guaranteed death setence. even the nut case in colorado should be taken out of society. nut cases see it enough maybe they’d chicken out before the do something stupid.”

        Because that makes sense and also it would eliminate the need for eddies constant argument for ever more restrictive gun control.

      • eddie47d

        Not really Phil[comment has been edited]! It compliments my point. Sure stiffer sentencing and more restrictions on more types of weapons.

      • http://carlwk3c carlwk3c

        I’ve come to the conclusion that Eddie is nothing more than a troll or a government plant. His absurd arguments should simply be ignored. If he’s just a troll, he’ll get bored and go away if he doesn’t get the attention.

      • JC

        Carl, I’m pretty sure he gets paid to be here every day, but I’m positive he just spews the same crap over and over. He’s actually a pretty useful idiot in that he posits the most ridiculous liberal crap just so we can shoot it down. If anything he’s “entertainment” that his own side of the argument doesn’t even take seriously.

    • Jeremy Leochner

      Well Rebecca whats the point of any law if that’s your logic. Murderers are not going to obey laws against murder and bank robbers are not going to obey laws against robbing. The laws act as a deterrent and they act as a social contract and a means to punish. We cannot arrest and imprison someone for doing something immoral if what they are doing is not against the law. Owning a gun is not immoral. However giving a gun to a mentally ill person is immoral. So how do we draw a line. How do we prevent the insane from getting guns or how do we punish them if they do. We need laws even if there are those who would break. In fact I believe we need laws especially because there are those who would break them.

  • Ron

    Sorry didn’t read Veterans reply.

  • Kate8

    Don’t know how many of you have heard of the Mother Shipton prophecies, but I ran across an article about them and found this most interesting, considering that they have correlated with other prophecies and have all been filfilled except a couple of them yet to come.

    One being that there will be a possible attack by China and Russia? Now, that would seem interesting, since both countries have had (still have?) troops on our soil. The WH and some military installations have been known to fly the Chinese flag…

    What it says is that they are not successul in ‘splitting the world in two’, but it sounds like there will be other problems. I was wondering if it would be the armed citizenry, along with military and para-military forces, which repel them.

    http://beforeitsnews.com/prophecy/2013/01/mother-shiptons-prophecies-youve-got-to-read-this-2444096.html

  • Tom Ping

    Mr. Young, you are quite right in your response. She got this wrong in many ways. First, these are NOT automatic weapons they wish to ban. These are semi-auto, which are NOT military grade fully automatic. They have been closely controled since the 1930′s requireing a class 3 license and a $300 fee. The current AR-15 that the government now wishes to ban are semi-autos and are todays MODERN muskets. We have the Second Amendment, as an unalienable God given right, not government given. This right allows all Americans to defend themselves, their families and their property from threats foriegn and DOMESTIC. This includes a tyrannical Government intent on taking our rights. This is NOT about hunting or sporting purposes. The Second Amendment defends all of the rest of our freedoms in the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution. Look at England and Australia to see what losing your rights cost you. Crime has exploded there and in England if you use a gun to defend your home you face prison, because you are not supposed to have one.
    No Thank you, compromise is NOT on the table for the Second Amenment. What part of “shall NOT be infringed” do all these Liberals not understand. There has been far to much compromise already.

    • skip

      right on!!! one thing i’d like to see is someone should get all the surviving victims and non surviving victims families, etc., together, and SUE all those who have been instrumental in the establishment of ‘gun free zones’… that should put a crimp in their style… these people are the proximate cause of all the injuries/deaths in these zones and should not get away with it… consideration should also be given to criminally prosecuting them as accessories before, during and after the fact of murder, etc…

  • ken Weberg

    What I would like to know is if this left wing woman has even read the proposed legislation. Before she makes such ludacrious statments she should at least read the pending bill. This is what got us into this problem in the first place. Does 9/11 ring a bell or the patriot act that not a single senator or congress person even took the time to read. This bill as presented would take the guns away from honest hard working law abiding people. O ya and the last survey had almost 50% of the cops going home to protect there familys. So who ya gonna call GHOST BUSTERS

  • Doubtful Avenger

    First, Ms. O’Malia knows nothing about guns, much less history. Automatic weapons are already illegal except with certain permits. The AK 47 your neighbor would own would be semi-automatic, meaning one trigger pull per shot, regardless of the size of the magazine, which may vary but won’t affect the firing mechanics. While it is arguable that the ban on automatic weapons is itself a violation of the Constitution and the Founders’ intent, automatic weapons are generally useless to the untrained civilian anyway, and no one put up much fuss over that ban.
    Your analysis of the intent of the Founders in drafting the 2d amendment is also correct, and is amply documented in the historical record, such as it exists with the limits the Founders placed upon themselves (50 years of silence). The ability to hunt or defend yourselves from thieves would never have risen to constitutional status on its own. And just to be clear, although I am highly trained, career military, and capable in a variety of weapons and firearms, I often hunt deer and antelope with an AR-15, which would be banned under the proposals by Feinstein and others, solely because of how it looks and the magazine size. My bolt actions are more accurate and dependable, but would limit my ability to fight the government if it ever came to that. I am certain that the left, including the President, want to insulate themselves from the risk of armed revolution. The operative word in “gun control”, to them, is “control”. They could give a damn about the kids who died – that is just a good excuse. Don’t agree? How many children’s lives have they ruthlessly aborted? How many kids have died by drones and bombs? Ever see them crying about those lives?

  • skip

    o’mailia’s premise is totally wrong from the get-go… she has NO idea what she’s talking about… her point re weapons that’re automatic and shoot a hundred rounds in a minute, is totally wrong… automatic weapons were banned like 80 or so years ago and no one has these, legally, without permission from the ATF… and, if some crazy had one semi auto pistol with 10 mags containing 10 rounds, what’s to stop h/er from doing tons of damage, except someone with like capability… mags can be exchanged in seconds… gun free zones are a criminal’s/crazie’s candy… also, someone should get all the surviving victims and non surviving victims families, etc., together, and SUE all those who have been instrumental in the establishment of ‘gun free zones’… that should put a crimp in their style… these people are the proximate cause of all the injuries/deaths in these zones and should not get away with it… consideration should also be given to criminally prosecuting them as accessories before, during and after the fact of murder, etc…

  • Bill Davis

    The mistake most anti-gunners make is that they think the so called assault weapons that were used in the massacre in Conn. are automatic weapons, they indeed were not! These as with most weapons sold are only semi-automatic, you have to have an FFL liscense to own an automatic, or be a law enforcement officer or be in a branch of the military. The government and the media try to hide that fact, just to get people riled up and pissed off!

  • Larry

    During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a “bill of rights” that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.

    On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States therefore proposed to the state legislatures 12 amendments to the Constitution that met arguments most frequently advanced against it. The first two proposed amendments, which concerned the number of constituents for each Representative and the compensation of Congressmen, were not ratified. Articles 3 to 12, however, ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights.
    Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition

    I. Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition
    II. Right to keep and bear arms
    III. Conditions for quarters of soldiers
    IV. Right of search and seizure regulated
    V. Provisons concerning prosecution
    VI. Right to a speedy trial, witnesses, etc.
    VII. Right to a trial by jury
    VIII. Excessive bail, cruel punishment
    IX. Rule of construction of Constitution
    X. Rights of the States under Constitution

    If you notice these amendments are aim directly at the Government being put in place what we now call USA, to keep the Federal government in check, so that in the new society the Government (Federal and States) could no long abuse Citizens.

    Now as we know there has to be a 66% 2/3 ratification of the states to pass a ammendment to the constitution. (this does not mean the state governments this means the people that are residents of each state). So lets put it in perspective to the 2nd ammendment, there is no way in this world you will get 66% of the 295 million citizens in the United States of America, the means they would have to have 194.7 million votes to change the 2nd Amendment. So what we should be talking about is the treasonous activity of the present US Gov. (president, Senator and Representatives that now think they can just change a ammendment in the constituion without the required citizens voting yes.

    The whole reason for these amendments were to restrict the Government from infringing on the rights of the citizens. Not for government allowing the Citizens to do anything. the ammendments are to prevent the government from doing these things.
    with the second amendment written as stated. what the arms are that ciizens own is what ever the individual deams they need to protect themselves from a repressive Government period. This has nothing to do with what the weapons are the size of the magazines or anything else. We the citizens need to bring this to a baseline fight, the government is prohibited from infinging on our rights to own guns, what ever they may be.

  • bill witt

    japan didn’t invade the usa because they said there was a gun behind every blade of grass!what part of shall not be infringed don’t you understand ?? take a look at germany in the 30′s gun’s were taken look what happened ,the evidence is there gun purchases go up crime go’s down .criminals don’t follow the law , criminals don’t register thier gun’s , arm yourself’s to the teeth ! only then will you have the ability to defend from a imorale government out to take your right’s away . former marine sgt, vietnam vet

  • Mr. Khan

    You’re right, Tim. “Progressives” misread the Constitution consistently – especially the Second Amendment – because it is antithetical to their world view. They use it like a menu that they pick from, A la Carte. This, in effect, makes them the greatest threat to the Republic since the Civil War.

    • eddie47d

      White Supremacist groups are plentiful and hardly defend the Constitution. Most mangle the heck out of it and want the power of the gun to set up their own false utopia. They infringe on other America right all the time. Are you for or against their schemes?

      • http:carlwk3c.wordpress.com Carl Stevenson

        Edie … you’re beyond hope. You clearly know nothing about guns, liberty, our rights, the Founders, the Constitution, or anything else.
        If you want to be a slave, go turn yourself in in some totalitarian country where the citizens have no rights.
        Leave the rest of us out of it.

      • JC

        Carl, eddie’s only purpose here or anywhere else is to serve as an example of how horribly immoral and deluded a person can become by subscribing to anti-American, “progressive” hogwash. We learn a lot from eddie, about what motivates human filth.

  • http://www.facebook.com/long.island.tzor Christopher Beattie

    I disagree slightly with one of your argument points. While some people, notably Jefferson, (although I don’t have the quote with me and he may have written it during the time he was exceptionally annoyed with the Federalists who were in power before the election of 1800,) supported the notion that the amendment preserved the right of the people to go against any corrupt government, the bulk of the people supported the amendment for their own practical defence. This was before the war of 1812 when we finally decided to adopt a standing army. Foreign nations could just as easily invade us as they would each other (Napoleon was running all over Europe at the time). It was also before Washington’s second term and the Whiskey Rebellion.

    Therefore, we do not need to have the firepower to take out the Federal government (a good thing because they have nuclear weapons) but we still need to protect ourselves and our homeland from all threats; foreign and domestic. It seems that every time I read someone saying, “You don’t need that,” I find an example in the news where someone did need exactly that. I even read an example of the use of semi-automatic weapons to defend against rioters in an area in the city that was abandoned by the police. They used the weapons to scare off the rioters.

    • Steve E

      …to protect ourselves and our homeland from all threats; foreign and domestic. The federal government is a domestic threat.

      • eddie47d

        So do you agree that the Sovereign Nation should be armed even though they have committed acts against US citizens and the government. Are they in your domestic enemies portfolio or are they friendly? How about those other 1,500 groups who recruit to overthrow the USA. ( Mostly white supremacist groups).

      • Steve E

        I don’t know of any formidable white supremacist groups that want to take over the country. But if there are any and they want to take over the government, I’m sure they would be better than what we have for a government now.

  • Rich

    When they come for your guns is when you know you will need them. Anyone stupid enough to register their guns will not only lose them, but their freedom and possibly their life. The guns they want to ban are exactly what is needed for defense of life and liberty. That is why the cops have them. We as a free people under the protection of the 2nd Amendment desrve and will accept no less. The question the gun grabbers must ask is how many people they are willing to kill to get these guns. Government and Citizen’s alike.

  • doug jackson

    Just a couple of comments here…There is already a ban on automatic weapons in this country…so I can not lay hands on an automatic anything that might possible fire 100 rounds a minute…as far as the 2cnd Amendment goes..it is to make sure I am armed to not only be secure in my own home but also to protect myself and family from a government gone crazy like we are seeing today. If you can not see where we are headed, please think about the the worst thing that might happen and do yourself a favor and read up on getting prepared!!

    • David169

      Doug,
      You’re wrong! There are about 750,000 legally owned full automatic weapons in civilian hands. So far since 1934 only one which was stolen was used in a crime. I personally own a 1928 A-1 Navy Thompson Sub machine gun. I bought it for $695. in 1978 and paid for my $200 tax stamp once I was approved by the BATFE. My local police chief signed for me and asked when I got it if he could shoot it. Bill Clinton decided to stop the sale of newly manufactured full automatic weapons. Since then the prices have gone through the roof because you have to buy one that somebody is selling and they don’t get sold that often.

  • Rich

    The type of guns they want to ban are the very guns that are the best for defense of life and liberty under the Constitution. That is why the police want them. We the people desrerve nothing less. The 2nd Amendment is about the limits placed on government not about us. The 2nd Amendment is nt about hunting.

  • Gordon in Texas

    First of all, the guns used weren’t assault rifles (military grade automatic weapons). They were semi-automatic. And the word “assault” sounds much better to anti-gun activists than semi-automatic. But that’s another matter.

    What gun control activists don’t understand is that our founding fathers didn’t write the 2nd Amendment to protect us from thieves, robbers, and other criminals; they wrote the 2nd Amendment to protect us from our own government. Soon after the revolution, our founding fathers realized that any government could turn against its people—as ours has—and the only recourse is for the people to change that government; by force, if necessary. The 2nd Amendment gives us a means to protect our rights from those who would attempt to take them away. Our rights are not provided by the government; they’re our birth rights and the Bill of Rights was written to limit the government’s power so it could not infringe on those rights.

    When a drunk driver kills a family of four, I don’t see the media, politicians, celebrities, and other news hounds calling for all models of that particular car to be taken off the market. These same people also did not call for a ban on aircraft manufacture after 9/11. The drunk driver killed those people. The terrorists flew those planes into the twin towers and Pentagon. The automobile and plane were only instruments used in these crimes.

    Somewhere in our past we have been relieved of our personal responsibility and it seems that no one is held accountable for their actions. It’s always the fault of this or that. It’s time to hold people responsible for what ever they do. Time to step back and reassess our society.

    We, as a country, are at a very interesting point in our history. The American people are at their lowest educational level ever in this country and, with the government’s help, will continue to be ignorant in regards to our rights, our history, and our government’s vision of our future; a future of increased government control in our private lives. This process has been expedited with the help of the fourth branch of the US government; the media.

  • Doubtful Avenger

    To the guy who asked if Article V applies – yes – there must be an amendment to the 2d amendment before the government can limit protected gun rights. No statute or regulation would withstand a legal challenge. A different Supreme Court might try to dream up some argument to the contrary, but they would be overturning a lot of long-standing precedent, both old and new. In other words, they would be cheating in favor of their politics, not following the law. That would put them squarely in the category of tyrannical government.

  • Zed

    This is quite amazing.
    Over the weekend I posted a comment on CNN saying very much the same thing.
    One point that needs stating though it that the current argument about “hunting and sporting” uses is a smoke screen.
    The second ammentment reads:
    “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.”
    There is no mention of “hunting or sporting” in the ammendment. The framers of the constitution ONLY wanted to protect firearms that had military usefulness.
    Next time someone asks why you need an automatic weapon to shoot Bambi, tell them this and watch the smoke come out of their ears. :-D
    Of course, the framers never could have imagined that our hunting privilages might ever be endangered. “Privilages” you ask? Sadly, yes. I’ve reviewed that constitution and I don’t see hunting or target shooting protected anywhere.
    It’s amazing how our elected officials and media have managed to twist the constitution into something that it never was.

    • Larry

      The whole reason for these amendments were to restrict the Government from infringing on the rights of the citizens. Not for government allowing the Citizens to do anything. the ammendments are to prevent the government from doing these things.
      with the second amendment written as stated. what the arms are that ciizens own is what ever the individual deams they need to protect themselves from a repressive Government period. This has nothing to do with what the weapons are the size of the magazines or anything else. We the citizens need to bring this to a baseline fight, the government is prohibited from infinging on our rights to own guns, what ever they may be.

  • Kevin Wickham

    All I have to say on the matter is: unarmed people are subjects; armed people are citizens.

    • eddie47d

      That’s why the Taliban is armed and the government has no control. Armed citizens don’t necessarily make a safer society sometimes quite the opposite.

      • JC

        The Government has no control? Oh My God!
        We must hurry over there and help install greater “control”…just like we’re enjoying here!

  • Chris

    I agree with Tim. It’s true that the second amendment was written to provide the citizenry to have at least a fighting chance against any government tyranny, either from inside or from without. Like those who today say that we can’t fight the American military or almost any nation’s military with a simple semi automatic weapon, many back then never in a million years thought that the rag tag American “civilian” army could beat the well trained professional soldiers of that day – but they did, and I believe they wanted us to continue to have at least a chance of defending ourselves today. In fact any military HAS to consider the option of a civilian resistance that has weapons. Disarming civilians dismisses that option and makes the takeover much easier. No, I wouldn’t feel safer with a weapons ban. In fact, given the type of individuals we’re seeing today, what is the likelihood of a deranged person getting into a position of power – getting more likely I think.

    I also believe that Bailey is wrong on another count. She claims that take the assault weapons away – “the solution”. I feel that is shortsighted and the opinion of many today. It won’t stop. These so called nuts are evil. They will likely find another way to act out their evil fantasies. Guns have been part of out culture for generations, and in fact fully automatic machine guns were legal back in the thirties. I don’t recall a single similar incident back then of someone shooting up a school, movie theater, or other public place for the shear pleasure of killing people. The activity was pretty much confined to the gangs at the time. The problem is a decadent Godless society that produces such individuals that would hurt innocent people and who would find a way to do so regardless of any gun ban.

  • http://midcontent range rider

    Again citizens need to call their representatives in the federal government all the way to the WH. If you look in the section of your phone books for federal government, it will have your representatives and senators numbers. For the WH switch board the # is 202-456-1111, every one should call in to let the beltwayclowns at the Foggy Bottom Circus know what we all think!

    • 45caliber

      I agree. Once it awhile, if enough people call, they will even listen to us.

  • Chris M.

    Why do you think it is the 2nd Amendment, after the rights that need to be protected the most. King George was trying to take to colonist’s muskets. That why they were marching to Lexington, a loyalist told them that the militia had stores of weapons(muskets or the assault rifle of the) stored there. The public school system taught this in American History Class before it became politically incorrect. My be as nation we should back to the basics of what America is, what it stands for, and the history of why we are who we are?

    • 45caliber

      It would be nice to go back to the original, but it is contrary to what the libs want our country to be. They have made a conscious effort to hide from our youth (by not teaching them) what our original country was supposed to be and spend years trimming the rights we have a little at a time with the ultimate goal of taking control and doing what the want with the rest of us “for our own benefit”. While you might suggest it, some liberal who reads that will be shuddering at the very idea of giving up all the progress they have managed to get (from their point of view) over the years towards their goals. And as long as the libs control Washington as they do now, it will not be done.

  • William Lambe

    The US government has already outgunned American citizens. Army veterans marched on Washington, DC to demand the pay they had been promised. The government “paid” by sending the US Army into the camp area set up by the veterans for their use during their efforts to bring about justice. The military demolished the camps at the muzzle of their guns even as they threatened American citizens who were unarmed.
    You say that to long ago to be relevant. Any precedent the government chooses can be turned against citizens, but it won’t as long as Americans exercise their Constitutionally protected 2nd Amendment Rights to keep and bear arms, even when the weapons held by citizens are equal to the hand and shoulder fired firearms held by the military. Rocket launchers, RPGs and other more powerful “combat” weapons should be reserved for the military who won’t use them against an armed citizenry.

  • Sandra Lee Smith

    It’s really sickening how left-leaners make up “rights” that never WERE, or were INTENDED to BE “rights”, to push their agenda! We have the Creator-given right to life, to liberty, to the PURSUIT of happiness, with NO guarantees of outcome, but NOWHERE did I read anything about “right to feel safe”! Our Founders well understood human nature, as well as nature in general, and that “feeling safe” was something EACH of us must create for himself, just as happiness is; it’s not something a government can, or should try to, provide. The 2nd Amendment is PART of that, in protecting us from the over-reachhing of neighbors or governments, toward that which is NOT their right to touch; our liberty and our right to pursue happiness! The “threats” have changed along with the technologies in weapons, and our individual need to have such weapons exists BECAUSE governments and other criminals HAVE them!

    • 45caliber

      There is no “right to feel safe.” There is also no right to not be offended and no right to share what others earn or produce. There is no right for gays to marry and no right for minorities to get benefits that others do not. Sadly, too many people believe so. Yet, if you check, all those “rights” actually are repressions of the rights of the majority of the people.

  • http://jmcgraphicdesignworks.wordpress.com jcfromdc

    I can’t and won’t spend time to read every argument here, pro or con, about the 2nd Amendment. I have my own views. That said, here goes”
    Nothing about which our “founding Fathers” wrote was “crap”. Just to get the Constitution to become good enough to be ratified took what… SIX YEARS??? And all the Federalist papers to justify it. The fear of centralized government power with the “common folk” was (and is) very real. The 10 Amendments (Bill of Rights) were put there for a purpose… a Guarantee against the Federal Government’s intrusion on individual rights. It was about RIGHTS, not “privileges”.

    An internal separation and civil war was fought over Federal intrusions and “buck passing” favoring one sector of society over another 85 years and 680,000 lives later. Since the beginning of the 20th Century we have seen one BIG intrusion after another, negating the power of States in favor of “one size fits all” solutions for “everyone’s good,” starting with the Wilson Administration. But what is good for Kansas is not necessarily good for Vermont, and so forth.

    The argument “something has to be done” without having a realistic idea of carrying it out, is specious at best, no matter what the argument is about, especially when it intrudes on Rights (not privileges) GUARANTEED by the Constitution. However, when we have elected officials who openly mock the Constitution as if it doesn’t apply to their sworn oath to PROTECT IT (“…the Constitution, are you kidding?”), we have a problem. Especially when a certain said official was 3 steps from the White House, and spent a QUARTER of a MILLION dollars on booze for her jet-setting at taxpayers’ expense.

    The argument that only “gun nuts” want or need automatic (really semi-automatic) weapons is also specious. The Brown Bess, a flintlock musket was the favored firearm of armies all over the world at the time the Constitution was written. For the shopkeeper or farmer to have one (actually most had even better) was the basis for “equality” with armed government forces. Later, the cap-lock, the repeating lever & bolt action rifles, the semi-auto and so forth has given an individual that same equality, and so does today. It is all a matter of scale.

    With the last several administrations using overpowering brute force against civilians, one should really wonder this: DO WE even have “responsible government” anymore? If we did, dozens would not have been attacked, then murdered on nationwide TV, at Waco. They could have arrested David Koresh at Wal-Mart’s parking lot. Elian Gonzales’ kidnapping by ATF, DEA, or Immigration heavies would not have provided Castro with the greatest piece of political propaganda in his career since the Bay of Pigs. If the “armed citizens” would have put a armed human chain around these two places, these outrages may have never happened. A more reasonable outcome may have been the result. But we’re in short supply of courageous patriots today, and we don’t have private tanks, private fighter jets, and private armed helicopters either. And, since the “National Guard” are no longer strictly state troops, but extensions of the Army and Air Force, any semblance of them being “the militia” is moot.The “militia” is any able-bodied citizen between 15-65 who can shoulder a weapon.

    Federal, state, local and county police forces can’t seem to keep ANY kind of gun out of the hands of criminals. So what is one, or one hundred new laws going to do, except cost taxpayers MORE MONEY, with no effect than the laws currently “in force”. In their own statements, no one but they (police) should have guns, and they’re notoriously lousy shots. Call 911? Please. “We’ll be there in less than 10 minutes” just doesn’t “cut it” for most citizens. 10 minutes is too late for “protection”. If we defend ourselves, then it is WE who become liable for criminal prosecution (in spite of 4th Amendment RIGHTS, “to be secure in our homes and property”). The Federal Government, at the behest of the “Justice” Department, has even knowingly handed over fully automatic arms from the US to known drug cartels in Mexico, and look what’s happening there.

    Now, does anyone NOT understand why SOME individuals do NOT feel safe unless he/she has a semi-auto rifle, extended magazines and a couple of thousand rounds at their disposal? If you do not like or want a gun, FINE. That is your CHOICE. Live with it. But when some “real” nut case comes around and armed, the first person you’ll run to (or should) is a neighbor who HAS one of his own. The police will be too late.

  • Dave

    I think many of you are missing the main point. Our Government is not there to do what is best for the people or for the Country. That is suppose to be why they are there, but it is not their true purpose. They are there for themselves, to retain and capture more power. Power means money. Everyone who goes into the Government comes out hundred of times richer than they went in. There are probably a few, such as Ron Paul, who believe in the Constitution and our Country, but the Bushes, Clintons, Kerrys and such see their office as an opportunity to advance their own best interests and pocket books. In short the Government of this Country will do and say whatever it pleases to advance it’s agenda. The explanation you hear on the Government controlled Media is the lie that the most Americans will swallow to perpetuate their agenda. All human caused incidents of great magnitude are planned and engineered, there are no coincidences. It is in forums such as this that the truth actually has a voice.

  • mew

    All one needs to do is go back and see what happened to the countries who started controlling the right to bear arms. Look at Russia, Germany, in Africa today. What about Mexico. When you start limiting the right to bear arms, any kind, you take the freedom to defend yourself. Do you think, if those countries where the guns were confiscated, had the people stood up and fought with guns, instead of turning them in, there may have been a different story instead of the slaughters of so many million people.
    Our founding fathers understood that a person should have the right to bear the same type of weapon that could be used against them. We could not fight with a musket, a hand gun, or knife against a government with semi-automatics, etc. And keep in mind, this administration has talked about “his” civilian army, other than the one we have now. The time may come where you would wish your neighbor and others had such weapons.

    Read your history and “do not repeat it”. That is what our founding fathers were thinking.

  • http://freedomlover70.blogspot.com justme

    First, she is dead wrong. Our founding fathers not only had muskets, but also cannons. Second the second amendment was not written for personal protection per se, it was written so the people can and always would be able to protect themselves from a government that had/has slid into tyranny and tried/tries to make the people oppressed again. Our founders knew this well.

    Also, assault weapons have been banned for over thirty years. The semi automatic weapon, just as with a revolver only fires one bullet per finger pull. you can not pull the trigger back and the bullets just keep firing. Next i would like to point out that the so called assault rifle was found in the car and was NOT used in the shooting. yet no one is covering that. the news showed the so called rifle bei.g pulled out of the car and it looked like a simple shot gun.

    msm reported that fbi confirmed four pistols. yet, no one is reporting on that, and the many other holes in this Newtown Shooting.

    fbi.gov statistics prove that gun death is the lowest cause of death in our nation, yet msm isnt telling that eaither. why? could it be that their agenda to push fear, so the law abiding citizens will be disarmed because of the upcoming un gun treaty coming up in march calls for all guns to be out of the hands of civilians, placing us under international control NWO? i would say that is more of the reason, as it is well known that un troops and tanks are already here on US soil, and our government has been training for confinscation for a long time. If you want even more disturbing proof, look up re_education & internment operations manual fm_3_39_40

    You will find out just WHOM they are targeting. Thus, ndaa, fisa, private kill list, etc. Their plan is for the globalists to completely take over US and this is just one of the many steps theyve taken to destroy our soverenty. This IS what our foundets warned us about.

  • http://carlwk3c carlwk3c

    Feinstein, Schumer, Obama, Holder, Bloomberg, and their whole gang are tyrant wannabes. To them, anyone who does, or might, oppose their control over every aspect of our lives, is “a criminal” because they said so.

    To quote a few of their heroes, with explanatory comments in ( ):

    “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” – Mao
    (They revere Mao and the way he ruthlessly grabbed power in China. The fact that he murdered about 100 million Chinese to do it is, to them, a “feature,” not a “bug.”)

    “If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves. … The only real power comes out of a long rifle. … Everyone imposes his own system as far as his army can reach. … We don’t let them have ideas. Why would we let them have guns? … The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic.” — Joseph Stalin

    “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty.” — Adolf Hitler
    (These psychopathic sociopaths in our government – and THEY ARE PRECISELY THAT, never make the mistake of doubting it – believe that they are anointed to be our rulers and that we are the equivalent of Hitler’s “subject races.”)

    THOSE are the reasons why, and the sort of people who want to, disarm us.

    These same people through DHS and other alphabet agencies have recently purchased over 1.5 BILLION rounds of ammo – enough to shoot every man, woman, and child in the country 3-4 times – ammo that’s illegal for military use under international law. Considering that you and I and all of the other US taxpayers are paying for all of this ammo, it’s frighteningly reminiscent of the story of political prisoners’ families being forced to pay for the bullets used to execute them … isn’t it?

    If we allow these leftist control freaks to ignore and ultimately gut the 2nd Amendment, history will inevitably repeat itself. These “gun control” proposals have NOTHING to do with preventing crime, but EVERYTHING to do with CONTROL.

    Hitler disarmed the Jews and others, then murdered about 15 million.
    Stalin disarmed the Russians, them murdered about 40 million.
    Mao disarmed the Chinese peasants, then murdered nearly 100 million.
    The Turks disarmed the Armenians, then murdered 1.5-2 million.
    Pol Pot disarmed the Cambodians and murdered millions.
    Rwanda disarmed its ethnic groups, then murdered millions.
    The list goes on … over 170 million people murdered BY THEIR OWN GOVERNMENTS in the 20th century – AFTER they allowed those governments disarmed them.

    They ALL thought “It can’t happen here” – until they were disarmed and it started, then it was too late. Don’t make the same mistake. Don’t EVER let your government disarm you.

    The Founders knew that government, if not constrained at every step, will continue to accumulate power and control until it becomes tyranny. That’s why they feared standing armies and insisted that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    “Never forget, even for an instant, that the one and only reason anybody has for taking your gun away is to make you weaker than he is, so he can do something to you that you wouldn’t let him do if you were equipped to prevent it. This goes for burglars, muggers, and rapists, and even more so for policemen, bureaucrats, and politicians.” – Aaron Zelman

  • johnathan

    Will all parties in this discussion Please educate themselves on the true definitions of the terms “automatic” and semiautomatic. it has been very difficult and expensive to get “automatic”weapons for years. None of the weapons used recently were automatics. Also, for lack of a better defiintion, assult rifle = automatic. The constitution does not give us these rights, our birth as American citizens and God does.

    • 45caliber

      You are right. And too often even those on our side of the argument don’t seem to know this. Of course the libs ignore it and use the more inflamitory “automatic” since people see those on TV all the time.

    • eddie47d

      That’s why I say semi-automatics need to be banned or under strict restrictions. Automatics are bad enough but why do you think they are called “semi-automatics”. Nothing but a mini version of a fully automatic! Would I allow you Caliber to have a semi-automatic to hunt boar. Possible but under those strict restrictions.

      • JC

        eddie47d says:
        January 7, 2013 at 3:19 pm
        That’s why I say semi-automatics need to be banned or under strict restrictions. Automatics are bad enough but why do you think they are called “semi-automatics”. Nothing but a mini version of a fully automatic! Would I allow you Caliber to have a semi-automatic to hunt boar. Possible but under those strict restrictions.
        ________________________________________________________________

        No one cares what you think eddie… you’re a communist low life. :)

  • Les

    I hate when clueless people rant about something they know nothing about. You have to have an FFL to own explosives and automatic weapons. Why do these people want all of us to be possible victims? It’s almost as if her fear of guns won’t let her get one so she wants us all in her herd of losers. How does absolute gun control keep killers from getting guns? Hell our own government has been providing them with weapons since forever, not just Fast & Furious. Weapons routinely disappear from police seizures only to end up back on the street somewhere else. My only answer to this female is I don’t want to share her victimology mentality.

    • 45caliber

      Les:

      A recent police article in England states there are actually MORE guns in England today (where they are banned) than before they banned them. The main differences are that the guns now are generally fully automatic and are in the hands of the criminal gangs where before they weren’t automatic and honest citizens owned them. It is as easy to smuggle in guns as it is drugs. And most such purchases by the gangs is now done directly from governments – like Russia and our own.

  • Fran

    Read the Dick Act and it explains why gun control is not legal or constitutional…..http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/us_constitution/gun_control/news.php?q=1237163642

  • Bill

    There is no question the Founders considered the right to have weapons meant weapons equal to what the government has. Government tyranny today is still an issue.

    • eddie47d

      Planning on buying a drone or a suitcase nuke Bill? Considering what you said it will never happen and you will never have “equal” footing with the big toys. I’m thinking the GOA will be pushing for bazookas in every home arsenal pretty soon though.

  • Steve

    Tim has the right view of this issue. All I have to do is look to the founding fathers to clearly see this:

    To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, counties or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.

    John Adams

    They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

    Benjamin Franklin

    You may argue that modifying or limiting the ‘right to bear arms’ is not the same as giving up a liberty to which I would respond with this quote:

    There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.

    James Madison

    Our government has already started slowly eroding our liberties (i.e. the new law forbidding citizens to gather within XXX feet of government facilities…) and this will be just one more step toward despotism. We should all defend our right to bear whatever arms we so choose. If all citizens have are single shot rifles how can we defend ourselves from either a government turned tyrannical or an invading foreign force that possess far superior firepower???

  • 45caliber

    Tim:

    A couple of comments here:

    First, a large number of Americans owned and used rifles during the Revolutionary War the Founding Fathers were familiar with. These were actually FAR BETTER than those the government was using at the time (muskets). It was a rare person who could shoot a musket more than 60 yards or so accurately while a good rifleman could easily shoot over a hundred yards.

    Second, you failed to even point out that Bailey was referring to “automatic weapons” in her article. Those are hard to acquire since they require a special Federal permit and are very few in number … and they are NOT the ones the government here wants to ban. They want to ban a semi-automatic look-alikes simply because it LOOKS like an assault rifle – and even then probably isn’t like the ones the military uses. They look like those used in movies.

    • 45caliber

      Third point (I forgot to add):

      Bailey seems to believe that the Founding Fathers intended for us to use our guns ONLY for hunting and personal protection. Actually, from their writings, they intended us to use our guns to protect ourselves from our own government should it become tyrannical. (And it has.) She also seems to believe that the only need the people might have to own a gun is for this purpose.

      Actually 100 round magazines generally jam too easily. I have no use for them. The military knows this since they don’t issue them to soldiers. But large magazines are needed for some types of hunting. Many here in Texas use them to hunt feral hogs that are ruining the land. You want to kill as many as possible rather than just a single one for meat since they are destructive – and dangerous. Further, I’d never hunt anything like a panther or bear without a large magazine. Particularly since the only such animal I’d hunt (I hunt for meat only) would be a dangerous one already attacking humans. If one charges me, I want to be able to put enough lead into it to weight it down!

  • Ray

    I find it interesting that no one seemed to note that the last two that did this were on anti-depressant cocktails. Why is it they want the guns but do not look at the side effects of these drugs and how many children are on them! Mental health is a huge problem, deal with it!. The FBI just released data the more people are killed every year by hammers than guns, yet no one wants to take away hammers? We need to watch and see if Obama tries to use executive order to push the agenda through!!!!

    • 45caliber

      Ray: I saw an article on today’s wnd.com that links these to multiple shootings, including Columbine – not just two. In fact, it seems that most of the multiple murders were done while on or just off these drugs. And nothing is being discussed openly or reported on it either.

    • eddie47d

      Ron: Boy are you gullible. That FBI report say that” more people are killed with a hammer than a rifle”. That doesn’t include any handguns or semi-automatics which I’m sure you were trying to get at.

  • A Murricun

    Short on “Reason”, long on ignorance.

    “our Founding Fathers wrote our right to bear arms into the Constitution as a way to protect ourselves from harm” – apparently Ms. O’Malia was out of the room when she could have learned in high school Civics that the authors understood this as well as other rights to be innate. The authors of the Constitution didn’t create these rights, they simply told Congress not to mess with them.

    She writes “Surely, there is no need for a civilian to hold that kind of power in his hand. In fact, why should anyone have that much power over another human being? Do we really trust each other’s judgment?” You mean like a store owner banning guns in his store, or an elected representative?

    “I’ve been thinking about this for days, and I can’t come up with one good reason that a person would need anything more than a handgun or rifle for ‘safety.” And just what are Ms. O’Malia’s credentials for making that judgment?

    And so on.

    • 45caliber

      Unfortunately high school Civics is no longer taught. From the article, I suspect she is quite young (by my own standards at least) and probably she never had that course. It hasn’t been around for AT LEAST 30 years now so none of the youth of this country are aware of such things.

      • oh oh

        For the most part, civics, a personal rights and responsibilities-based curriculum, has been replaced by American Government, a state-centered curriculum that is very revisionist and collectivist in its purposes.

    • eddie47d

      A Murricun; What are YOUR credentials? Who says you are more of an American than she is. When it comes to the First Amendment there is no one who is any better or worse than you or me and that includes Bailey.

      • A Murricun

        My credentials are that I wore that funny-looking green outfit to defend your rights. And Oh, Yeah, I actually was in the Civics class.

        I must have missed the memo that God died and left some ignorant young woman in charge of deciding what armament might be appropriate for your and my defense.

      • JC

        I’ll vouch for A Murrican over the White House cow.
        He at least has a sense of morality. :)

    • Jeremy Leochner

      A Murrican if all we needed for safety was a hand gun or rifle the founders would not have bothered espousing the freedoms of speech or the press and expression. They would not have bothered creating a judicial branch of the government. For that matter they would not have created the continental army or written the declaration of independence. The ideal that the pen is mightier than the sword is the basis of our Republic and our country. I don’t deny that a gun or a sword are powerful. But as for me I do not have a gun but so long as I have freedom of speech and expression and the right to petition for a redress of grievances I feel plenty safe.

      • http://carlwk3c carlwk3c

        The Founders clearly did NOT believe “the pen is mightier than the sword.”

        “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people” – Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

        * “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States” – Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution’, 1787

        “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed … but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights…” – Alexander Hamilton

        “A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” – George Washington

        Leftist progressives ignore the “inconvenient” (to their dictatorial designs) parts of history.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        The founders did believe the pen is mightier than the sword or they would not have made freedom of speech the first amendment and the right to bear arms the second. A system where the sword is mightier than the pen is fascism. Tyranny is where guns make the rules. Tyranny is where might makes right. Tyranny is where guns are necessary to prove a point. It is only in tyranny that guns are needed to fight tyranny. Tyranny does not come to power through force. It does so through persuasion. It is only after it is too late that they start disarming citizens. They do not do so when the people still have legal recourse. Hitler did not disarm the citizens until the Enabling Act which granted him absolute power had been voted on and the President of Germany had died and the army swore a personal oath of allegiance to him. It was only after the power of words had failed that they came after guns. Dictators do not go after guns before they seize power. They do so after they already have and have convinced enough of the population to go along with them.

        • dalek

          The Founders just wanted us to try use the 1st Amendment first and the 2nd Amendment only if needed. The 1st Amendment gives us among other things the right to discuss the Government and do it publicly. If the Government refuses to listen to that, then we can use other means if needed. The 2nd Amendment was a backup plan and one they knew worked, since they used it to free themselves.

          If you want to claim that they could have put the 2nd Amendment first then that by your logic would mean they would want the people to have a revolution every few years instead of elections and/or talking about things.

          By the way, with all the voter fraud going on, we may be able to discuss things but voting is beginning to show it doesn’t matter. Personally, I think the voting system has some serious flaws. If it is not rigged for whomever is picked, it is getting close.

      • http://carlwk3c carlwk3c

        Jeremy obviously doesn’t know the meaning of fascism. That misuse of the term is common amongst those gullible people who were indoctrinated by leftists in our government schools.

        http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+fascism&qpvt=fascism+definition&FORM=DTPDIA

        http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

        For a much better explaination, read “Liberal Fascism” by Jonah Goldberg.

        Lefties call conservatives “Nazis” or “Fascists” thinking they are “right-wing” philosophies, when they are actually both far left, along with the Marxists and Maoists.

        Mussolini was admired by FDR, as was Stalin, who FDR called “Uncle Joe.”
        Mussolini was useful to Hitler to a point, then Hitler disposed of him.
        The only reason Hitler and Stalin couldn’t get along wasn’t really political. They simply weren’t willing to share world domination with the other.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        With respect carlwk3c name calling and branding is both what you are denouncing in others and committing yourself. If Fascism is so linked to leftism why did Hitler and his goons specifically mention liberals in their list of political undesirables. And why was it that the group calling itself the more conservative party in Germany form an alliance with the Nazi in order to block the communists and social democrats from having a majority. Extremism on either side of the political spectrum is open to name calling. I am a liberal and I know numerous liberals who are far more left leaning than me. But none of them would even in a million years consider supporting Fascism. You say that Fascism is a liberal or left leaning theory. Others say its a right leaning theory. Why don’t we all just understand that Fascism is extremism and no one left or right who is in their right mind would ever support it.

        Fascism as defined by merriam websters: 1
        often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that
        exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
        2
        : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

        Anyone who is racist or extremist on any side of the political spectrum is capable of believing in the exalting of the nation-See Sean Hannity and silencing of opposition-see Bill O’Reilly. Are these men fascists no. Do they represent conservatives no. However they do point out the fact that the ideas that lead toward fascism are not biased to one side. Neither right or left can be blamed for fascism.

      • oh oh

        Just plain naive, Jeremy. The founders recognized the simple reality that we needed both the First and the Second Amendments. Some of them also clarified that the order of the Amendments was not to imply that one was any more important than another to avoid the unbalanced approach that you have adopted.

  • http://yahoo.com Ron

    Message to Eddie47, do you remember Kent University? The National Guard firing on student protesters and killing 4? Remember that Eddie47? HUH? That is YOUR Government protection you talk about, those students were killed using the 1st Amendment afford to them through the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights! While I didn’t agree with what they were saying, they had that right! I pitty this Country, when Obamanation takes away ALL our rights. Once the 1st and 2nd Amendmends are gone, ALL your freedoms are gone, for you have no way to get it back! Get your head out of your butt Eddie47, realize that YOU are also part of the problem, guns don’t kill, the insane idiot who picks it up is where the problem lies! And by the way, Chicago, Obama’s home Town, is a “NO GUN CITY” and yet they have the highest murder rate in the Country, go figure! Black Market guns will always be available to the bad guys, while the good guys lay there dead! As a Highly Decorated Combat Vet, wounded in action, EDDIE47? NOT ON MY WATCH!”

    • eddie47d

      Yes I remember Kent State and I vocally protested against the Republican Ohio Governor who ordered it and Nixon who was a Republican.I’m well aware what the Republicans are capable of doing including the Patriot Act. (Since you brought up Obama). Actually Mississippi State has the highest gun deaths and they have few large cities and guess where all those black market guns come from. Hint: US manufactures. I’m so glad we had this chat Ron now maybe I can help you pull you head out!.

  • http://yahoo.com Ron

    I just realized the headline of this article, “POINT/COUNTER POINT! Without the 1st Amendment and the 2nd Amendment to protect the 1st, “point/Counter Point” will be illegal as guns, bow and arrows, the kitchen spoon used as a weapon, you will put in prison or worse yet, murdered by your own Government just as the Nazi’s did, just as the Viet Cong did, just as the Somalian Army did, just as Hussien did, just as Assad is doing! What part of Constitution don’t you understand?

    • eddie47d

      Sounds like Ron is setting himself for the Hunger Games and loves anything that will get someone killed. You have a weapons fetish and will do anything to keep the arms dealers in business include “spoon” manufacturers! I support the Second but don’t need it to voice my 1st.

    • Jeremy Leochner

      The only problem Ron is no one is trying to get rid of any amendments. Some may be proposing gun bans and I agree that that violates and does harm to the second amendment. But no is calling for getting rid of the second amendment. And I do not need guns to exercise my right to free speech and free expression. In fact I am exercising it right now. We do not need guns to speak up.

      • oh oh

        It’s “infringement,” Jeremy, and incremental infringement is infringement, nonetheless.

  • 45caliber

    One thing that Congress and the President should be aware of is the gun control done by NJ about 18-20 years ago now. They banned all semi-automatic weapons in the state and ordered the citizens to turn them in. There were only about 500 turned in over two years (from an estimated 300,000) and the next election found the biggest turnover of a legislative body in the history of the US. And their first act (as ordered by the voters) was to overturn that law.

    I’m certain that if they ban these guns as they are attempting to do, most will find themselves out of a job at the next election – if, of course, they don’t follow Stalin’s example and use the control of the ballot boxes to insure no one can be elected to replace them.

  • Brent black

    Tim,
    You are exactlt right. The 2nd amendment had nothing to do with hunting. That poor lady is assuming that our government will always protect us and never will or never has tried to oppress us. The founders had just finished getting rid of “their government” which is exactly what they had in mind when they wrote the constitution (duh). If our government (who is spending more money than they can print and expecting us to pay for all that without even asking our opinion) wants to get rid of their “more than 100 round a minute” assault weapons, then we as subjects might consider getting rid of ours.

  • Doug Grow

    Just a few of my thoughts:
    1. 3,000 Americans lost their lives on 9-11due to box knives. Where’s the outrage?
    2. If the pilots, co-pilots, and navigators on commercial airlines were trained and armed there would have been no 9-11 tragedy. Period.
    3. If I understand the facts correctly, Mr. Lanza chose Sandy Hook Elementary precisely because it was a gun free zone and he could achieve maximum lethality there. I also understand that the two ladies that survived by hiding under their desks in the office next to where he started shooting, saw his feet when he came in to their office. If one of them had been armed and merely shot him in the foot the incident would have been over right then and 20 innocent and precious children would still be alive today.
    4. The FBI reports that more people are killed each year with knives and clubs than with guns.

  • grschoeller

    the 2nd ammendment has nothing to do with hunting or sport it has to do soely.with protection of the people from a currupt government which is what we have now. the first thing a dictator does is disarm his citizens Hitler disarmed Germany so they could not fight back stalin did the same Obama will try and fail we will not obey an unlawful order! as far as what type of weapons the people should be armed with any weapon at least equil to our enemy weather the enemy is far or near. it would have been obsurd for the founding fathers to say the brits have automatic weapons but the people fighting for their freedom can only have muskets. that type of thinking is stupid it would be like saying your 1st ammendmet rights only pertain to ink and quil not modern printing presses or internet.same with your 4th your car would not be covered. our founding fathers knew there would be advances they also knew their would be the Obamas and curruption in government and gave we the people the power to put a stop to it and the chain of command has failed ti remove a known and Constitutional defined traitor the VP has failed to do his job it fell to congress to do it they have failed now it falls to the military is they fail to remove this traitor it will fall to WE THE PEOPLE to remove him. Obama wants a civil war so he can declair matial law he doesnt relize we the people ARMED citizens are 100 million strong the largest standing army in the world. so now let me ask if the muslim terrorist group I.E the muslim brotherhood like egypt would you fight to remain free or submit and be a slave?? Obama is in the muslim brotherhood and seeks to inslave you.devide the country bankrupt them disarm them. the same as Germany so how far has Obama gotten in his plan?

    • oh oh

      Hunting, target shooting, collecting and other hobbies are natural rights we all possess and they are protected against infringement by the federal government under the 9th and 10th Amendments. The 2nd Amendment restricted the federal government from infringing our right to keep and bear arms for purposes of defending ourselves against tyranny. Personal defense has been held to be within the scope of our rights protected by the 2nd Amendment, but it would be covered under the 9th Amendment, regardless.

  • Bill Dietrick

    To begin, she makes the error of speaking of “automatic” weapons. Sorry, those are Class II/III firearms and are very strictly controlled, requiring a lot of government oversight, and not to be bought at your local sporting goods store. What we buy there are “semi-automatic” firearms, firing only one round per pull of the trigger. Additionally, high-capacity magazines are necessary to the general populace. There is no guarantee a home invader or a mugger in the street will be alone. One may have to defend against multiple bad guys. If police have hi-cap guns and often have to reload to take out one bad guy, why should a private citizen be presumed to be better than trained officers? Lastly, yes, the Founding Fathers intended that citizens be armed as well as the military, in case they had to fend off an oppresive government. Obviously, you haven’t read their comments about the Second Amendment. You should do so before presuming to lecture us on what we should be allowed. As we continually advise folks like you, “The Second Amendment ain’t about duck hunting. It doesn’t mention ‘sporting purposes.’”

  • Shavis Irons

    “So when the discussion of changing the gun laws is brought up, I think: “What a perfectly simple solution; ban all automatic weapons.” This appeases Democrats because they will have made steps toward gun reform, and it appeases Republicans because they won’t be fully losing their right to bear arms.”

    _______________________________________________________________________

    “This appeases Democrats because they will have made steps toward gun reform…” Exactly… Made steps toward gun reform!

    Just one more little step, no one will object to one more little step. Have patience, my friends, we will eventually get the total control we all seek! We’ve already come a long way with background checks and permits… we’ll get there, just have patients!

    Right out of the Saul Alinsky/liberal/progressive playbook.

  • Rod

    I read all these comments by the anit-gunners that all wine about how citizens should not be allowed weapons that can mow down a number of people at one time. The weapons that are being yelled about the most are the 5.56 m16 type rifles. Ask any veteran from VietNam through Afghanistan how effective the m16 is in combat. The round is great for hunting squirrels up to coyote but terrible for hunting people. The government doesn’t really want our soldiers to kill the enemy. When you and the bad guys are pretty much even as for the number of shooters. Killing the enemy only takes one person out of the fight but wound one that is three out of the fight because two have to take care of the wounded one. When you want to make sure of a kill you use a large bullet like the .45 or the 308 (7.62) or the .50cal. Banning any weapon will not save even one life, if it did Chicago would be a utopia and not the murder capitol of the US. Not very long ago Australia’s Liberal leaders finally banned all firearms and now the country is crime free(not) their violent crimes went up 51%. If access to guns caused crime the state of Vermont’s streets would be filled with blood, since it has had constitutional carry (no permit required to carry a weapon any way you want, concealed or in the open Since it has had a constitution, Vermont averages state wide seven murders a year and most of them are knives or hands and feet. I am a disabled VietNam combat veteran and an peace officer and I own and carry a concealed weapon for the same paranoid reason that I carry a fire extinguisher, one way valve in my first aid kit,n case I have to give a stranger CPR, and a large knife to cut a stuck seatbelt. I may need it to save a life someday. I hope that I will need none of them, but I would rather have them and not need them than need them and not have them.

  • Donald

    The 2nd Admendment came about so that ” We The People” could defend ourselves from any and ALL Governments. That’s how the saying, [ Give me Liberty or give me death ] came about. Any form of Gun Controll is simply, The Government exerting more controll over “We The People” ( same with higher tax rates). Anybody who thinks Gun Controll will make their lives safer are FOOLS. Since the late 70′s, only 1 mass shooting DIDN’T happen in a Gun Free Zone. ( Rep. Giffords was the 1). So the FACTS, state that BECAUSE of Gun Controll, the murder rates where higher ( nobody was allowed to protect themselves) and Police are useless, unless they are right there. I would like to know, where’s the outrage by Liberals over Hammers. more people were killed last year by hammers, than guns, same for medical malpractice,cars. In 2003 there were over 30,000 deaths from the common cold. And the kicker is (FBI stats) the states with the highest gun deaths are the states with the strictest gun controll laws. If Liberals want your gun controll, try moving to those states and I’ll stay in my NO GUN CONTROLL STATE and leave my front door unlocked as I do

  • Patrick

    CT. Rep. Stephen Dargan, has proposed legislation that would allow the publishing of the names and addresses of those persons in CT., with a pistol permit. That’s enough of a reason for me to be against further gun control measures. What is this idiotic legislation going to accomplish other than to punish permit holds for getting a permit in the first place.

    • 45caliber

      Patrick:

      Punishment is the whole idea of this law/bill. But keep in mind that if they identfy who has a CCL, they also identify all those near him who doesn’t have one. And they make the best robbery victims.

      When Texas first started talking about CCL, the Democrat governor suggested in contempt making it legal to carrry openly instead, believing that the people would object. Most like me just agreed it was a good idea. She backed off in a hurry!

    • oh oh

      This is the inherent flaw of all gun registration schemes. Privacy is essential to maintaining our right to keep and bear arms. Otherwise, we’re just sitting ducks waiting for the day when it time to round up the guns identified and conveniently provided to our evolving tyrants.

      • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

        Actually since every able-bodied person between the ages of 18 – 45 ARE the militia and are required to have their own arms – as many and whatever military type weapons they can afford – those who do not want to be armed and train regularly to use it need to register and should also pay a yearly fee since someone else will be doing their duty for them. Remember the Militia is to protect their homes, their neighbors, their cities, their states from whatever attacks them – be it a person, group of people, or an army.

  • HKaufman

    The right to bear ARMS???? If one does not hunt? why do you need a Weapon,of Mas People extermination? Just because the constitution give the right, or is a matter of one’s personal Vanity?? Just because Johnny Bananas owns a Weapon, whats the old saying keeping up with the Jones??? Ask the family members who had a son and daughter in school who were SLAUGHTERED because some one had to purchase an assault Weapon for an obvious individual with a serious adaption issues..Safety,, yeap, we have to arm in case the Children,elderly seniors,cats,dogs,decide to harm??? Do you really need a weapon??? Nobody is right and nobody wrong. Situations call for different resolutions? If one wants to be a RAMBO, go for it join the military, then the right to bear arms is justifiable, same for Law enforcement. RPG,Tanks,Stealth bombers. How about finding a rich plutonium vein and really be safe, hell build ones own nuclear bomb will eradicate every thing around,look at all those toys to play with, THE right to bear arms justify one if financial solid, Does one really need Weapons of Mass People extermination.. Hunting, another adjective, one hunting,buffalo,Brontosaur;s,sabre tooth tigers, for food and clothes to keep warm, or vanity set in just because some great white hunter has weapons of Mass destruction?? Here is 411 for all, since last Friday there have been 80 deaths caused by SOMEONE who has the right to bear Arms. Arizona for the past 5-6 days have had somebody with the Right to bear arms shooting and killing, Sunday past had 3 different shootings. “THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS… Remember these names,John F Kennedy,Robert Kennedy,Martin Luther King,John Lennon,Gabby Griffith injured still alive, murdered, because someone with the right to bear arms. THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS,DO YOUR REALLY NEED A WEAPON?? IF manking Domestic and Foreign had no weapons of Mass Destruction, would there be Wars? Weapon of any kind,friends only to the Undertaker.. Where have all the young men and women gone,gone to graveyards EVERYWHERE.. ” JUST BECAUSE OF THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS!!!!! OHHHH RAHHHHHHH…….

    • http://carlwk3c carlwk3c

      As pointed out before, guns are used by law-abiding citizens about 2.5 million times per year in the US to stop or prevent a crime. In most cases the citizen doesn’t even have to fire a shot. However, citizens justifiably kill at least several times more people per year than the police, but you are more than 5 times more likely to be shot by mistake/accident by the police than by a citizen exercising his right of self-defense.
      Guns save FAR more lives than they are used to illegally take. The vast majority of gun violence is between gang members over “turf” and/or drugs.
      Without guns for protection FAR more innocents would die.

      • oh oh

        To progressive liberals, these prevention arguments only work in cases of government action…like their claims that Obama’s policies have saved millions of jobs. The FBI statistics of such good uses of guns dwarf to bad uses, but this means nothing to them even though their similar employment claims are based on nothing but bald faced assertions, often contradicted later when the statistical data has been exposed as manipulated.

    • 45caliber

      Hey, idiot! Ask the people along the Mexican border if they need one when some cartels spray their houses with bullets from machine guns (that they got for the good ole USA government). Ask the people in some of the bigger cities like Houston who have gang wars on the streets in front of their houses if they need one.

      yes, it is sad that these kids were killed. But it wasn’t the fault of the gun that killed those kids. It was the fault of the guy who did it. He should have been identified by the psychologist who was treating him as a hazard.

  • Rightwing007

    ….this is exactly how the Third Reich was born…making it illegal to own guns…when the population is without a way to protect themselves…the government has the upper hand! When our Patriots defended America they did so by raiding the magazines (the place where guns, powder, and lead were kept in times of peace). These were what the British were after at Lexington and Concord, only the Patriots cleaned out the Magazines and hid the weapons! To fight tyranny you must be on a level playing field that is what the second amendment was about. If the government fought with a musket then citizens should be allowed a musket. Only now a days those muskets are AK47′s…I would love a tank but can’t afford one…maybe someday?

  • Cyber Ed

    Joshua Boston, a former US Marine, speaks for all of us as he tells Senator Feinstein what she can do with her proposed unconstitutional anti-2nd Amendment bill. I love his statement when the “news person” states if the law passes, it is the law, so what are you going to do? And he responds: An unconstitutional law is NOT a law!!

    Watch the interview here:
    http://videos.mediaite.com/video/CNN-010513;recently_viewed

    I, too, being a former USAF NCO, will NOT comply with any law passed by congress, or presidential edict, that requires registration, surrender, taxation on, limitation of my right to own any type weapon I want. I will NOT surrender another single right to this illegitimate US government which now represents those who are “world citizens”. as opposed to representing the American citizens.

    Pass this around to everyone …. let the word go out:
    AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW IS NOT A LAW!!!

  • http://Personallibertydigest Arvel beecher

    Tim young I am with you! The way I read the constitution is that the right to bare arms is not to be infringed upon, but that is what our government is doing! It is wrong and these people that are trying take our right need to be stopped!!!

  • CAJUNMAN69

    What kind of weapons can we have? The Second Ammendment says “MILITIA” not hunting or competative shooting or target practice.

    • JC

      Is it fair to assume that an American “militia” just might want to Assault the ever loving hell out of an invading or domestic enemy force? I think maybe yes…. ;-)

  • Karen King

    I would rather live next door to someone that has a whole arsenal of weapons and be safe than to live in a gun-free zone and have to worry all the time. If you notice everywhere there were attacks with guns, it was places where guns weren’t allowed. If the teachers had concealed weapons, do you think some idiot would come in shooting? I think not. And one other thing: I’ll give up my guns when they pry my cold dead fingers from around them.

  • oldbill

    There is nothing in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights giving the government any right to restrict the type of arms that a citzen may own, or when, where, and how he can carry them. The Government is forbidden from restricting, in any way, the possession and carrying of arms. Infringement is restriction.

    • Larry

      oldbill these folks on here wont listen. I think the whole bunch have been brain washed. the 2nd amendment prohibits the Government from taking any weapon from the citizens period. But every body is so consumed by what the Government says a citizen can own they total ignore the fact that the constitution prevents the government from making any law, regulation etc. that restricts the citizens right ot own, use, have, carry or other wise have or use any weapon the citizen chooses.

  • cawmun cents
  • Allen Menges

    The word arms is not weapon specific, if you are using this as an argument, you must consider the founding fathers idiots.

  • http://yahoo sylvia

    no part of our Constitution should be altered nor chiseled away. we have the right to bear arms and we should keep what we have had or have. we are NOT the ones committing crimes. too much govt control is Wrong.

  • LarryFrom10EC

    I can’t believe you didn’t catch Ms. O’Malia’s typical liberal faux pas. She referred to “automatic” weapons, which are banned, for all practical purposes by their strict regulation. She obviously doesn’t knoe the difference between automatic and semi- automatic weapons

  • Anne

    All I know is, I would feel a LOT better sending kids to school if I knew an undercover armed police (or 2) were there, and that each teacher at LEAST had bear mace on his/her belt, and key personnel including principals, etc., had tranquilizer dart guns– and that everyone, children old enough included were trained to utilize every potential weapon including chairs, desks, pens, pencils, books, baseball bats-anything and all at once to attack a murderer, because ANYthing is better than being a sitting duck for such a horror!

    • Larry

      Anne I understand you are talking about children here. my question is why didn’t the rest of the teachers all attack when the shooter came in, they all had chairs, pencils, pens, and likely brooms, mops etc. but I didn’t here a thing about any but the principal having enough backbone to try to stop the shooter. Kind of diminishes the idea you stated, if the grown up teachers didn’t attack him, how likely would a 5 year old be to do so, in addition to that all these bleeding heart teach the kids not to even fight between themselves how are they going to teach the same children it is ok to attack some attacker. We are raising a whole lot of sheep.

    • dalek

      The idea of pepper spray, tasers and such is just not near good enough. All those weapons mean you have to be within 20, 30 feet at most. If you have a weapon like that going up against a gun that can shoot at least 100 feet or more, you are going to be shot. If the shooter has a rifle, you will never get anywhere near him. You would be counting on pure blind luck for success. That is not good.

      I might add that the idea of this is very risky. Hiding under a desk would most likely give you better results. If you try to use pepper spray on the shooter, he is going to respond for sure and you will have made a target of yourself and anyone behind you too. Some bullets can go threw one person and kill another person behind them. If it is a small child, heck, three could happen if they are clumped together.

      The only way to stop this is to get rid of the “gun free zone” stuff and let teachers/staff/security/police or whatever the school district chooses carry a firearm on their person. None of this leaving it in a locked desk or in a purse either. It should be on their person at all times. After the gun is worn for a while, it will be noticed if anyone messes with it.

      Also, other than police or security, they should volunteer to carry. None of this forcing them to carry.

      I’m not a teacher but if I was, I would never go up against a shooter, especially if he has a rifle, with pepper spray or anything other than a gun.

      • http://carlwk3c carlwk3c

        The NRA proposal to put a cop in every school is for more government (and federal funding) and while the idea of an armed guard in every school is step in the right direction, it doesn’t go far enough and will end up being another ineffective, “feel good” federal program with bloated costs.
        One armed person isn’t enough to provide adequate security to a facility the size of most schools.
        Israel had some horrific school massacres. Their solution? Train and arm the teachers. It works. They haven’t had a major incident since, despite being surrounded by madmen sworn to kill all Jews and wipe Israel from the face of the planet.
        From my point of view, as a father of three and grandfather of 10, if the teachers aren’t willing to take responsibility for the defense of their charges they should find another job and let someone who will defend the children take the position.
        The principal in CT bravely tried to defend her students, but she was doomed from the start and had no chance. No matter how anti-gun she may have been (I don’t know), I’d bet at the end she wished she had a gun so she would have had at least a fighting chance. Would she have died anyway? Perhaps, but at least her final bravery wouldn’t have been futile.
        Institutions like Frontsight can take someone who’s never touched a gun and, in 4 days, train them to a greater level of proficiency than most police. And, Frontsight has publicly offered to provide FREE training to school personnel.

    • 45caliber

      A school here in TX went public with the fact that they are allowing armed teachers in the class rooms. When a horrified reporter questioned what some parents thought of that, at least one parent stated that was the reason she had moved to that district – she wanted people there ready and willing to protect her children if someone tried to shoot them. The reporter wasn’t particularly happy about it. In TX, school boards may decide to do this without outside interferance – and at least three schools (that I know about) are doing this.

      • 45caliber

        Oh, I forgot to mention that all local schools have at least one armed policeman at the campus during the school day. They are hired with local funds by the school.

  • Robert Wahrman

    Ms.O’Malia, like most liberal anti-gun nuts, needs to educate herself about guns if she plans to write an article supporting the ban of certain firearms. The AK-47 in the neighbors garage is most likely not an automatic weapon nor was the Bushmaster used in the Conn shooting. Both of these firearms in the civilian form are semi-automatic weapons. Meaning someone has to pull the trigger for each shot. If her neighbors AK-47 was fully automatic most likely it was modified illegally for which there is already a law on the books, or her neighbor could have registered and paid the fees to legally own a fully automatic weapon. Either way her lack of knowledge about what she is trying write about automatically indicates she’s a liberal nutcase.

  • lukn003

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

    Read the 2nd, And any Other amendment, withOut the “commas” as it was Ment to be interpeted! Commas, are Lazy Humans shorthand For *And*!!

    ~+~Keep UP the Good Fight Americans~+~

    Luk

  • http://mine Jack

    @leroy, as I said before. Come and take mine, but, come with a bunch, cause I don’t waste ammo, and you’ll have a bunch to haul away, when you take mine and me away.I’m a former Marine, and , well trained in the use of firearms, and still hold dear the oath I took some 60 years ago, that means nothing to our so called leaders. So, in closing. Come and get mine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • ? Larry Diesel

    I have not read any of the other comments, so my comment is only in reference to the original point /counter point articles.

    To begin with Tim is on target as to why the 2nd. was written into the constitution. However, he seams to be “pussy-footing” around with “this girl” who clearly does not even have an inkling about the meaning of FREEDOM. Furthermore, it would interesting to read a footnote from her quoting the US Constitution on her right to feel “free”. Here it must be construed that she means her right to feel safe from any perceived threat.

    I do not give Tim a free pass on his facts. It was not weapons of equal technology being used on each side in the Revolutionary War. The Minutemen had rifles for the most part, but the lowly Red Coats were all issued smoothbore muskets. The muskets were spitting out lead balls like a baseball pitcher throws a “knuckle ball” ; they flew through the air unstable and could hardly be accurate enough to hit a man sized target at a distance of only 50 yards. The rifles, on the side of freedom, were accurate enough for a good shooter to be able to head shoot wild turkey at 100 yards, and body shoot them at 500 yards.

    A rifle has spiral groves down the inside of the barrel that gives the lead ball a spin which stabilizes it in flight. So not only did the minutemen have a technological advantage in their “arms”, they parlayed with that “gurrilla warefare” where they would run, hide, and ambush the British picking them off one at a time as easy targets in well formed ranks.

    However, we are not going to be able to win our “fight” for freedom today with only our “arms”, we need to seek, find, and spread the “truth”.

    May our Creator God, the source of all Truth, be with us and guide us in this battle against the forces of evil that control our governments, and show us all Truth in his Love.

    L. Diesel

    • 45caliber

      One minor change to what you wrote and one clarification since I suspect you were aware of it – but others aren’t.

      First, the rifles they had then were accurate only to about 200 yards rather than 500 – but that was still about four times the distance a soldier with a musket could normally shoot.

      Second, the riflemen did not use “balls” as such although they were used in muskets. To get the use of the rifling inside the rifle barrels, the bullets had to conform to the rifling. It was difficult to force a ball through rifling to shoot it. BUT – they used minie balls. These were actually cone shaped and slightly smaller than the rifling. There was also a cone shaped hole on the bottom. When the powder went off, it flared the bottom of the minie ball to fit the rifling. Otherwise you are correct.

      The British were both upset because Americans didn’t really care to stand in line fifty yards in front of the British lines so they could actually hit the Americans and they were REALLY upset because the Americans preferred to target the British officers. That wasn’t fair!

      • http://www.facebook.com/leo.southworth Leo Southworth

        Sorry, 45caliber, but I have to correct your correction…LOL. The Minie ball projectile was not invented and used by the military until the Civil War. The riflemen of the Revolution did indeed use patched round ball.

        End of the correction, but I have a few other comments.

        The advantage of the smoothbore musket was that it could be loaded faster and shot more times before it was so powder-fouled that you couldn’t force a ball home and, at the expected range, did not require the skill that the rifle did. It sacrificed accuracy for speed and more shots….it was the rapid fire weapon of the time.

        A rifleman of the day, using a rifle he had used for years, might have tried and made a 500 yard shot if he deemed the target worthy. I shoot a .45 cal. Browning (45/90) at steel ram targets at 600 yards, albeit with Vernier sights and I have a .50 cal. muzzle loader that I’ve shot many times with 120 Grains of FFFg, so the equipment could have done the job. Old Cornwallis was probably lucky the right man with the right rifle never drew a bead on him on the right day…LOL.

      • 45caliber

        Leo:

        You are right and wrong. Those during the Revolution may not have had a “minie” ball – but they did have bullets that were better than a round ball. On the other hand, you are wrong when you try to compare a modern black powder rifle to those of that time. A man named Lew Wetzel (Indianfighter in WV) test shot a rifle of that time at a turtle at 200 yards. It was documented because it was such a long accurate shot. A 500 yard shot would have gotten even more publicity – but none were documented. The rifles/gunpowder at that time wasn’t capable of the shot. Not that it mattered. It could still shoot over four times further than a musket could.

        Look up the Fergeson Rifle of that time. It wasn’t well know but is more like the modern ones.

    • John Rowe

      “The rifles, on the side of freedom, were accurate enough for a good shooter to be able to head shoot wild turkey at 100 yards, and body shoot them at 500 yards.”

      WOW! Head shoot turkeys at a 100 yards — the length of a football field — and body shoot turkeys at 500 yards, five football fields away — and without a telescopic sight? WOW! –again!!!

      • 45caliber

        John:

        Evidently you don’t know much about shooting. Scopes are not automatically the best. I use mine only for low-light conditions. I much prefer the “iron sights” for shooting. Yes, you can hit a turkey neck at a hundred yards. But the 500 yards for a muzzle loader is too far. 200 yards is more like it. However, I can certainly kill a deer at 500 yards with a modern rifle without a scope.

  • Kevin W.

    An important point left out of the debatearticle IS that the “bad guys” do not have muskets and shot guns either. THEY buy, sometimes from our government’s doing (Mexcio drug lords) full automatic weapons. If I was living near the border with Mexico (Texas & AZ) you bet I want the same firearm protection the bad guys are carrying.

    • 45caliber

      As a citizen of Texas, I can assure you that you are right. We want the same weapons the criminals use.

      And don’t believe that all cartel criminal activity is kept in Mexico. According to a friend who works for the Houston police department, over 90% of all murders in Houston (about 3 a day at least) are due to drug and cartel activity. Recently one cartel had one of their own people tied to a table and then they cut him up in a number of pieces with a chain saw before dumping the pieces in the bay. Of course, he was alive when they started with the chain saw. The MS13 gang LOVES their machetes and uses them frequently as a message to let them have their way. And so on. But the Feds prefer to pretend that none of that happens here because they don’t want the people to get excited and demand they do something about it.

  • GAIL CROCKETT

    If I am of a mind to take someone’s lunch money, whose am I going to take? Will it be a first grader’s or Rambo’s? It will be the one the most defenseless and that is what the Founding Fathers knew. They said “the right to keep and bear arms” and that is exactly what they meant. The musket was their ‘elite weapon’ then and ours is much advanced from then, but so is the government’s. They were more concerned about the government abuse than any other threat. Given our government’s behavior in the last decade, they were right on!! Our lunch money is the least of our worries when our government is trying to attack the Constitution on many fronts. Also, once that first exception is made at chipping away from our rights, the next exception is easier and easier and before we know it, the Second Amendment is gone and they move on to another right, until we have no rights left. Stand fast and don’t let this happen.

    • 45caliber

      Gail:

      Most courts and Congress give only lip service to the Constitution as it is. Did you know that people have been arrested, convicted, and sentenced to prison terms in recent years for trying to tell others what their rights are under the Constitution? In most case the courts call it “harrassment of the local judge”.

  • GAIL CROCKETT

    To HKaufman, Would there be wars? Yes. How naive of you. There were wars thousands of years before guns. As long as there are humans, there will be conflict and if there are no guns, there will be other weapons with which to contend. There are those of us who wish there wasn’t a need for weapons, that there were no abuses, no wars, no murders, but to leave ourselves vulnerable because we ‘wish’ it was so would be totally insane. To think a gunman would not shoot you because you felt this way would be like someone expecting life to be fair. My favorite saying about fairness is: Expecting life to be fair, is like getting into a pen with a mad bull and expecting him not to charge you because you are a vegetarian. It will do no good to bury our heads in the sand.

    • 45caliber

      Some years ago, in one of the African countries, the government (which consisted on a single tribe) began to exterminate all the other tribes in the country. Their army (also members of that one tribe) using the latest weapons would drive to a village of another tribe, haul everyone out in the street, and shoot every one of them. Finally the other tribes were able to get guns of their own so they could shoot back.

      I saw a letter by a “progressive” in the paper who insisted that all private ownership of guns must be banned since the other tribes had “started a war” when they managed to arm themselves. If they hadn’t been able to do that, there would be no war in the country. He kind of ignored that fact that there wouldn’t have been any people belonging to another tribe in that country since his belief was that the government was the rightful rulers and therefore if they exterminated about 2/3rds of their population it had to be okay.

  • Lynne newcomer

    Yes indeed our founders toiled plenty as they framed the Constitution and the Bill of Rights The back ground theBILL OF RIGHTS was pounded out was in fact the fresh scars of a revolution .
    The arguments against the 2nd Admendment are void of any l weighing in of the reality
    of a possible loss of freedom.Those who embrace the vapors of “nothing like this could happen here” are clearly playing at being grown up.It is like watching a Hollywood personality suddenly finding that he can now play the “expert” on serious matters because he wrote a screen play,had a role in a movie or he read a book.For me it is tantamount to putting on a cow boy hat when you are a kid and suddenly your are a cow boy. Kids make believe not adults

    • 45caliber

      But Lynne! These people are smarter than you and me! Just ask one of them; they will tell you so! Just like most political anti-gun people, they are certain that YOU don’t ever need to defend yourself. (They do but not you and me. So they need to keep their guns while getting rid of ours.) And, as one of them told a wounded man in NY city who defended himself and his wife, “You don’t need to worry about the criminal being punished! If he kills you, we will find him and send him to jail. You don’t need to shoot him and punish him yourself.” (The criminal in this attack went to a hospital for two months to get him back on his medication. The victim, who spent three months in the hospital due to multiple stab wounds, got a year in the pen for having an illgal gun.)

      In fact, if you check, the anti-gun politicians/movie stars either carry guns themselves or have armed guards at all times. And none have any intention of giving up their own guns.

  • Allen Wilson

    It seems to me that if you are concerned about your neighbor having an AK-47 or any other weapon, then you DON’T know your neighbor well enough, You should become better friends.

    • 45caliber

      And get one for yourself

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I don’t know about that 45caliber. I think becoming friends with your neighbors is a better idea than preparing for a firefight.

      • oh oh

        Both would be good choices…a logical, comprehensive solution that would prepare you for multiple contingencies.

    • Jeremy Leochner

      Maybe you should. Distrust is never good between neighbors.

      • http://carlwk3c carlwk3c

        Jeremy,
        I am friends with my neighbors. Most of them also have guns. We help each other. If need be, we will defend each other. They all know they can call at any hour, day or night, and I’ll be there (and likewise).
        Sounds like a good neighborly relationship to me.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Sounds like it to me to. By all means continue. Neighbors helping to defend each other and help each other is great.

      • oh oh

        Yes, and thank goodness and the 2nd Amendment that they have adequate means to do so.

  • Charlie Tall

    This is a little long, but it addresses the idiots who think it is a good idea to give the government a monopoly on firearms and force. Read on, please.

    The prudent individual looks to many things before making an irreversible decision. One of these is, of course, experience, a.k.a. history. Therefore, I shall review the history of multiple homicide.

    We have recently seen what serial killers with semiautomatic weapons can do. Twenty-six victims in Newtown, three in Aurora, six killed and four wounded at the Sikh temple, and so on for a total of over 60 of these multiple shootings in the last 30 years.

    Last year, there were roughly 10,000 homicides in the US committed by killers with guns. This figure includes the mass murders. Add to that the 20,000 or so suicides using guns for a more or less grand total of 30,000 deaths resulting from either the criminal use or misuse of firearms in the hands of civilians.

    Please bear in mind that these figure include justifiable homicides, shootings by police and other law enforcement, as well as crimes, since they are the numbers before any investigation is made.

    At that rate, guns in the hands of civilians will kill 3,000,000 people every century.

    Now let’s look at how many people our and other governments kill.

    On February 28, 1993, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms bungled a raid that resulted in the deaths of four agents and six members of a religious community in Waco, TX. On April 19, 1993, various law enforcement branches of the United States government – BATF, FBI, Attorney General’s Office – , in an effort to “save” the children, attacked the besieged “cult” members and succeeded in burning to death another seventy-six men, women, and children.

    On December 29, 1890, the United States Army 7th Cavalry opened fire upon an Indian village they were supposedly “protecting.” Firing indiscriminately from all sides, the troopers killed men, women, and children, as well as some of their own fellow troopers. Most of the Indians had been disarmed the day before. The result was over 300 dead Lakota Sioux of all ages and sexes.

    (Democide: The murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder.)

    One way or the other, the United States government is responsible for about 100,000 civilian deaths in Iraq. About the same number have been killed in Afghanistan as part of a program named Operation Enduring Freedom.

    It is also responsible for an estimated 5,500 democidal killings in South Vietnam between 1960 and 1972. The United States government is estimated to have killed or maimed another 400,000 civilians with the Agent Orange program. During the same period, the US government killed approximately 40,000 civilians in neutral Cambodia.

    These deaths are referred to as collateral damage, another form of democide resulting from negligence or blatant disregard for the lives of others.

    From 1933 until 1945, the Nazi party in Germany was responsible for over 21,000,000 deaths of German ethnic persons, only 3.5 million of which were military deaths. All of these occurred after the German government disarmed the civilian populace.

    The Soviet Union is estimated to have committed 61,911,000 democides in the USSR from 1917 to 87, of which 51,755,000 occurred during the Stalin years. The Soviet Union also enjoyed strict gun control.

    Although it is harder to get firm numbers, it is estimated that in the People’s Republic of China, Mao Zedong’s regime (1949-1975) killed upwards of 40,000,000 people, nearly all of them Chinese citizens.

    I have not mentioned the United States Army in the Confederacy, Pol Pot in Cambodia, Idi Amin in Uganda, the Imperial Japanese Army in China, the Turks in Armenia, Ethnic Cleansing in Bosnia, and on and on. I have not mentioned the federal and state governments eugenics programs that lasted until the 1960s and were responsible for the sterilization and deaths of several thousand Americans.

    Governments are the most dangerous, most lethal, most vicious, cruelest, most heartless entities on Earth.

    Anyone that wants to give any government, even ours, a monopoly on firearms and force has got to be out of his or her mind.

    • http://carlwk3c carlwk3c

      170 million murdered by their own governments in the 20th century, AFTER they allowed their governments to disarm them.

      They ALL thought “It can’t happen here” – until they were disarmed and it started, then it was too late. Don’t make the same mistake. Don’t EVER let your government disarm you.

      The Founders knew that government, if not constrained at every step, will continue to accumulate power and control until it becomes tyranny. That’s why they feared standing armies and insisted that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

  • 45caliber

    Every time a liberal hears the word “gun” they get a brain freeze. People use them for hunting – therefore any gun not designed specifically for hunting should be banned. If it contains more than 5 bullets, it shouldn’t be used for hunting. After all, a good hunter should be able to aim and therefore doesn’t need more bullets. If he does, he shouldn’t hunt. And most people (everyone but them) don’t need to worry about protection so should give up their guns kept for this. Any gun not used for hunting should be given up. And considering the poor animals, we should give up hunting too. Any argument beyond this they simply cannot comprehend since their brains won’t go any further than that. And they always – always – insist that “if you talk with them, there would be no need for guns.” They never seem to understand that if the other wants to kill you or take what you have, talking will do absolutely no good. If you talk, you can become friends!

    And if you believe that, I’m sure I have a good bridge I can sell you…

    • Jeremy Leochner

      I am a liberal and I do not get a brain freeze 45caliber. I do not think guns should be banned if they are not specifically designed for hunting. Though I would like to ask why someone would go hunting with a gun that is not designed for hunting, seems kinda counter productive to me. I think people face different situations than myself and have a right to personal protection. I do not like hunting. I watched Bambi when I was young and its biased me ever since. But as much as I hate it I try and be reasonable in how I want it to be regulated. What’s good for me is not always for others. I believe that there bad people in this world and that you cannot always talk your way out of a situation. I just don’t like extremes. So I try and find a balance between fearing everyone and trusting everyone. I will point out that it is hard to make friends if you do not talk.

  • Iwillnotbow

    If they want to come and try to take our guns we will just give them all our ammo…. as it exits our guns.

  • John Rowe

    Relative to your subject piece and your request for your readers to join in the affray: you raised the point that you approve of your neighbors housing AK-47′s in their respective garages because you know most of your neighbors as being honest and hardworking people; but how about those others you don’t really know…would you want them to have assault type weapons in their garages to?

    Isn’t that the whole trouble with these type people, you don’t really know them even though they are close neighbors — until something terrible happens and then things are pieced together after the event that should could have been seen as the tip-off that the neighbor was whacko from the beginning…that it was just overlooked! I’ve hunted all my life, so I’m not against guns; just those that are so unnecessary for sporting purposes such as assault weapons with 20 round clips.

    John Rowe

    Milwaukee

    • http://www.facebook.com/leo.southworth Leo Southworth

      The 2nd Amendment was never about hunting, sport shooting, or even self-defense, it was about ensuring that the American people could resist government, foreign or domestic. Our Founding Fathers never used the terms hunting in relationship to firearms, the use of the gun for that, to them was a given fact of daily life. On self-defense, that, too, was a given fact because few would have traveled more than shouting distance from their home without taking a gun against the chance of needing one.

  • http://www.facebook.com/leo.southworth Leo Southworth

    Our Founding Fathers have often been described as “well-read” which means rather well educated for their time. When they penned the Constitution, they considered their words carefully. Knowing that most soldier fought with muskets, why did they use the rather all encompassing term “arms” in the Second Amendment rather than the terms. “rifle, pistol, and muskets”. “Arms” covers all weapons, with absolutely nothing left out. Think on this, the Constitution establishes no standing army for the government and actually makes it hard to raise one. The cannon was the weapon of mass destruction of the day. Where did all the cannons go after the Revolution was won? I’ll give you a hint that you’ve probably never thought of, if they were still in good condition, the militia took them home with them and to this day you will find cannon on many a courthouse lawn. To our Founding Fathers, even the cannon was “arms”.

    Today’s “musket” is the same weapon that our armed forces use, the 5.56mm / .223 cal. M4 / M16 / AR-type rifle. The military M4 / M16 are capable of fully automatic fire and the AR civilian version is semi-automatic. Both will take a thirty round magazine and can actually fire over 600 rounds per minute if you could keep it fed. What no one mentions is that neither can actually do it and not without being damaged to the point where they are worthless in that one minute.

    The Founding Fathers would not have allowed a lot of the restrictions that we have allowed, They would have been of the mind that if the Navy and the Marines had the weapon, then the citizen had a right to have it,too. (Remember, they didn’t want a standing Army). I doubt seriously they would have even stood for sales tax on anything that would come under their classification of “arms”!

  • Bill Moss

    While a shooting in a mall, theater or school is sad she needs to take a worldwide view and look at history of gun confiscation.

    In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated…

    In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Germany established gun control in 1938, the same year Time Magazine named Hitler man-of-the-year, and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. Obama was just named man-of-the-year by Time Magazine.

    China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    She needs to consider a few other things. The government now has guns that shoot 100 round per minutes so we need to have equal protection against a tyrannical government. In every mass shooting as soon as a law-abiding citizen or law enforcement officer approached the shooter, the shooter surrendered or committed suicide. And law enforcement will not always be the first on the scene.

    • Jeremy Leochner

      Bill with all due respect I have a couple of things to point out.

      1: Joseph Stalin came to power in 1924 a full five years before you say the Soviet Union established gun control. And the Soviet Union from its founding in 1917 was never representational or democratic or republican in any way. So the dictatorship was already in place. And Stalin was sending people to the gulag long before 1929. In fact according to gulaghistory.org-”Concentration camps were created in the Soviet Union shortly after the 1917 revolution”-http://gulaghistory.org/nps/onlineexhibit/stalin/. So with all due respect people were being sent to forced labor camps even before Stalin more than 19 years before you say the Soviet Union established gun control.

      2: Turkey in 1911 was an Empire ruled by a sultan. It was not a republic governed by the rule of law. The people of the Ottoman Empire and certainly the politically undesirable Armenians had no basic rights even before Gun Control. Also if it was established in 1911 why did it take until 1915 for the killings to start.

      3: Adolf Hitler declared Martial law and banned all political parties and outlawed freedom of speech, expression, the press and assembly in 1933 a full five years before gun control was implemented. And the Nuremberg Race Laws which deprived Germanys Jewish citizens of all basic rights were passed in 1935 nearly three years before gun control was implemented. And the first concentration camps were established in 1933-http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005263
      I am sure you know the famous poem by Martin Niemöller: “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out–Because I was not a Socialist.” and so on. Well it seems that they were already coming for people 5 years before gun control was implemented.

      And here are some other people Time Magazine named Person of the year and it did not lead to genocide: Mahatma Gandhi, Winston Churchill, Elizabeth the second and the Apollo 8 astronauts.

      4: So China implemented Gun Control in 1935 but the killing did not start till 1948, what took so long.

      5: Cambodia implemented it in 1956 and did not start killing until 1975, again what took so long.

      6: “In every mass shooting as soon as a law-abiding citizen or law enforcement officer approached the shooter, the shooter surrendered or committed suicide.”-

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/columbine-armed-guards_n_2347096.html

      http://abcnews.go.com/US/ihop-shooting-national-guardsman-dies/story?id=14461691

      • oh oh

        It doesn’t matter, Jeremy. Once they’re disarmed, they’re sitting ducks. It doesn’t matter how long it takes a craft tyrant to eventually get them.

  • auhunter

    Tim – You made a good point, but you didn’t go in depth enough to cover all of Bailey’s misinterpretations. Now we get to Bailey: First off automatic weapons have been outlawed in this country for more than 60 years. “for safety or hunting” You said it yourself right there. That’s why the 2nd Amendment was written to provide for the safety of you and yours. “100 round a minute military grade weapons”: They would have to be automatic, there are none legally owned. Semi-automatic yes, a stand by for the competition shooter these days, five rounds in less than 10 seconds with a wheel gun or bolt action rifle is nearly impossible for the average shooter. My Right – Yes – it is. The Amendment also says “shall not be infringed”. I assume you know what that means. “Arm every person…” Oh yes, take Kennesaw, GA. in 1982 the city council mandated that every head of household, unless physically or mentally unable, or too poor to buy one, would own a gun. Since then 4 murders, 3 by a non-resident. Feel free or safe with an AK-47 next door? Try this on for size, your husband is out of town on a business trip, you’re home alone with the kids, 2 AM, 3 thugs break in the back door, neighbor hears it, grabs his rifle and comes running. You and your kids are cowering in a corner while they ransack the place and laughingly talking about raping you and your oldest daughter. You’re screaming in fear as they all have weapons. Your neighbor bursts into the room, they turn on him, he shoots and kills all 3. The cops show up 15 minutes later, because of a call about gun shots. Now, tell me you don’t feel just a little bit freer and safer, knowing your neighbor has that AK next door?

  • Andrew J. Signer

    In response to Bailey O’Bam…sorry, O’Malia

    When the Founding Fathers wrote our Constitution, their idea of a weapon was a musket — not an automatic weapon. The gun they had in mind would be used for safety or for hunting.

    How about a little BP before we swing for the fence; AUTOMATIC weapons?!? I am 100% sure the debate is SEMI-automatic weapons. Please make note of this fact.

    Surely, there is no need for a civilian to hold that kind of power in his hand. In fact, why should anyone have that much power over another human being? Do we really trust each other’s judgment?

    The very reason we must have that power in our hands is because we don’t trust our government or ANY government having complete power in THEIR hands. So, you are correct in doubting we trust your judgement any more than you trust ours. There, we agreed on one thing so far.

    With this in mind, I wonder what the fathers of our Nation would have said about civilians owning military-grade weapons that can shoot 100 rounds in a minute
    .
    If by “military-grade” you mean AUTOMATIC weapons then, again, virtually NO citizens own/possess AUTOMATIC weapons. We are debating SEMI-automatic weapons which could NEVER attain a 100 rpm rate of fire.

    I’ve been thinking about this for days, and I can’t come up with one good reason that a person would need anything more than a handgun or rifle for “safety.”

    I can give you one good reason which was provided by YOUR words, and I quote When the Founding Fathers wrote our Constitution, their idea of a weapon was a musket — not an automatic weapon. The gun they had in mind would be used for safety or for hunting. Ok, soooo, sounds like that hunting thing might be a good reason. Cool, that makes two areas of agreement.

    So when the discussion of changing the gun laws is brought up, I think: “What a perfectly simple solution; ban all automatic weapons.” This appeases Democrats because they will have made steps toward gun reform, and it appeases Republicans because they won’t be fully losing their right to bear arms. Do you consider shooting an automatic weapon a fun hobby? They could still be available to rent at a gun range.

    For the third time, the argument is over SEMI_FREAKIN_AUTOMATIC weapons. Please make note, there will be a test on this subject matter.

    If you’re pro-guns, at this point you’re probably saying: “But it’s my right, and they’re taking away all of our rights.”

    Damn right it is my right and only when you take those rights from my cold, dead fingers will I give them up. Molon labe!

    Before you start spouting your Founding Fathers crap, take a second to think about the core principle that this country was supposedly built on: freedom. I don’t know about you, but I don’t feel very “free” knowing that my neighbor could be housing an AK-47 in his garage.

    “Founding Fathers crap”?!?!? Whatever shred of credibility you may have remaining is now, and forever, gone. And if I’m lucky, my other neighbor will have a mini-14, and his neighbor a shotgun, and his neighbor a handgun or two etc, and the street we live on would be well defended by law abiding, like-minded citizens. If you are discomforted by that then allow me to suggest an alternative: feel “free” to live somewhere that you will be freed from all that “Founding Fathers crap”.

  • steve

    The founders were smart enough to say”bear arms” note arms not guns or knifes but arms. Now what are arms? they are any thing we as Americans can use to defend protect our self and the god given rights reaffirmed by the US constitution be the arms be any firearm or club or ANY THING DEVELOPED IN THE FUTURE!The founders had already seen many advancements in firearms from the matchlock to the state of the art flintlock rifled guns able to shoot accurately out to 300 yds so the argument that they could never have “known” about advancement of technology just doesn’t fly !

    • Veteran

      You’re so correct. The idea that the Founding Fathers didn’t anticipate advances in technology is ridiculous because they saw the beginning of the steam age, since railroad steam engines were running before most of them had died and were in operation in England before the Revolutionary War started.

  • Herb

    Overal excellent article and discussion. One thing I want to correct both Bailey O’Malia and Tim Young is that at the founding of our nation, the righting of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and Bill of Rights; the founders were well aware of the fact tha in fact their idea of a weapon was NOT a musket! One of the key factors in winning our War of Independence (NOT Revolutionary War – we never sought to overthrow the Government of Great Britain and her colonies – only independence of our own colonies) was the fact that colonists had in most cases SUPERIOR weapons to the Brittish troops and German mercenaries. The rifle used by most colonists was in fact so far to superior to the Brown Bess Musket used by British forces that it is comparable to civilians having AUTOMATIC weapons and the military and police having semi-automatic weapons because the rifle allowed the colonist to completely alter in many cases the TACTICS or way that they actually engaged in battle. With greater accuracy, greater distance, greater reliability the rifle was technologically a far superior weapon.

    Keep in mind that during the first 160 years or so of our Republic, civilians have often owned and possessed weaponary equal to or greater than our military and police, including FULLY AUTOMATIC weapons. Civilians routinely owned the Henry repeating rifle and subsequent Winchester lever action rifles at a time that the military was still issuing single shot rifles. Following WWI civilians legally owned Browning Automatic Rifles, Thompsons and many other semi- and automatic weapons while the military and police still were issued bolt action, internal and external magazine weapons. It was only with the rise in organized crime (directly related to Prohibition) and bank robberies (related to the depression) the first national gun control laws were written prohibiting machine guns for civilian ownership.

  • John Illinois

    Another thing to remember about the founding fathers is that they were not all of one mind on many issues, other than throwing off the yoke of the King. They were all of the opinion that possibly their side might not always be in power, and they wanted to be able to counter what their opposition might try to do to them. That is why both sides wanted the second amendment–to protect themselves from their political opponents.

  • Don Peterson

    Mr. Young, you are 100% correct. I own these types of weapons as do most of my friends and family. None of us has ever gone on a shooting rampage. The argument about muskets vs. high capacity semi-autos is the same as saying that since the founders didn’t have television, computers, internet and instant access to disseminate information around the world that somehow the first amendment should be discarded and government censors should have to approve everything that gets reported. The founders recognized that the citizenry was the “militia” and that they should be armed with the same type of weapon as the government had at the time. Bailey makes an interesting statement in her piece saying, “Surely, there is no need for a civilian to hold that kind of power in his hand. In fact, why should anyone have that much power over another human being? Do we really trust each other’s judgment?” She unwittingly makes an even stronger case for civilian ownership of these weapons. Since the government has them as well as much more, do we really want to trust that they will always use them in a lawful manner in the correct way or should we look at history which shows us when the government controls all of the weapons, tyranny follows as well as genocide, and enslavement of the population. She is a victim of media hype as well as emotional reaction as opposed to thinking about the situation rationally. Since nobody has a magic wand to make the guns disappear altogether and the government is not going to disarm, neither am I. Don Peterson.

  • ASIM ALI

    LOOK AT STATES AND COUNTRIES WITH GUN CONTROL; THE BAD ELEMENT JUST BLOW THINGS UP. ENGLAND AS STRICT AS THEY ARE HAD TO DEAL WITH THE IRA AND THEY STILL GOT THERE POINT ACROSS. LOOK AT FLORIDA WHO JUST RECENTLY PUT UP A GUN BAN HAD A SURGE IN CRIME, THEN GAVE EVERYONE A GUN AND CRIME STOP IMMEDIATLY. DC, CHI , NY AND LA WITH THE STRICTEST GUN LAWS HAVE THE WORST CRIME DONT NEED TO BE A ROCKET SCIENTIST TO FIGURE THAT OUT, JUST DONT BE A LIBERAL.

    • Jeff

      Unfortunately, state gun laws are easily circumvented because we don’t have armed guards at state borders. As long as some states allow all kinds of weapons to get into the hands of any idiot who attends a gun show, New York and Chicago will get their share of gun violence despite their laws. But countries that limit guns have much, much lower rates of gun violence than we do.

  • Nancy C. Powell

    All one has to do is talk to Auschwitz survivors….they will explain it to you….

    • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

      Exactly!

  • Zenphamy

    Back to comments about the article. The lady is an example of why B. Franklin allegedly answering a question posed to him of ‘What government have you given us?’ responded (loosely cited), A Republic, Maam, if you can keep it.
    The Constitution was written in language and with reason understandable to the citizen of the times. A lawyer was not required to interpret it for the voter of the day. It continues to amaze me that we live in a country with citizens less well educated and interested than citizens of the 1780′s. The lady really needs to obtain the level of education about governance that the founders experienced from citizens of that time before she attempts to comment on subjects of the nature of government intrusion into the lives and liberties of others. There was a very rational and serious reason the founders limited full voting rights to adult males that were property owners.
    We received from the founders a country, culture, and opportunities completely unique in the history of mankind. Yet, we’ve allowed our governments at all levels as well as our major institutions to veer far from the basic ideals of those gifts. We’ve also allowed the uneducated and inexperienced to become parties to our discussions of really serious matters affecting not only ourselves, but the future of our inheritors and all mankind.
    We are living in a unique time in the history of this country. Never before has the basis of this country come under such widely ranging attacks and threat of destruction. Never before have we faced such a split between the average citizens, most of whom have no real knowledge other than the propaganda fed to them by the Kardashian entertainment type of news media. Yet it is what we have allowed to happen to our society and civilization.
    Our government has been allowed to venture far beyond the boundaries of the country as well as it’s defined limits of authorities to such an extent that cave dwelling barbarians have become enemies, much of the rest of the world is worried if not actually threatened by us, it’s management of our money and economy has nearly ruined the opportunity of the average citizen to better his role in life and accumulate any real wealth, and the inalienable rights that derive from our individual creation are no longer ours, but belong to some institution called a state.
    But a large cross section of our citizenry, having become alarmed by the successful inroads made against individual liberties and responsibilities and self direction have chosen to draw a line in the sand. That line is best described in the 2nd Amendment and has also been accepted by those wishing to continue to push forward and cement their gains against the individual over the last decades. Many of us pushing back against the attack probably won’t spend our money on a semi-automatic rifle and the ammunition expense necessary to support the weapon, but we will and do push back against the attack and inroads and our right to spend that money if we so desire. We see this as our last opportunity to halt the loss of our individual freedoms and maybe even begin an assault to regain those freedoms already lost.
    But we’ve also allowed a completely non-sensible concept to become common throughout our society, that we can stop death and misery by controlling and limiting the freedom of everyone. Our individual safety and well-being is and must remain, our individual responsibility. It can never be given to another, particularly an institution (state) with it’s own interest and subject to the whims of the majority, much less special interest minorities with influence. But the uneducated, propagandized, and statist amongst us rely on that argument and will utilize every death and misery available and shapable by the propaganda machine to put forth an emotional argument that’s difficult to counter in any populist manner.
    We must maintain the 2nd Amendment, or we lose the most unique country and civilization ever conceived by man to date. Too large a portion of our citizenry has already given up and just want to be left alone. Without those guns, they won’t leave us alone.

    • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

      Nice Comment! Great points.

    • Iwillnotbow

      They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

      Benjamin Franklin

      Sadly many of our fellow citizens are willing to do exactly that. We need to stand strong and united against further encroachments of our basic rights as well as reversing the unpatriotic ‘Patriot Act’, maintaining a censor free internet and repeal the politically advantageous ‘Citizens United’ bill.

  • http://carlwk3c carlwk3c

    Jeff,
    Since yiu admit you don’t really know the the facts, how about you watch a police officer explain them to you …
    This could be enlightening to others, too, if they are willing to open their minds to the truth.

    http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=ysf8x477c30&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dysf8x477c30

  • Veteran

    First, where did you come up with the 10-round magazine? From the media? Please justify the10-round number! Based on what? You’re just parroting someone else.

    Second, almost every firearm today is based on a “military type” weapon – even the bolt-action rifles were based on the state-of-the-art Mauser in the late 1800s, the revolver was from Samuel Colt in 1836, the semi-auto was another one from the late 1800s (like the 1896 Mauser ‘Broomhandle’): so where do YOU start and stop?

    Sadly, you don’t know and really don’t care because you, like so many citizens, have no idea what you’re saying or the real aspects of the debate.

    You want the violent crimes to stop, but rather than going after the criminals, or the politicians who won’t enforce the laws already on the books, it is much easier to go after the implements of the crime. the guns.

    Ban the guns? Talk to the people in Australia or the UK and see how that’s worked out for them – all crime, and especially violvent crime with guns (in the hands of criminals), has gone UP!!! Newtown happened in Connecticut which has some of the strictest gun laws in the US, yet it happened.

    PLEASE look at the CAUSE of the problem – the shooter – and see how to fix that!

    • Jeff

      You’re right. The number should be 6.

      • dalek

        Why 6? You just make that number up or what?

        Limiting a magazine or clip does no good. Just buy more clips/magazines. You can have the exact same number of rounds to shoot. Actually, a smaller clip/magazine could be better for a killer. Sometimes magazines/clips fail and if it has less rounds in each clip, you loose less rounds in the failed clip/magazine. You haven’t thought about that have you?

        Just so you know, a clip/magazine can be changed in under a second. Limiting the clip/magazine will do absolutely NO good at all. None. It is a stupid idea. Whoever thought it would do any good knows nothing about guns.

        • Jeff

          Because the time it takes the shooter to change clips is often the best opportunity to disarm the psycho shooter. That is, for those times (always) when Bruce Willis is not available.

          • dalek

            You don’t know how long it takes to change a gun clip do you? As I said before, LESS THAN A SECOND. Did you see it that time? You really think you can run up and tackle someone in less than a second? If you do, you deserve whatever you get. Most likely, you will be shot, more than once, with bullets from a new clip.

            You have really shown your total ignorance with that post. You should NOT be talking about a subject you know nothing about. Actually, you know less than nothing about guns going by your posts.

          • Jeff

            But that IS when a lot of these guys get disarmed! The shooter in Tucson was trying to reload when he was disarmed by a civilian without a gun. Why do we NEVER hear of a shooter stopped by someone with a gun except where the person with the gun is a police officer? Untrained civilians in that situation are extremely unlikely to do any good with a gun.

          • dalek

            “But that IS when a lot of these guys get disarmed!” Are you that crazy? You are out of your mind to even THINK that is when people get stopped. They get stopped when someone else with a gun stops them in the vast majority of cases. You point to ONE time when this has happened, then conclude that this is the same for every time. That is completely wrong. Do you realize how many shootings since Newtown has been stopped by other law abiding people with a gun? This is a link to a article. Don’t look at just the article, click on the sources in the article that tells the rest of the story. That is the reason I am sending you the link to this article. I want you to click on the sources and read it for yourself. It also debunks a article from Mother Jones that is just plain wrong, about as wrong as your claim. Did you get your claim from them too?

            http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/11/ed-schultz-makes-bold-claim-that-u-s-has-never-had-a-civilian-stop-a-shooting/

            I might also add, I have read reports of MANY more times shooters have been stopped by another person with a gun, mostly concealed carry civilians. Depending on a gun to jam or to try to tackle a person when reloading, which takes less than a second, is like waiting to win a $500 million lottery. It doesn’t happen very often.

            I might also add, the ATTEMPTED mass shooting at a school in Pearl MS was stopped my a principal who had a gun in his car. You don’t hear much about it because I think he only killed two before the shooter was stopped. It didn’t make it to the “mass” range because he was stopped by someone else with a gun. That COULD have been Newtown if the principal was unarmed.

            Also, another thing that may save your life one day. Let’s say you get your 6 round clip limit. You do realize that a gun will hold SEVEN rounds right? If I was a shooter, I would shoot 6 times, let idiots think I am empty but still have a round in the chamber, then that round would be the one for the fool that thinks he can tackle me while I reload, which again takes less than a second. Given your posts, you would be the dead fool.

          • Veteran

            Jeff:

            Just go to the NRA website and check out the area of “The Armed Citizen” and you will find dozens of newspaper stories about armed citizens who protected themselves and/or others through the use of a firearm – sometimes they had to shoot, other times they just used a firearm to hold the criminal until the police arrived. And in 99.9% of the cases, the armed citizen was not charged with any offense, in fact, most often the police are very complimentary and supportive of the citizen’s actions.

            If you check the statistics provided by criminologist John Lott you will see that armed citizens account annually for prevention of bodily harm to innocent people over 250,000 times a year!

  • Ward Wood

    Bailey has destroyed her own argument with her own AMBIGUOUS words. The rest of these opinions prove that some people are educated and others are just liberal fodder for the governments wishes, BUT, there is one glaring reason for all this gun control business anyway, that begins with the control of your MONEY, the very argument that started this over 250 years ago, a TYRANT and what he thought was his right to your money. Does the INCOME TAX come to mind anybody? The government thinks that it has the right to take from you and now is trying to tell you what you can have and not have, it is time for another revolution!

    • Jeff

      You sound like an 8th grader. When people live together, they form societies and have certain rules to enable people to live together peacefully. Governments are set up to enforce those rules. Taxes are generally needed to pay for Government and to do those things that people want done. You want to live somewhere without rules, Government, or taxes? Go to the middle of the desert or Antarctica. No rules, no government, no taxes, no pesky neighbors with opinions!

      • DS

        You may actually be in the dark about how it works, too. Not a single nickle of your taxes goes to pay for any government program. Every bit of it goes to pay the interest on the money that the government *borrows* from the Federal Reserve, which is a private bank. Living without rules, even in a society, is easy as long as the people in that society are not arseholes. You can have agreed standards of conduct without a lot of bullcrap rules. Governments are not set up to enforce the rules. The people are. The government has over stepped their bounds and has become tyrrannical in their “control”. To the point that we are no longer a “free” people, but are in fact slaves to the system which we created. Your response to this will clearly indicate one of two things. Either you are completely in the dark, or you are open to learning and finding out how to really free yourself from the tyrrannical government(s).

        • dalek

          I bet he will want the tyrannical government. They always do until that very same Government they asked for comes after them. Then they want freedom back but no means to fight to get it back. Once you give the Government power, you have to fight to get it back, usually with force.

          • Jeff

            Put your superior intellect to work and tell us how the Government is tyrannical in the context of what we know about the truly tyrannical governments in recent history (Hitler, Stalin).

          • dalek

            If you can’t see it coming already, no one will ever be able to show it to you. I’ll give you a few hints tho. Patriot Act and NDAA. Anytime a Government can detain a citizen indefinitely with no charges, no trial or anything, that is the very beginnings of tyranny. Yea, I know, it was Bush that started all that. I don’t care who started it, I want to know when and who is going to stop it. This is not just about political parties, it is about the CONSTITUTION and a CORRUPT government that is becoming tyrannical quickly.

            Like I said, if you can’t see it already, you won’t until it is YOU they are coming after. Then you will see it but you won’t be able to do a thing about it. Basically, bend over and just hope it feels good.

          • Jeff

            I agree that the examples you gave are things that shouldn’t be. Unfortunately, once something is passed by one Administration, it becomes difficult to alter it. Once we are out of Afghanistan, if Obama proposes the elimination of those Acts, do you think he’ll get the cooperation of House Republicans? The good thing about a 2nd term is Obama no longer has to worry about being slimed by the Republicans for doing the right thing, so maybe some policies will change.

            I still think we’re a long way from “tyranny” as we came to know it in the 20th Century.

          • dalek

            Like I said, if you don’t see it already, you never will. At least not until it is to late. By the time you see it, there will be nothing you can do about it. Others like me are seeing it. It will be the others that stand up and get us back on the right path. That path would be back to the Constitution as it is written and INTENDED.

          • Jeff

            And I’m sure you’ll tell us how it was intended. Your little group of 2nd Amendment zealots represents a tiny sliver of American opinion. Your view that you need an arsenal for some imagined fight with the Government is pure paranoia. Of course, that’s nothing new.

            http://www.amazon.com/The-Paranoid-Style-American-Politics/dp/0674654617

          • dalek

            Actually, if you study the history of the Constitution and what it was based on, trying to avoid etc, you will understand it. Thing is, liberals have no understanding of it nor do they want to either. That appears to be your problem and I learned a long time ago, liberals rarely learn from history. If it didn’t happen in the past few months, they have forgotten it already.

            Remember the old saying, those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it. Well, there you go.

          • Jeff

            Most people who read and think for a living are more liberal than conservative. Other than in schools of business, most Ph.D.s are liberally-minded, but primarily they deal in the world of what is and not a fantasy. These right wing ideas about history are at best a partial truth. Often people who know all the “words” concerning a tiny sliver of history miss the “tune” entirely. Was it liberals or conservatives who were instrumental in actually applying the principles of the 14th Amendment back in the 1960s? To Conservatives, concepts like “equal protection” and “due process” were just words on a page. It was the liberals who gave those words meaning, arguing for racial equality, some measure of justice for those too poor to hire an attorney, and now seeking to avoid executing the innocent. With a few notable exceptions, most Conservatives were only too happy to let “others” rot in prison, so long as the “others” were racial minorities, immigrants, etc. We’ll see if any of that changes or if GOP continues to stand for Guns Over People.

          • dalek

            So you claim that the Democrats were behind the Civil Rights Act. Here you go:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Vote_totals

            If you notice, there was more Democrats voting AGAINST it than Republicans. It was also a Democrats, Senator Robert Byrd and others, that tried to filibuster it from being voted on. 80% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act, only 63% of Democrats. Yea, Democrats really wanted to have Civil Rights.

            How’s that “liberal” education doing when faced with facts?

            You might find this interesting too.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Democrats

            “Southern Democrats are members of the U.S. Democratic Party who reside in the American South. In the 19th century, they were the definitive pro-slavery wing of the party, opposed to both the anti-slavery Republicans (GOP) and the more liberal Northern Democrats.”

            As you can see, it was the Democrats that had most of the slaves. This is why I keep telling you, LEARN HISTORY. Everything in the Constitution is there for a reason. If you don’t understand why it is there, you really shouldn’t make claims about what it means. I don’t consider myself a history expert but I do know this, the Founders set up the Constitution to keep us free. Anyone who doesn’t follow that, is loosing their freedom. I intend to keep mine.

          • Jeff

            It was pushed through the Congress by LBJ over the opposition of the Southern Democrats, all of whom became Republicans within a few years. Why do you think LBJ lamented he had just ceded the South to the Republicans for the next generation? In those days, the country was split more geographically than by party, with many Republicans well to the left of many Democrats. The real reactionaries were the Southern Democrats. Since then, the parties have become much more ideologically split – all the White Southerners becoming Republicans and virtually all the Northeastern liberals and moderates becoming Democrats.

          • dalek

            So what you are saying is that to prove your point, you have to revise history. Sorry, it was the Democrats that were blocking it and you are stuck with it. Democrats always want to take credit for things they didn’t do and revise history to prove it. I’m not falling for it. You play the fool if you want but I’m sticking with the facts.

          • Jeff

            When discussing history, it generally makes more sense to talk about “progressives” and “conservatives” rather than Democrats and Republicans as party identities change. During Lincoln’s era, the Republicans were the more progressive party; ditto during TR’s era. That changed and certainly by FDR’s time, the Democrats were the progressive party except for the Southerners. They were truly a party unto themselves (hence, the Dixiecrats). If you want to attribute the failings of Strom Thurmond to Barack Obama, you have to ask why Strom led the move of the Dixiecrats to the Republicans. It was all a reaction to desegregation. In fact, the entire Conservative Ascendancy beginning in 1980 owed most of its vitality to racial animosity. And it’s still there. Listen to Colin Powell if you don’t believe me.

            http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/13/16491040-powell-champions-hagel-as-defense-secretary-and-rips-some-republicans?lite

          • http://carlwk3c carlwk3c

            Jeff,
            To get a clue on the racist roots of gun control, watch the films “No Guns for Negroes” and “No Guns for Jews” from htttp://jpfo.org
            Also watch “Innocents Betrayed” to a well don documentary on how EVERY genocide in the 20th century was preceded by the disarmament of the victim population by their government, as a prelude to that government’s murder of the disarmed (over 170 MILLON murdered, just in the 20th century)

          • dalek

            Now Carl, you know liberals always say, ‘that can’t happen here’. They always think it happens to someone else but not here. I mean, we have a Constitution that limits the Government but ignore the fact that the very same liberals try to water down the Constitution to the point that that very Government takes control of everything.

            What is it that the Government doesn’t control Jeff? What is it that you would say the Government should not regulate?

          • Jeff

            People’s bedrooms although in your case, bedroom activity is too awful to even imagine.

          • dalek

            So, as long as they are not in people’s bedroom then it is OK. Do you realize just how STUPID that sounds? You really want the Government to control what you eat, what you read, what you watch, where you can go, what hobbies you have and virtually everything else in your life. Really?

            You think I am a idiot, you, are worse. If you are willing to give the Government that much control over your life, then you just need to let them stick a joystick control on you. You are not a citizen, you are a Government slave. You are willing to give them control over 99% of your life. That is to me the most insane thing I could imagine.

          • Jeff

            “You really want the Government to control what you eat, what you read, what you watch, where you can go, what hobbies you have and virtually everything else in your life.”

            Where do you get this stuff? None of those things are, nor should be, controlled by the Government. It is interesting you bring up reading because that was something the conservatives had a lot of interest in back in the 50s and 60s. There’s still some issues with censorship in some school libraries, but for the most part the liberals have preserved your right to read any right wing garbage you want to.

          • dalek

            I came up with that from your post. I asked you, what you don’t think the Government should control. You said what happens in the bedroom. You did NOT list ANYTHING else. I should stop assuming you can read and understand anything since you can’t even understand the Constitution that has been around for over two hundred years.

            You want to expand that list of things you think the Government should NOT control now or do you still not understand the question?

            As to the library, I don’t think kids should be reading some books. No different than kids shouldn’t be watching some TV shows, movies or playing some video games.

          • Jeff

            We’re not talking about protecting kids from pornography or Hustler Magazine. You right wingers are afraid of history books that address the world from a vantage point other than that of white privilege. Afraid of Salinger, for Pete’s sake. Afraid to teach science in science class.

          • dalek

            Sounds more like you are the one scared. Why don’t you try reading a book about the history of this country and the Constitution? You sure could learn a lot.

          • Zenphamy

            To those that continue to read and respond to Jeff. You’ve allowed and encouraged Jeff to change the direction of the conversation and obfuscate the entire conversation. This conversation really started out wrong in the first place by being titled with the words 2nd Amendment Rights. The 2nd Amendment tells the U. S. Government ‘WHAT IT CAN’T DO’, not what WE can do.
            We only waste our efforts and time by getting drawn into this type of argument. Don’t any of us remember the story of Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby.
            Please get back to the points of this article and offer some rational reasons why/why not any of the inalienable rights of citizens of the US should ever be touched in any way by politicians and bureaucrats in violation of the entire Constitution and founding principles of the country.
            Yesterday the Supreme Court heard arguments on further restricting 4th and 5th Amendment CAN’T DOS on government’s requirements in obtaining evidence to use against us. The government wants to be allowed to forcefully take blood from us without having to obtain a warrant justified with probable cause.
            When are any of you going to understand that the Government is not some omniscient being that knows best or knows anything, it’s our fellow citizens and our neighbors that believe as Jeff does, that they know better and in many ways fear those of us that just wish to live our lives as we wish and believe that our neighbors should also have that ability, as long as they don’t encroach on our ability.

          • dalek

            Thing is, every time Jeff posts, he shows either ignorance or stupidity, sometimes worse but anyway. People like Jeff trust the Government when history shows, that is the LAST thing you trust. People like Jeff will never understand that until they are like the Jews in Germany and being prodded into the buses or cattle cars for the ride to the mass graves. Then it hits them, that is what people were trying to tell me about the 2nd Amendment. If I had a gun, I could at least die trying and on my feet instead of on my knees begging.

            Anyone think there will be a court challenge to goofy O’s orders today?

            I have already read that there is nowhere near enough support in the Congress and Senate for weapons ban or limits. Even the Senate’s head goof admitted that.

          • Jeff

            You are crazy. Even conservatives like Joe Scarborough realize that. You’re going to take on the government with your stupid gun? Like I’m Spiderman! All your gun is good for is killing innocent kids. Make your “arguments” to those parents in Connecticut or the hundreds of others killed in the past month.

            And the ridiculous things you accuse me of. I’m in favor of the Government controlling every aspect of your life because I don’t think we need AR-15s on our city streets? And you want to limit books in libraries but not guns in the hands of maniacs. You guys are only hurting your own cause. Keep talking and the whole country will realize just how extreme and crazy you guys are. GOP = Guns Over People.

          • Zenphamy

            Maybe you’re right to provide a venue for Jeff to demonstrate the level of ignorance of he and his ilk of the history of the men who founded this country and the benefits we have gained from their insights and brilliance, but he only subtracts from the conversation.
            Please take a quick look at Rand Paul’s latest info on the current status of the UN Small Arms Treaty progress and the opportune timing of Sandy Hook grasped so quickly by Obama and his forces..

          • Jeff

            Guns have nothing to do with it. People had guns when we rounded up the Japanese during World War II. People had guns during the “Red Scare” in the 50s when Conservatives like Joe McCarthy ran rampant sliming the reputations of people. Lots of people couldn’t work during that period. Their guns did them no good. What might have helped would have been a bit more courage on the part of the general public. Exactly the same as in Nazi Germany except we’ve never had a Government even 1% as repressive as that. If you are going to gauge every Government action as the step leading up to Nazi Germany, you will never convince more than a handful of people you’re not just cranks.

            First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out–
            Because I was not a Socialist.
            Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out–
            Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
            Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–
            Because I was not a Jew.
            Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me.

            Notice the absence in Neimoller’s poem of any mention of a gun – because your gun is irrelevant to your desire to be free of government tyranny!!!!!

          • Zenphamy

            I didn’t say anything about Nazi’s. You’re arguing with yourself.

          • dalek

            He’s good at that. lol

          • Jeff

            “Thing is, every time Jeff posts, he shows either ignorance or stupidity, sometimes worse but anyway. People like Jeff trust the Government when history shows, that is the LAST thing you trust. People like Jeff will never understand that until they are like the Jews in Germany and being prodded into the buses or cattle cars for the ride to the mass graves.”

            It seems to me I already responded to this post because someone accused me of bringing up the Nazis. Maybe one of your acolytes didn’t understand the reference to “Jews in Germany.” I do not think you can credibly support your thesis that the Nazis would have left the Jews alone if only they’d been armed or that somehow it would have been a stand-off. Given that history, if guns made the difference, you’d think that Jews, many of whom live with a suitcase mentality (always ready to flee the new Nazis), would own lots of guns. I know exceedingly few Jews who have guns in the house. It just isn’t done.

            The gun thing is cultural, primarily with Southerners. I get that. You guys like having shotguns and rifles around. That’s fine in rural areas, but on the streets of New York or Chicago? Come on. If you think your AR-15 will protect you from the might of the Government, you are sadly mistaken.

          • dalek

            If the Jews had been armed, they could at least have resisted and you can’t say that things would not have been different either. Since they were disarmed, we will never know will we? They were likely NEVER as armed as Americans are either.

            The Founders know this. They know that as long as the people are armed, they can stand up to the Government and win. The Founders had just recently done just that.

            ” `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.” [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]

            “To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.” [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]

            As I have said MANY times, you are nowhere near as intelligent as the Founders.

          • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

            No, most are not as well educated. But your answer was totally correct!

            Thank you for bothering to know what the US Constitution is, and what the founders themselves said about it!!

          • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

            “I know exceedingly few Jews who have guns in the house. It just isn’t done.”

            Then you must know exceedingly few Jews. Eceryone I know is armed – they just do not make that knowledge public because they are VERY aware of what corrupt people in place in governments are capable of doing.

            Obama supports Agenda 21 and has been working to haev it implemented here in the USA. Agenda 21 is for “depopulation”. If you are unsure of what that word means: it means mass killings, this time of humans because they feel the world is overpopulated (democide), so they get rid of the ones THEY feel are the wrong type of “humans”.

            It really helps to study history on your own, instead of what the progressive schools spponfed you to believe.

          • Jeff

            The same ones who vote Republican. Their grandfathers are spinning in their graves.

          • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

            “The same ones who vote Republican. Their grandfathers are spinning in their graves.”
            (in response to gun owning jews)

            Actually you must have missed out on Hitler’s germany section of History. Their grandfathers would be extremely upset if they allowed it to happen again. Most who are still lving recognize what is happening in our country as they lived through it before.

            UN’s Agenda 21, which Obama supports in every way he can, lists “depopulation” of humans. If you are not sure what that means – it is also called “genocide”, democide, mass murders, etc.

            To get an idea of what is in store for us here in the USA, go watch ‘Innocents Betrayed’ on gun control. Do not eat while doing so. It is full length and quite graphic.
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUmKT43j4Tc

          • Jeff

            If you don’t think we have a problem with guns in this country, you are, indeed, loony. Now, what are the limits of your rights under the 2nd Amendment? Even the 1st Amendment has limits (e.g. child pornography, yelling “fire,” crank calls to 911). If you think the 2nd Amendment is unlimited because we have to be as well armed as the Army, I think you are insane and should fail a background check to even have a gun. Just my humble opinion.

          • Zenphamy

            Jeff, we don’t have a gun problem, we have a failure to address the problems of security from nuts and the failure of parents to take responsibility for or face the reality of problems with their children, even when pointed out to them by teachers and others. We have a failure of public policy that has generated the ghettos and dependent populations from which the vast majority of gun deaths come from. We have a failure of progressive socialists as yourself, to understand that there exists in this world bad people and that often those bad people gain access to our public institutions through the ignorance of those same progressive socialists.
            You seem, in your humble opinion, to fail to comprehend that your beliefs about guns in your life are fine by me, but that your beliefs about my inalienable rights outside of your life are not fine. You also fail to comprehend that the 2nd Amendment was included in order to provide myself protection from you and your ilk. You also fail to understand that I will not hesitate to exercise my inalienable rights and defend others exercise of those rights as well, including you. Deal with it – don’t deal with it, but keep your ignorance and your laws out of my life.
            If my liberty, freedoms, and rights cause you fear, educate yourself. It’s not me or others like me that have ever threatened or intruded on others nor will it ever be. It’s always been your type that seems to want to control a freeman by placing the chains of your imposed limits on him, emboldened by the fear mongering from the bad in government that you seem so willing to blindly accept.
            There are more deaths and injuries in this country from hammers and blunt instruments than from guns. There are more deaths and injuries in this country and throughout the history of the world from ignorance than from all other causes.

          • Jeff

            First of all, the post I was replying to, whether from you or Dalek or some other gun nut, specifically made reference to the rounding up of the Jews with the not-so-subtle hint that that was facilitated because they had no guns. I quoted Neimoller to point out it was the lack of interest and courage by their fellow citizens that made the Holocaust so easy. Guns would not have made a difference to ordinary citizens. For those in the underground who were trained fighters, sure weapons make a difference. Most people are not soldiers.

            Are you suggesting I’m more responsible for the Connecticut shooting than the NRA and the gun manufacturers whose bribes and threats have led us to where we are today – more than 300 million guns, many of them military-style and with a hands-off policy on even the most basic restrictions like background checks? If you are, you’re even crazier than I first thought.

          • dalek

            Do you support schools being “gun free zones”? If you do, you have some responsibility on your hands as do a lot of others. If a few teachers/staff at Sandy Hook had a gun, this could have ended with a LOT less dead. Case in point, Pearl MS school shooting. It was stopped, not by police, but by the principal of the school running to his car and getting his gun. That was when it stopped. What if the same could have happened at Sandy Hook? What if a teacher/staff had a gun and could have stopped this shooting when there was only one or two dead? One or two is bad but it is not as bad as a dozen or so either. Oh, the kid in Pearl MS, he lived. He was tried. It got to answer to the law for what he did. Most commit suicide and there is not trial. They never answer to the law.

            http://www.cnn.com/US/9806/12/school.shooting.verdict/

            Outlawing guns does NOT work. Look at Chicago IL? Look at Newtown CT. They have very strict gun laws but murders still happen and the shooting at Sandy Hook happened where there are also strict gun laws. Then you look at places that have people armed, some without even a permit, and crime is much lower. Look at Keenesaw GA. Their city law says every home MUST have a gun with a few exceptions for felons and such. Crime there is very low. Google it and see for your self. You don’t have to take my word for it. Heck, that little town has been on the news lately because people had no idea how good it is for crooks to KNOW every home is ARMED. Break into a home there, you meet resistance, quickly. You may even meet your maker, real soon.

            I’m just wondering when people are going to realize what most everyone else already knows. The places with the lowest crime rates are where guns are allowed. The places with the highest crime rates, have gun control. Real simple.

          • Jeff

            Teachers with guns? Are you completely out of your mind? Where would the guns be stored? Teachers are not soldiers no matter what you’ve seen in a Treat Williams movie. Even Wayne LaPierre didn’t go quite that far. You gun nuts will consider any option so long as you’re not inconvenienced in the least. You want 100 rounds in a clip because you want it. You sound like a 2 year old. You have lots of rights but no responsibility for anything. The country will not be perpetually held hostage to your culture of gun death. We’ve had 900 people killed with guns in the last month! If you don’t see that as a problem, nothing I can say will make a difference.

            Maybe when your grandson has an accident with that gun you have for family protection, you’ll get your head out of your *ss.

          • Mark

            You don’t need to “store” your guns. You can do the same as the teachers in Israel do: they wear them at their hip. Teachers there do more than teach, they protect as well.

          • Jeff

            Mark:

            First, Israel is very different from the U.S. The teachers have all had military training, and Israel is in a perpetual war-like posture with people just a few miles away.

            Second, it’s simply not true that all or most Israeli teachers carry guns.

            http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/23572/Default.aspx

          • Mark

            Jeff, your liberal facts are fantansies. Quoting an organization that clearly has not researched the issue only shows your own ignorance and lack of research. In reality, the Israeli government is GIVING AWAY guns to teachers.

            In many ways, the active shooter scenario in Israel is the main event that Israeli school systems guard against. It is no different than what we are experiencing here in the US. And from what we already know regarding active shooter events here in the U.S., almost all of them conclude with the shooter taking his own life the moment he is challenged by the first officer on the scene, so the question immediately comes to mind: “Why not challenge him earlier?”

            All of you liberals piss off the majority of America because of your recalcitrant attitudes toward guns which are responsible for the deaths of so many of our children in the place that they should feel the safest!!

            It would seem clear that if they are going to commit suicide as soon as they are confronted by someone with equal force, then we need to make sure that such force is readily available and evident at each and every school. The sooner they are confronted, the sooner they do us all a favor.

            Do we continue to strengthen background checks and devise a better system for keeping guns out of the hands of people who are crazy? Of course. But just like all wars, you cannot win on all fronts, unless you are active on all fronts.

          • Jeff

            “Do we continue to strengthen background checks and devise a better system for keeping guns out of the hands of people who are crazy?”

            Not according to the NRA despite the fact over 90% of the country approves of such background checks. And what good are background checks as long as gun show sales aren’t monitored. We will see if the House Republicans can pretend they are legislators and not lobbyists for the gun industry long enough to pass meaningful legislation. I have my doubts. If not, then GOP really does mean Guns Over People.

          • Mark

            Mark: “Do we continue to strengthen background checks and devise a better system for keeping guns out of the hands of people who are crazy?”

            Jeff: “Not according to the NRA despite the fact over 90% of the country approves of such background checks”

            The NRA has never been against strong background checks, but have repeatedly called for strengthening provisions to weed out the incompetent who are crazy. http://times247.com/articles/nra-embraces-concept-of-background-checks

            Jeff: “And what good are background checks as long as gun show sales aren’t monitored. We will see if the House Republicans can pretend they are legislators and not lobbyists for the gun industry long enough to pass meaningful legislation. I have my doubts. If not, then GOP really does mean Guns Over People.”

            You’re being a partisan hack, and those comments confirm it. You built your straw man (that house Republicans MUST pass meaningful legislation), and now you are waiting for them to do exactly the opposite so that you can say, “See, I told you they would never pass meaningful legislation!!!”

            The fact is, “meaningful legislation” to a liberal like you is nothing more than a complete ban of all firearms, so there would never be anything “meaningful” that would issue forth from a Republican.

          • Jeff

            “The fact is, “meaningful legislation” to a liberal like you is nothing more than a complete ban of all firearms, so there would never be anything “meaningful” that would issue forth from a Republican.”

            That is simply untrue. No democrat is proposing such a thing, and it will never happen. Meaningful legislation could just be about background checks AND closing the gun show “loophole.” I don’t see the NRA backing even that. I would also like to see a limit on firing capacity and clip size but don’t expect the Republicans to go along.

            This has to be done at the federal level because local and state laws are meaningless if people can bring in these crazy weapons from other states. You can say the NRA is for something, but their actions over the years have been to weaken the efforts of the ATF to do its job. They even snuck language into the Patriot Act (a truly fascistic bill) requiring that the ATF Director be confirmed by the Senate. The result is no ATF director for 6 years. The NRA is happiest when there is no regulation of guns or anyone seeking to purchase one. We will see if the House Republicans can disobey their masters.

          • dalek

            They are not proposing it, but it is EXACTLY what they want in the end. This is a from a earlier post of mine:
            [quote]
            “If I could’ve gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — Mr. and Mrs. America turn ‘em all in — I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.”

            That is Senator Dianne Feinstein’s own words on a 60 minutes interview. You can try to tell me that is not what the liberals want if you want but again, that only proves you to be the fool. That is EXACTLY what they want.
            [/quote]

            See, like I said, you NEVER learn. You have already been told what she said yet it doesn’t fit your goals so you ignore it. Just like all liberals, you think you can take baby steps and we won’t notice. This should let you know that you are NOT fooling anyone but yourself. We see what you want and you will NOT get it. EVER.

            One last time. Are you ever going to learn anything or do you plan to be ignorant forever?

          • Jeff

            You NRA morons won’t be satisfied until guns are as ubiquitous as water. You treat EVERY proposal for reasonable regulation of guns like it’s the camel’s nose under the tent. No one is proposing a total ban and even if they did, it would NEVER happen. Your side’s refusal to compromise is proof of your failure to deal honestly with the issue. If guns end up being banned at some point in the future, it will not be because of the desires of liberals but because of the public’s overreaction to you gun nuts.

          • dalek

            I see you have no comment about the quote tho. You can’t think of a response that is on point? Is your brain in neutral or what? You think you have a answer for everything, care to comment on what she said? That is one of your precious democrats you know. She gets in front of the camera for them on guns and such quite often.

            I’m not a member of the NRA. Once again, you are making a COMPLETE FOOL of yourself. I may join now tho, just because they do more good for this country than you can even dream of. One more link, not that you will be able to understand anything there but anyway.

            http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/gun_control/65_see_gun_rights_as_protection_against_tyranny

            Just so you know, I WILL NEVER COMPROMISE ON THE CONSTITUTION. YOU GET THAT!!

          • Jeff

            Rasmussen is the Republican polling outfit. Their polls consistently gave Romney more support than he actually had. And the question asked contained the answer they were seeking:

            6* The Second Amendment to the Constitution provides Americans with the right to own a gun. Is the purpose of the Second Amendment to ensure that people are able to protect themselves from tyranny?

            They didn’t ask why we have the 2nd amendment nor did they ask a multiple choice question. If you ask someone a question like that, of course a lot will say yes, who wants tyranny? This poll is about as valid as my saying my survey on the internet shows 75% of all bloggers are Neanderthals.

          • dalek

            Well, that is the most recent poll. Since you know so much, where is your poll?

            The point is, the majority of people support the 2nd Amendment AND they understand WHY it is there. Sure, some people, including myself, don’t mind a background check but do NOT even think you will undermine the Constitution.

          • Jeff

            Saying you support the 2nd Amendment begs the question and means nothing. The 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution and doesn’t need your “support.” It’s a matter of how one interprets the 2nd Amendment. Is it absolutely unlimited? If so, it’s the only Amendment that is.

          • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

            “It’s a matter of how one interprets the 2nd Amendment.”

            You are incorrect – there is NO interpreting the US Constitution. It is very precise and clear to anyone who has a modicum of education.

            If you want a court to support that, there are many:

            Cockrum v. State: “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.”

            U.S. v. Emerson, 46 F.Supp.2d 598, N.D.Tex. 1999: “Collective rights theorists argue that addition of the subordinate clause qualifies the rest of the amendment by placing a limitation on the people’s right to bear arms. However, if the amendment truly meant what collective rights advocates propose, then the text would read “[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the States to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” However, that is not what the framers of the amendment drafted. The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences therefrom, shows that the function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected. The right exists independent of the existence of the militia. If this right were not protected, the existence of the militia, and consequently the security of the state, would be jeopardized.”

            Nunn vs. State : “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.”

            Founding fathers or framers:

            Thomas Jefferson: “On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

            William Rawle, author of “A View of the Constitution of the United States of America” which was adopted as a constitutional law textbook at West Point and other institutions. Rawle was not only a respected constitutional authority; he was the only early commentator who actually voted to ratify the Bill of Rights: “The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both”.
            Rawle writes neither the states nor the national government has legitimate authority to disarm its citizens.

            Samuel Adams: “And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …”.

            Richard Henry Lee, Senator, 1st Congress: “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” And “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves … and include all men capable of bearing arms.”

            John Adams: “You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe”

            Thomas Jefferson: “Tyranny thrives where gov’t need not fear the wrath of an armed populace”

            Abraham Lincoln: “We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.”

            Saint George Tucker; Supreme Court has cited St. George Tucker, a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court judge, in over forty cases. Tucker is found in the major cases of virtually every Supreme Court era: “The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people;…”

            Tucker: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.”

            Patrick Henry: “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”

            Daniel Webster: “Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war in which the folly and wickedness of the government may engage itself? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest right of personal liberty? Who will show me any Constitutional injunction which makes it the duty of the American people to surrender everything valuable in life, and even life, itself, whenever the purposes of an ambitious and mischievous government may require it? … A free government with an uncontrolled power of military conscription is the most ridiculous and abominable contradiction and nonsense that ever entered into the heads of men.”

            Alexander Hamilton: “… Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped…”

            Tench Coxe wrote: “Who are the militia? are they not ourselves… Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American…The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people”.

            Tench Coxe published his “Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution,” Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 where he asserted that it’s the people (as individuals) with arms, who serve as the ultimate check on government:
            “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”

            Justice Story, Supreme Court Associate Justice: Regarding the Second Amendment, he wrote of the 2nd Amendment:

            The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.’

          • Jeff

            Yes, you are absolutely correct. The Constitution speaks for itself in all matters. We need no Courts to interpret it. All we need do is ask you what it means. In fact, no law school should be permitted to teach Constitutional Law as the Constitution’s meaning is self-evident. What’s cruel and unusual punishment? Whatever KB says it is.

          • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

            Ahh, you could not come up with a comment so are attacking me. That is okay. Let me prove it to you that the Constitution is easy to understand, this lists the duties of the President:

            Article. II, Executive Branch
            Section. 1
            The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America…

            Section. 2
            The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
            He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
            The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

            Section. 3
            He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

            Do you understand a US president’s duties?

          • Jeff

            I know you reject the concept out of hand, but sobeit. The Constitution is more than the actual document. In effect, it includes all the decisions interpreting it over the years. The presidency is a very different office now from what it was in the 19th Century. The Congress has effectively ceded to the president the power to make war, though keeping some vestiges. This is partly a recognition that the speed of events in the modern world requires someone able to make instant decisions without lengthy deliberation. Your argument is with modernity. If you really think your arguments are valid, file a lawsuit and have them tested in the Supreme Court. The current Court is probably the most conservative it’s ever been, so this is your opportunity.

          • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

            Jeff, you are aware that the Supreme Court is … wait for it … wait for it .. part of the federal government! It is one of the three branches of the federal government.

          • Jeff

            That’s deep, man.

          • dalek

            Excellent post.

          • Jeff

            Here’s the poll I referenced.

            http://www.scribd.com/doc/120711121/CBS-News-New-York-Times-Poll

            You can disagree with me and I may be wrong, but I don’t make stuff up.

          • dalek

            Your poll proves my point not yours. As I have said, I don’t mind a background check myself. I bought a rifle not long ago, about the time of the Sandy Hook shooting. I walked in, did the background check, paid for the rifle and walked out the door with it. No problem. The background check took like 5 minutes. Heck, I spent more time tha tthat looking at the rifle before deciding it was what I wanted.

            I do like that your poll also proves another point. 74% of people think having armed guards at school would reduce mass shootings either some or a lot. Only about 25% think it wouldn’t help. You are in the 25% part.

            So, your own poll proves my point not yours. Again, you just can’t understand anything can you? Your own poll supports what I and others have been saying and you can’t even see it. Jeez, you just can’t get it can you?

          • Jeff

            I don’t doubt that you do support full background checks. How about closing the gun show loophole? The thing is the NRA (which represents the economic interests of gun manufacturers and not the interests of “sportsmen” as it likes to portray) will oppose anything that threatens the manufacturers’ profits. They may say they’ll back background checks in theory, but when it comes to specifics, they’ll always oppose any reasonable measures to keep guns out of the wrong people’s hands. I just hope Mayor Bloomberg funds a counterweight organization that can “bury” the NRA and Mr. LaPierre.

            BTW: My intelligence is not the issue. The founders wrote the Constitution in language requiring interpretation each generation. It’s true of the 1st Amendment, the Commerce Clause, the 4th Amendment, the 5th Amendment, the 8th Amendment, the 14th Amendment, etc. Why do you think the 2nd Amendment needs no interpretation? What is the meaning of “bear arms”? You’ve cited decisions from the 19th Century (not written by the founders, by the way) suggesting civilians should be able to carry the same weapons they did as soldiers. Well, that was a long time ago and we’re a very different country now. Old understandings sometimes change. We no longer follow the reasoning of Plessy v. Ferguson (circa 1898) either. The Supreme Court will ultimately decide the issue and as radically conservative as 4 and sometimes 5 of the current Justices are, they will never say that “arms” include everything our soldiers use in Afghanistan. It is a Constitution, not a suicide pact.

            Now go tell your acolytes how stupid I am. I really don’t care what you think of me, but know that your opinion is so radical, so far out of the mainstream it would barely register in polling.

          • Mark

            Jeff says: “I just hope Mayor Bloomberg funds a counterweight organization that can “bury” the NRA and Mr. LaPierre.”

            Ahhhh, the extremist in you shows itself again. Somehow, in your convoluted manner of thinking, the NRA is qualitatively different than the average gun-supporting American. You fail to recognize that the NRA is made of of your average gun-supporting American. The NRA will not be “buried” because the American people will not allow the scumbags to do so.

            Cold, dead hands…….

          • Jeff

            Yes, Mark, they are. The NRA opposes things even a strong majority of its members supports because they don’t represent you. They are effectively lobbyists for the gun manufacturers.

          • Mark

            Jeff says: “Yes, Mark….The NRA opposes things even a strong majority of its members supports because they don’t represent you. They are effectively lobbyists for the gun manufacturers.”

            You’re just lying and making stuff up. You’re deliberately confusing polls of ALL Americans with polling of just NRA members. And your statement that they are effectively lobbyists for the gun manufacturers is a strawman. So what? Is that somehow bad that gun manufacturer’s rights are mirrored in those who buy their product?

            As is typical of Liberals, they look for any loophole that they can find and try to exploit it. If Liberals can somehow paint gun manufacturers as “evil”, then they can shut them down, thereby circumventing the whole argument of 2nd amendment rights.

          • dalek

            Jeff doesn’t understand that about 70% of Americans support the right to bear arms, period. He thinks he is the majority but he is not. Jeff is part of a VERY small percentage of idiots that think criminals will follow laws.

            Just so you know Jeff, the same laws apply at gun shows. If a gun dealer sells a gun at a gun show, that dealer has to do a background check same as he does if you go to his store. The only ones who does not have to do a background check is a individual who is selling his PERSONAL guns. If I sell a gun, I can sell it to anyone with no background check. I can do the same thing if I went to a gun show and sold a gun. I am a PRIVATE person, not a business.

            If you think making it so a private person has to do background checks is going to work, you are wrong. If a criminal is selling a gun he stole, he is NOT going to call the Government for permission before he sells the gun. Anyone who thinks that will work is just plain stupid. Given your posts, I bet you still think criminals will follow any new laws.

          • Jeff

            Thank you for making my point for me. All guns come from the same basic source – commerce. Criminals don’t get their guns from some special criminal store. they buy them at gun shows or they steal them from citizen gun owners like yourself. Obviously the government can’t effectively regulate back alley sales but it certainly can regulate the roughly 40% of gun sales that now go through without background checks, principally through these gun shows.

            So, the saying, “when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns” is partially true but only because of the tremendous number of guns in circulation. Had there been gun control 20 years ago, there would be far fewer guns in circulation.

            But no one is talking about confiscation. Even the “draconian” New York laws just put into place have a “grandfather” provision, so the “gun grabbing” mythology is just that – myth.

            Now call me a no good, lying, socialist, Muslim. I know the drill.

          • dalek

            You haven’t made any points. You make plenty of posts but you never make any points that we don’t already know. The points you do make, are wrong and proven as such either by me or others.

            EVERYTHING comes from commerce. Do you not know that? Are you really that bad off? Guns like everything else are made then sold. Same can be said for TV, cars, computers, houses and anything else we have. The difference with guns is, there is a Constitution Amendment that protects our right to own one. Liberals hate that.

            As I said, gun dealers at gun shows already have to do background checks. The same laws that apply outside of gun shows applies inside gun shows. Guns show are no different than any other place

            Now call me a moron or right wing extremists. I know the drill to. Thing is, YOU ARE STILL WRONG. We are STILL RIGHT. You have not changed one single thing in all your posts except to prove you have a very limited amount of thinking skills and no knowledge of guns.

            Keep in mind, every time you post, you remove all doubt about a big a idiot you are. You literally make a fool out of yourself.

          • Jeff

            “EVERYTHING comes from commerce. Do you not know that? Are you really that bad off? Guns like everything else are made then sold. Same can be said for TV, cars, computers, houses and anything else we have. The difference with guns is, there is a Constitution Amendment that protects our right to own one. Liberals hate that.

            As I said, gun dealers at gun shows already have to do background checks. The same laws that apply outside of gun shows applies inside gun shows. Guns show are no different than any other place”

            Do you purposely misconstrue what people write or do you have dyslexia? The right wing argument has always been that if you “ban” certain guns, only criminals will have them. where will they get them is my question. Obviously, because we have so many it will take time for their numbers to decrease. What if we had done something 20 years ago? Would we still have this many assault weapons? I know you’ll pretend you don’t understand me, but I believe you’re brighter than you let on.

            Second, what weapons does the 2nd Amendment protect your right to own? Is it everything the military has? That’s the issue – not whether Obama is going to issue an Executive Order suspending the amendment!!! Is there a limitation that Congress or the Courts can imply from the language of the Amendment? You can call me stupid all day but that will still be the issue. I have heard Scalia say he thinks it applies only to weapons that can be carried. Does that include machine guns? We’ll have to wait for the Supreme Court to rule.

            And where do you get the idea that there is not a gun show loophole? What do you think all the discussion is about. My information is that approximately 40% of all gun sales do not involve a background check and I’m not talking about back alley sales.

          • Dale

            well ole boy you were manufactured so where in the commerce line do you fall ? I do wish people would quit screwing up the English language (Assault weapon) I can make assault
            weapon out of a toothbrush , a pencil, ink pen.. the meaning of assault is to prevent someone from going about their lawful way when you touch them it becomes battery. but back to your mom and dad manufactering you I do want to know where in the commerce you fall. even tho it is done in some places the last I knew it was illegal to buy and sell people.

          • dalek

            Gun Control: Myths and Realities

            “2. Gun shows are responsible for a large number of firearms falling into the hands of criminals.

            False. Contrary to President Clinton’s claims, there is no “gun show loophole.” All commercial arms dealers at gun shows must run background checks, and the only people exempt from them are the small number of non-commercial sellers. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, at most 2 percent of guns used by criminals are purchased at gun shows, and most of those were purchased legally by people who passed background checks.”

            http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myths-realities

            As usual, WRONG AGAIN. Man, PLEASE, GROWN A FREAKIN BRAIN. Jeez, you are stupid. That is over 12 years old. This was proven WRONG over a DECADE ago. There is no gun show loop hole. Period. IT IS A PRIVATE SALE. There was none when that study was done and there still isn’t.

            My opinion, “arms” means anything you can carry. I believe the 1930′s law violates the 2nd Amendment. I also believe the law that prevents felons from having guns is also unconstitutional, although I like the idea. The 2nd Amendment says “shall not be infringed’. It does NOT say “shall not be infringed except for felons.” The only reason I go along with it, they also loose their right to vote among other rights. Also, it doesn’t affect me or others who use their guns legally.

            I don’t misconstrue what anyone writes, you do tho.

            See, you keep saying that there are so many guns out there is the reason gun control doesn’t work. What you are saying in a round about way is this, we need to ban ALL guns for this to work. The thing people like you don’t get is this, criminals will NEVER give up their guns. Look at Chicago, New York and any other city where guns are highly restricted. You will see a higher crime rate as I have shown you many times before.

            One thing for sure, you are still not learning. You still post things that are wrong and it is provable. Why do you want to keep posting and making yourself look so stupid? Why do you ignore it when you are proven wrong? When someone, myself included, posts something that corrects you, you just ignore it. I have proven you wrong on every post you make. When are you going to get enough? Either learn something, or shut the heck up. Jeez.

          • Jeff

            I’m really getting tired of your diatribes about everyone who disagrees with you being stupid. New York and Chicago are very different.

            http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/02/chicago-murder-rate-surges-as-new-york-s-drops-to-record-low.html

          • Jeff

            Since you’re so brilliant, you must already know about this.

            http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Gun-show-loophole-visible-in-Las-Vegas-4208818.php

          • dalek

            You expect me to rely on the San Francisco news paper for true facts? That liberal rag CERTAINLY has a agenda. You also fail to notice, IT IS A PRIVATE SALE. A private person does not have to do background checks. Actually, THEY CAN’T do background checks.

            http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/12/about-that-gun-show-loophole/

            “But there are also other folks there who may only have a few – or even one – gun for sale. Some of them are collectors who are getting rid of their collections. Others may simply no longer have a need for their old hunting rifle and could use the cash. And they largely don’t have access to the system for doing an instant background check. That’s why the so called “loophole” exists. It isn’t a gun show loophole, it’s a private seller loophole.”

            and another:

            http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Gun-Shows.htm

            Gun Show Loophole

            In 33 states, private gun owners are not restricted from selling guns at gun shows. Buyers who purchase guns from individuals are not required to submit to the federal background checks in place for licensed dealers. Critics say that firearms can be obtained illegally as a result, calling it the “gun show loophole.” Proponents of unregulated gun show sales say that there is no loophole; gun owners are simply selling or trading guns at the shows as they would do at their residence.

            Federal legislation has attempted to put an end to the so-called loophole by requiring all gun show transactions to take place through FFL dealers. Most recently, a 2009 bill attracted several co-sponsors in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. However, Congress ultimately failed to take up consideration of the legislation.

            Gun Shows by State

            A total of 11 states require background checks for at least some gun purchases at gun shows. Seven of those states require background checks for all gun purchases, while four states require background checks for only handgun purchases.

            The seven states requiring background checks for all purchases include:

            California
            Colorado
            Connecticut
            Illinois
            New York
            Oregon
            Rhode Island

            So, in California, where San Francisco is, background check are required FOR ALL SALES. Looks like your so called link is wrong. If you live in California, you have to do background checks. Looks like only dealers can sell at gun shows.

            This is the exact sort of thing you try to pull. It is also the reason I say you are the stupidest person I have ever discussed anything with. Why not find some real facts. Until then, stop posting crap.

          • Jeff

            While I don’t have a Ph.D. in math, I believe that leaves 43 states where there is a “gun show loophole.” And I haven’t seen too much evidence of gun shows here in California; it’s mostly a Texas and Southern thing. So, someone can organize a gun show in Las Vegas or in Dallas, invite a bunch of willing sellers and willing buyers, make lots of money either from selling space or charging admission, and the sales are “private.” How is that different from the back alley sales? If the private seller can’t run a background check, I guess it’s up to the person or organization running the gun show. So, what did the SF paper (not the Chronicle, by the way) get wrong?

          • Jeff

            “So, in California, where San Francisco is, background check are required FOR ALL SALES. Looks like your so called link is wrong. If you live in California, you have to do background checks. Looks like only dealers can sell at gun shows.

            This is the exact sort of thing you try to pull. It is also the reason I say you are the stupidest person I have ever discussed anything with. Why not find some real facts. Until then, stop posting crap.”

            Your personal insults are getting really old. The gun show the SF paper was talking about was in Las Vegas, not in California. No background checks required. None required in Texas apparently either. The point is there are plenty of places where there is, whether de jure or de facto, a gun show loophole. If 40% of gun sales are without background checks, I don’t know WTF you’re complaining about. You like to find some pedantic point you can make to support your idiotic position that no legislation is needed. There are probably no gun shows in San Francisco. That is correct. It is also completely irrelevant to this discussion. Go talk to your acolyrtes who will happily lap up whatever crap you post about how you need the biggest gun in town so you can be a real man. I’m done with you.

          • dalek

            What you don’t like is being proven wrong, time and time again. I was done with you a long time ago. You have proven you are stupid and intend to stay that way. That is why the others stopped posting because you have nothing to prove and nothing to prove anything with.

            Gun laws do not work. Accept it. Criminals are going to get guns even if they have to steal them which is what almost all of them do anyway. No law is going to stop that.

          • dalek

            Oh, the NY gun law. They were in such a hurry, they forgot to except law enforcement. It was on the news last night. COPS are having to remove bullets from their guns to keep from breaking the law. Odds are they won’t do anything but it is still illegal for them to have more than the limit. Imagine, COPS having to take out bullets or be criminals themselves.

            Also, no grandfather clause either.

            http://theintelhub.com/2013/01/15/ny-state-senate-oks-gun-ban-no-grandfather-clause/

            So, if you bought a gun a few months ago with a 10 round clip/magazine, it is now illegal. This is another site that says they can’t find any grandfather clause.

            http://www.policymic.com/articles/23367/new-york-gun-control-toughest-gun-laws-in-america-won-t-solve-anything

            “The limitations on cartridges made sense when it was being reduced from 30 rounds to 10 in past laws, but this law reduces it by only 3 and forces every gun owner to now go through the trouble of selling off their 10 round cartridges (a standardized size) out of state within a year. It also redefines the definition of an assault weapon, meaning many gun owners are now in possession of illegal weapons. I couldn’t find anything in the text of the law that grandfather’s in legal weapons owned before this bill, though these things are tough to read and I may have missed it.”

            So, it seems you are wrong yet again. So far, no one seems to be able to find the Grandfather clause plus this affects the cops too. If you have a gun that holds more than 7 rounds, you better get rid of it quick. Just so you know, my Moms old .22 pistol holds 9 rounds. I guess it would be illegal too. If we lived in the sewer of New York, my 80 year old Mom would have to go to jail.

          • Jeff

            I haven’t seen the actual legislation and was relying on news reports.

          • Jeff

            It has been my experience that people who call those who disagree with them liars are really not worth conversing with. If you don’t know a disagreement from a lie, go back to preschool and let me know when you are capable of adult conversation.

          • Mark

            Jeff says: “It has been my experience that people who call those who disagree with them liars are really not worth conversing with.”

            You’re absolutely right. Every post you make is an accusation that others are misrepresenting the truth. You can dish it out quite well, buy your’e pathetically sensitive when others serve you up your own dish.

            Not only myself, but others, have shown you facts, which you deliberately ignore as if nothing was ever said. This is a despicable form of lying which you practice so often that you have honed it to a real science.

            When others answer your challenge to accept a specific aspect of gun control, and they AGREE WITH YOU, you brush it off and make some ludicrous statement that the NRA is a lobbyist for the Gun Manufacturers. Another despicable lie.

            You make outlandish statements that have absolutely no basis in reality. When others challenge you, you fail to support them with anything resembling a study – instead you make believe that no one ever challenged you on your outlandish statement.

            But each of those types of LIES are typical tactics of a Liberal. I’d tell you to grow up, but the sad fact is that you have a malaise much like the child that stops growing, and even at 30 years old is still the size of a 2 or 3-year old child. Only in your malady, you never learned how to tell the truth.

            We (conservatives) have more fun watching you do each of these types of lies, but I think the most evil type of lie is when you take and project your malady back against those you “debate” with. That kind of lie is harder to laugh at, but we keep on telling ourselves that, “Well, he’s a Liberal, and he has that malaise.”

          • Jeff

            “When others answer your challenge to accept a specific aspect of gun control, and they AGREE WITH YOU, you brush it off and make some ludicrous statement that the NRA is a lobbyist for the Gun Manufacturers. Another despicable lie.”

            What can be expected of someone led by someone like Paul Broun who considers all modern science “lies straight from the pit of Hell”? You can disagree with anything anyone says providing you have some reason to disagree. Calling everything you disagree with a lie just demonstrates your own immaturity.

          • Mark Pepin

            ///Jeff says: “What can be expected of someone led by someone like Paul Broun who considers all modern science “lies straight from the pit of Hell”?///

            This is the kind of nonsense that reveals the length that you will misrepresent the truth just to make a stupid debate “point”. For starters, who is being “led by someone like Paul Broun”? Secondly, you claim that Broun “considers all modern science [to be] “lies straight from the pit of Hell” “. Really? Broun is anti-science?

            So, you make an absurdly assinine statement like that, and you want us to believe that you tell the truth?

            ///Jeff: You can disagree with anything anyone says providing you have some reason to disagree. Calling everything you disagree with a lie just demonstrates your own immaturity.///

            Or, even better, it demonstrates the lack of maturity of the person TELLING the lies.

          • Jeff

            “This is the kind of nonsense that reveals the length that you will misrepresent the truth just to make a stupid debate “point”. For starters, who is being “led by someone like Paul Broun”? Secondly, you claim that Broun “considers all modern science [to be] “lies straight from the pit of Hell” “. Really? Broun is anti-science?”

            I really thought everyone (even those of you in the bubble) knew about this. Glad I could bring some light into your cave.

            http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2012/oct/07/republican-congressman-dismisses-evolution-video

          • Mark

            ///Jeff says: “What can be expected of someone led by someone like Paul Broun who considers all modern science “lies straight from the pit of Hell”?///

            ///Mark says: This is the kind of nonsense that reveals the length that you will misrepresent the truth just to make a stupid debate “point”.For starters, who is being “led by someone like Paul Broun”? Secondly, you claim that Broun “considers all modern science [to be] “lies straight from the pit of Hell” “. Really? Broun is anti-science? So, you make an absurdly assinine statement like that, and you want us to believe that you tell the truth?///

            ///Jeff replies: I really thought everyone (even those of you in the bubble) knew about this. Glad I could bring some light into your cave.

            http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2012/oct/07/republican-congressman-dismisses-evolution-video ///

            I should have known you would not refrain from spouting another lie. Being Pro-Creation is not “Anti-Science” by any stretch of the imagination, except in Bizzaro Liberal Land. Otherwise, he wouldn’t use technology or modern medicine. But clearly, as I stated in an earlier post, you don’t care who you defame, just as long as you score your little “points” in debate.

          • Jeff

            Does any actual information permeate the right wing bubble? Broun did not say God set everything in motion. No one would have a problem with such a statement. He said evolution, the big bang, even embryology are “lies from the pit of hell.” If that isn’t an attack on modern science, I don’t know what is. If that’s what the right wing thinks, is it any wonder the vast majority of Americans think you guys are absolutely nuts?

          • Mark Pepin

            ///Jeff says: Does any actual information permeate the right wing bubble?///

            Ad hominem.

            ///Jeff continues: Broun did not say God set everything in motion.///

            Strawman argument. Atheists don’t get to critique Christian arguments. They can only counter them with science. Apparently, you don’t have any.

            ///Jeff: No one would have a problem with such a statement.///

            Meaning, no atheist would have a problem with a statement that says “God used evolution.” ROFLMBO!!!

            ///More of Jeff: [Broun] said evolution, the big bang, even embryology are “lies from the pit of hell.” If that isn’t an attack on modern science, I don’t know what is.///

            You shoulda gone with the latter part, because that is more accurate – you don’t know what an attack on “modern” science is.

            ///Jeff continues his left-wing diatribe, attempting to score his little points: If that’s what the right wing thinks, is it any wonder the vast majority of Americans think you guys are absolutely nuts?///

            The vast majority of Americans agree with right wing ideas. Liberals make up less than 20 percent of the American electorate.

          • Jeff

            That’s a good way to avoid dealing with what everyone not on one of these loony sites already knows. The Republicans have become hostages to a southern, anti-intellectual, religious, idiotic base that denies everything it dislikes. You are entitled to your own opinions, stupid as they may be; you are not entitled to make up your own science.

          • Mark Pepin

            That’s the trouble with you Liberals: you don’t know how to engage in “point-counterpoint” which is kinda ironic, given that this is the name of the article that all this discussion has bounced off from. Instead, you Liberals give an ad hominem to every point. Your counterpoints are nothing more than personal attacks. Hopefully, one of these times, you might actually engage in discussion, instead of the petty, personal attacks you keep throwing out.

          • Jeff

            There is no basis for a discussion with someone who denies reality. We have people who study science for years and years, and then some right winger says he doesn’t believe any of it because it doesn’t sound like what it says in the Bible. Paul Broun is a medical doctor who doesn’t believe in one of the central tenets of modern biology – evolution. How does he think bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics but through evolution? Is he really that dense (unlikely) or does he have to pretend to be a rube to get the yahoo vote?

          • Mark Pepin

            If you want a rational discussion to ensue (something that you CLAIM you desire) then start actually giving a counterpoint to every point that you disagree with, instead of writing your editorial comments. Otherwise, we will just be reading your comments for humor.

          • Jeff

            If I see a serious post, I respond seriously. When I see name-calling, references to Nazis, etc., I respond accordingly.

          • dalek

            For the record, it was you that started with the name calling. Just like most liberals/progressives, you can dish out the name calling but you can’t handle it when several people point out that your ideas are wrong and either stupid or silly.

            I also find it odd that you ignore the serious points of a post then claim you are waiting for a serious post. I’m still waiting on you to post some serious facts.

          • Jeff

            Context is everything, my friend. If I write a serious post with which you disagree and you call me a moron for disagreeing with the Great Dalek, that is qualitatively different from my replying to a post full of asinine Obama is a Muslim, Socialist Traitor, blah, blah, and I reply the poster is nuts and should take his meds. One is an intellectual discussion cut short by rudeness; the other was never anything but venting.

            I know I’m wrong about this, too. Par for the course. I should just go along when your brethren call for armed insurrection and assassination. Captain America tried to have me removed from the site (I’d never get over it.) for objecting to language calling for armed insurrection and assassination. There is such a thing as going too far, and I don’t think it’s found in calling a lunatic a lunatic.

          • dalek

            I don’t recall ever mentioning Obama all by himself. If I did mention him, which I don’t recall doing, I also included both Bush’s and Clinton. I don’t recall ever saying Obama was a “Muslim, Socialist Traitor, blah, blah” either. If I did, point it out to me but I doubt you will find it in reply to one of your posts.

            You need to learn a LOT about context Jeff. When I or anyone else make a post that proves you wrong, you ignore that and then try to attack something else. So far, you have no points that survive real facts.

            The WHOLE point is this, gun control never works. It never makes crime drop and always makes it go higher. Until you get that in your head, you can’t have a serious FACT based discussion about guns. Myself and others have proved that point even with crime stats, not just from this country but from others as well. Gun control never works.

          • Jeff

            I just don’t accept your premise about guns. There are so many gun accidents or incidents where a kid gets the family gun and voila – no more family. Statistically, you’re more likely to be a victim of gun violence if you have a gun in the house. Burglars tend to come when people aren’t home so you don’t need to kill some kid looking for something he can turn into his next fix.

            Your disagreement does not equal proof. I’ve lived a long time and never owned a gun. My father grew up in a tough part of Brooklyn, and neither he nor his father who came here from Eastern Europe circa 1905 ever needed a gun. They lived a long time in tougher neighborhoods than I ever have and never owned a gun. So, culturally I probably don’t see eye to eye with you. But none of that is “proof.” This whole gun culture is a real problem, certainly in the cities. And you can’t say gun control in Chicago hasn’t worked when most of the guns there come from outside the jurisdiction.

            I know it’s not just guns. Canadians have lots of guns and have a much lower gun death rate than we do. But you can’t tell me more guns make people safer. I just don’t believe it. Maybe burglaries go down if every house is armed, but that’s not much of a trade-off.

          • Zenphamy

            Jeff; I hesitate to respond to you once again, but I’ve read this post of your’s and it’s content, more than anything else you’ve written the last several days offers a starting point for a possible real conversation.
            I can’t speak for the others but there’s a difference between you and I that’s important to point out and from that maybe start a more sensible and reasoned conversation. Your family came here in 1905 and was welcomed and given the opportunities to live and prosper in relative safety and liberty that wasn’t available to your Grandfather in Eastern Europe at that time, or even today. One immediate branch of my family goes back through Daniel Boone and the Scotts/Irish/Welch to the Carolinas, settling in the Apalachians and on into the wilderness areas of this new country before the Revolution, and after on throughout the rest of the U.S. with many involved in exploring and opening up those areas. I’m also 1/8 Creek with antecedents established in this country some 20,000 yrs ago. There’s as well been the addition along the way of genes from a lot of men such as your Grandfather.
            Your Grandfather escaped the problems of the Ottoman Empire and Imperial rulers as well as the near continuous warfare that’s plagued that part of the world for centuries. Those of us who were here before and helped establish this country for our own freedoms and liberties as well as those to come after like your Grandfather, welcomed with open arms and limitless opportunities for self realization those seeking a new way of life.
            But it took guns and “all the awful implements of war” and all the individual willingness and daring to wager their individual fortunes and lives to obtain those circumstances and to insure those benefits for their descendants and for your Grandfather. And throughout the majority of the following years, those guns and ‘all awful implements of war” continued to be used and to be a backstop against those in our civilization that didn’t want to recognize our individual rights and freedoms.
            Those others in our civilization that found themselves frustrated by the weapons and the individuals that were willing to stand up and say no, eventually developed the new tactics of getting into our institutions and from there continuing their assault for their own benefits. It is the very nature of man to include those that are unwilling or unable to educate themselves or work as hard as others and to envy the accomplishments of those that are willing and take pride in themselves. They continue to look for weaknesses to pry at hoping to gain enough advantage to allow them to take from those that have earned from individual effort.
            But the guns and the rights of the individual and the belief in freedom are still there. In some literature and estimates, the least number of armed citizens that are willing to stand up, say no, and fight back are 800,000. That minimal number is far in excess of what they can bring to bear in an attempt to force their wills. Even after their purchase over the last couple of years of 1.5 to 2 billion rounds of hollow point ammo, they face odds that are frightening to them. Their only chance is to drastically reduce or totally eliminate those weapons or to criminalize those that resist. Gaining the support of the many citizens such as yourself that have no experience or history with the proper use of weapons or just plain fear the existence of “all the awful implements of war” and can’t comprehend or understand non-government men that will if necessary take arms as an American citizen’s responsibility against any attempt at tyranny such as your Grandfather had to escape from, only serves those anti-freedom goals and provides NO safety for anyone.
            Your safety, instead of relying on the elimination of all weapons, really rests on maintaining your liberty, and on who holds the weapons. Do you really fear a freeman instead of the takers, whether on the streets or from your government? The proper availability and use of weapons by free citizens is the ONLY thing that will prevent a Sandy Hook, and will also stand to preserve your continued ability to participate in the life that your Grandfather put so much daring, effort and hopes for you into.

          • Jeff

            No one is talking about removing all weapons. No one. My choice to not have a gun and to not have my kids hang out with kids who keep guns in the house is my private decision. I fully recognize the cultural tradition, particularly in rural regions of the country, of keeping guns. My problem with the folks on this and other blogs is that some/many seem to believe that the 2nd Amendment, unlike any other right guaranteed by the Constitution, is without limitation. That, I believe, is the source of what I see as some pretty nutty statements.

            Whether the founders circa 1790 believed it was necessary and proper for ex-Revolutionary soldiers to maintain their weapons in case we were attacked as there was no standing Army, that world no longer exists. We are left with the words of the Constitution; we are not limited to the founders’ precise interpretations at all times. For example, the founders may have believed hanging a 15 year old for stealing a horse was a proper punishment. Our concepts of “cruel and unusual” have grown in the past 200+ years, and while the 8th Amendment still prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment.” the meaning of that term must necessarily evolve over time, Justice Scalia notwithstanding.

            Now, when interpreting the 2nd Amendment, there are at least 2 major issues. First, what is the meaning of the first clause and does it limit the second? Secondly, assuming the Amendment does guarantee a personal right to “bear arms,” what is the definition of bearing arms in the 2nd Amendment? Is it the same or fundamentally different from the Army’s “arms”? We now have an Army so you are not going to be called to take on the invading Canadians or Mexicans.

            The most troubling arguments are those about fighting the Government. First, it is absurd on its face. The Government’s power is too vast for privately held guns to take on. And assuming that is the purpose of your gun, then it means you do need arms equal in strength to what the Army has. Do you think that should mean everything? Individuals should have rocket launchers so they can take out aircraft? It’s a Constitution; not a suicide pact. I really think the vast majority of people (more than 90%) agree with me on this.

            If you think your protection against tyranny is based on your gun, then tyranny you will have. Our protections are based on our Constitutional protections (4th Amendment, 5th Amendment, 14th Amendment), our independent judiciary, and the universal belief in the Armed Forces in civilian rule. The only thing that stops the military from taking over the country is that it is unthinkable. Once these vigilantes and “militia” groups start their insurrection against an elected government they disagree with, a military takeover may no longer be so unthinkable. Think about it.

          • dalek

            Jeff wrote: “No one is talking about removing all weapons. No one.”

            Jeff, I have pointed out to you that Feinstein wants ALL guns. Do NOT lie and say that “no one” wants all guns. YES, they do and Feinstein specifically said so. She just says it in public but others want them too. Clinton is backing the UN treaty to try to get rid of guns. They are trying every way that they can to get ALL guns.

            Jeff wrote: “The most troubling arguments are those about fighting the Government. First, it is absurd on its face. The Government’s power is too vast for privately held guns to take on.”

            That is the EXACT reason for the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting, self defense or anything other than protecting the people from tyranny. I have shown this to you way to many times as have others. Will you EVER understand this?

            The post you made is yet another clueless post. It is based on your opinion but NOT actual facts or the Constitution. You just keep making yourself look like a total fool when you post these opinions as facts when they are VERY wrong and you have been shown they are wrong.

            While I am at it, if the people rise up, even 10 to 20% of them, the Federal Government would be HUGELY outnumbered. You best not count on the military to be on the Governments side either. They took a oath to defend the Constitution, not to follow unconstitutional orders. Some will but it will not be anywhere near enough.

            Again Jeff, you need to wake up and start seeing things the way it is. You are living in a bubble that is warping your brain.

          • Jeff

            Oh, it’s you again. You’ve proven nothing. You have arguments. Go make them. You’re not going to convince me, but you might convince the right wingers on the Court. I know you guys hate the word “interpret” because you KNOW what the 2nd Amendment means. Just like everybody else has an accent but not you! Grow up already. Why do you think machine guns are illegal if you can have the same armaments as soldiers? Can you legally buy a surface to air missile? A drone?

          • dalek

            Jeff, YOU have proven nothing. I have provided quotes from the founders, links to articles that prove every post you have made WRONG. The ones I didn’t reply to, others did and proved you wrong. I don’t need to grow up, YOU DO.

            As I have said before but you must have ignored it too, I believe the 1930′s law banning machine guns violates the Constitution. That said, it would NOT prevent the people from rising up against a tyrannical Government if the need arises. I have even told you that I believe that felons also have the right to bear arms. Simple reason, not all felons used a gun in a bad way. Some of them committed a NON-violent crime.

            Stop spreading lies Jeff. Stop making yourself look like a complete fool. Grow up, wise up!

          • Jeff

            I agree with you. If you mechanically apply the 2nd Amendment and assume it, unlike any other Constitutional provision, is unlimited, you can’t deny a gun to anyone (felon, murderer, wife beater, psychotic). That is why the Court will NEVER interpret it that broadly. I know, I know you can PROVE the Supreme court is wrong. Good luck with that one. It’s a Constitution; not a suicide pact.

          • Mark

            You guys really need to do yourself a favor and stop feeding this troll. He never answers any questions directly. You’re just chasing your own tails.

          • Jeff

            Very few of my questions ever get answered. One of you did answer some of my questions, saying he thought the 2nd Amendment was essentially unlimited and that restrictions on felons and bans of machine guns were both unconstitutional. At least he was honest in his beliefs, and if you think the 2nd Amendment has no limits, he gave the correct answer. Do the rest of you feel the same way? Does the right to “bear arms” mean the same arms the military has? Is there a limit or does it include atomic weapons? And can anyone be prevented from owning such weapons? Insane people? Because it’s not in the 2nd Amendment. Therefore, someone would have to “interpret” the Amendment in a reasonable way to accomplish that result. Is the Constitution a suicide pact after all?

            I’m sure Mark will immediately answer these questions by calling me all kinds of unflattering names. That’s fine but maybe some thought will go on between those ears.

          • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

            “Jeff” is not here to learn, or to desperse information. “He” is here to promote Obama’s agenda, ridicule those who have facts to hopefully cause others to ignore the information.

            This has been going on too long with “him” for it to be otherwise. What I hate is that it was OUR money that bought that software – and the creation of it; plus pays those who use it against us.

          • dalek

            What gets me about people like Jeff is the ability to change their mind when faced with facts that prove them wrong. People like Jeff only learn when it is to late. They do so at their own peril I might add. Problem is, they try to bring other idiots with them.

            I ran across this article when I saw the guy on Huckabee and he mentioned it was on his site. It may be on other sites to but I have not searched for it. This is one part of many that goes to the point of the 2nd Amendment.

            [quote]

            You don’t need an assault weapon for hunting!

            Who said anything about hunting? That whole thing about the 2nd Amendment being for sportsmen is hogwash. The 2nd Amendment is about bearing arms to protect yourself from threats, up to and including a tyrannical government.

            Spare me the whole, “You won’t be happy until everybody has nuclear weapons” reductio ad absurdum. It says arms, as in things that were man portable. And as for the founding fathers not being able to see foresee our modern arms, you forget that many of them were inventors, and multi shot weapons were already in service. Not to mention that in that day, arms included cannon, since most of the original artillery of the Continental Army was privately owned. Besides, the Supreme Court agrees with me. See DC v. Heller.”

            [/quote]

            I really like this quote. It goes right to the point Jeff keeps making about the people rising up to the Government.

            [quote]

            You crazy gun nuts and your 2nd Amendment. We should just confiscate all the guns.

            Many of you may truly believe that. You may think that the 2nd Amendment is archaic, outdated, and totally pointless. However, approximately half of the country disagrees with you, and of them, a pretty large portion is fully willing to shoot somebody in defense of it.

            We’ve already seen that your partial bans are stupid and don’t do anything, so unless you are merely a hypocrite more interested in style rather than results, the only way to achieve your goal is to come and take the guns away. So let’s talk about confiscation.

            They say that there are 80 million gun owners in America. I personally think that number is low for a few reasons. The majority of gun owners I know, when contacted for a phone survey and asked if they own guns, will become suspicious and simply lie. Those of us who don’t want to end like England or Australia will say that we lost all of our guns in a freak canoe accident.

            Guns do not really wear out. I have perfectly functioning guns from WWI, and I’ve got friends who have still useable firearms from the 1800s. Plus we’ve been building more of them this entire time. There are more guns than there are people in America, and some of us have enough to arm our entire neighborhood.

            But for the sake of math, let’s say that there are only 80 million gun owners, and let’s say that the government decides to round up all those pesky guns once and for all. Let’s be generous and say that 90% of the gun owners don’t really believe in the 2nd Amendment, and their guns are just for duck hunting. Which is what politicians keep telling us, but is actually rather hilarious when you think about how the most commonly sold guns in America are the same detachable magazine semiautomatic rifles I talked about earlier.

            So ten percent refuse to turn their guns in. That is 8 million instantaneous felons. Let’s say that 90% of them are not wanting to comply out of sheer stubbornness. Let’s be super generous and say that 90% of them would still just roll over and turn their guns when pressed or legally threatened. That leaves 800,000 Americans who are not turning their guns in, no matter what. To put that in perspective there are only about 700,000 police officers in the whole country.

            Let’s say that these hypothetical 10% of 10% are willing to actually fight to keep their guns. Even if my hypothetical estimate of 800,000 gun nuts willing to fight for their guns is correct, it is still 97% higher than the number of insurgents we faced at any one time in Iraq, a country about the size of Texas.

            However, I do honestly believe that it would be much bigger than 10%. Once the confiscations turned violent, then it would push many otherwise peaceful people over the edge. I saw somebody on Twitter post about how the 2nd Amendment is stupid because my stupid assault rifles are useless against drones… That person has obviously never worked with the people who build the drones, fly the drones, and service the drones. I have. Where to you think the majority of the US military falls on the political spectrum exactly? There’s a reason Mitt Romney won the military vote by over 40 points, and it wasn’t because of his hair.

            And as for those 700,000 cops, how many of them would side with the gun owners? All the gun nuts, that’s for sure. As much as some people like to complain about the gun culture, many of the people you hire to protect you, and darn near all of them who can shoot well, belong to that gun culture. And as I hear people complain about the gun industry, like it is some nebulous, faceless, all powerful corporate thing which hungers for war and anarchy, I just have to laugh, because the gun industry probably has the highest percentage of former cops and former military of any industry in the country. My being a civilian was odd in the circles I worked in. The men and women you pay to protect you have honor and integrity, and they will fight for what they believe in.

            So the real question the anti-gun, ban and confiscate, crowd should be asking themselves is this, how many of your fellow Americans are you willing to have killed in order to bring about your utopian vision of the future?

            [/quote]

            Link to article for above quotes.

            http://www.mikehuckabee.com/2013/1/an-opinion-on-gun-control

            I also ran across another LONG article someone wrote and it has a TON of info. I should mention again, IT IS VERY LONG. It contains info from sources that back up the points in the article. It also has links to info to back up other points.

            https://eudaimoniabygrace.wordpress.com/2013/01/20/a-few-thoughts-on-gun-control/

            I plan to read that long one again because it is a lot of info to absorb. At least I can absorb new info tho. lol

          • Zenphamy

            Jeff; Troll you have proven yourself to be. Bye

          • Mark Pepin

            ///Mark said: If you want a rational discussion to ensue (something that you CLAIM you desire) then start actually giving a counterpoint to every point that you disagree with, instead of writing your editorial comments. Otherwise, we will just be reading your comments for humor.///

            ///Jeff blathered: If I see a serious post, I respond seriously. When I see name-calling, references to Nazis, etc., I respond accordingly.///

            You shouldn’t beat yourself up so hard.

          • Jeff

            I have written dozens of serious posts on these blogs. Your inability to understand them is not my problem.

          • Mark Pepin

            ///Jeff: I have written dozens of serious posts on these blogs. Your inability to understand them is not my problem.///

            Yeah, those must be the same ones where you “seriously” answered our questions tit for tat……..NOT!!! Stop deflecting and get serious. Go back to where I challenged you with some serious COUNTERPOINTS. If you can’t even answer serious questions that challenge your positions, I’m not sure why you are here except as a Troll.

          • dalek

            Well, what about you calling people morons and such? You have done that several times. Since you want to get into name calling tho, I firmly believe you are the stupidest person I have ever discussed anything with. You have nothing to offer for facts and your opinions are flat out wrong. I would have better luck talking to a child because at least they can learn from facts. You can’t. You never learn as I have pointed out many times and so has others.

            So, if you don’t like name calling, you need to stop starting it by calling people morons and such. This is especially true when you are so wrong on everything you say.

          • Jeff

            I don’t believe I’ve done that in response to any serious post regardless whether I agree. But there are so many posts here written by people who just state a ridiculous opinion about Obama supported by nothing but the poster’s animosity. How else can one respond to nonsense other than with ridicule?

          • dalek

            Hey Mark,

            I thought you might like to read this. I just happened to see him on Huckabee on Fox when I turned the TV on.

            http://www.mikehuckabee.com/mike-huckabee-news?ID=661ac8a6-3398-46e1-a645-996530efa4fc

            Let me know what you think.

            Oh, I’m not interested in your comments Jeff. You won’t get the point anyway.

          • Jeff

            Dalek:

            [comment has been edited] You’re not worth another minute of my time. You’ve “proven” nothing and all you can do is name call in response to real arguments. I could have a more intelligent discussion with a 6 year old.

          • dalek

            There’s the real Jeff. Claiming I have not proven anything when I have proved virtually every post you have made wrong. Yea, keep dreaming.

          • Zenphamy

            Finally, Jeff’s going to move his inane comments and conversation to someone with his own educational level and maturity. Just remember the old, old adage -
            ‘It’s often better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.’
            Oops, too late for Jeff.

          • Jeff

            You guys are beyond reason. You read some nonsense by Glenn Beck and suddenly you’re 2nd Amendment scholars. The Amendment says what the Supreme Court decides it says. It has limits and the Court will determine those limits. As nutty as at least 4 of those members currently are, there is no possibility they will agree with your extreme position. As for Dalek, I think he’s a little nuts. He says he’s in favor of background checks but then argues and calls me stupid over the number of states where there’s a gun show loophole. All you right wing morons can easily go to gun shows, and you undoubtedly know just where they are, and buy guns of almost any type without a background check. If that’s the system you want, good luck.

          • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

            “The Amendment says what the Supreme Court decides it says”.

            Actually you are incorrect. The court was never given the power to decide what the US Constitution means. It can make sure that laws, bills, etc are “in pursuance thereof” of the US Constitution.

            Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution: “The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”

            The Constitution of the United States of America IS the Supreme Law of this land, NOT those who serve within the federal government. Those in the Judicial branch serve within the federal government, just as those in the legislative and executive branches do.

            That is what their assigned duties are. Nothing else. This says that ALL laws, Bills, Amendments, etc (executive orders are NOT legal since ONLY congress has legislative powers) must be at a minimum of the natural rights the Constitution protects. Laws can be stronger – ex: ‘All military weapons that any branch of the Military uses MUST be available to all American citizens and those legally allowed to be in the USA’ – but they cannot make them weaker – ex: People cannot carry any weapons upon their body.

            Webster’s 1828 Dictionary says for “Constitution”: “…In free states, the constitution is paramount to the statutes or laws enacted by the legislature, limiting and controlling its power; and in the United States, the legislature is created, and its powers designated, by the constitution.
            If any Branch fails to obey the “supreme Law”, then, in order to preserve the Rule of Law, the other Branches, or failing that, the States or THE PEOPLE, must overrule them”.

            Preamble to the Bill of Rights
            ‘Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
            THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
            RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
            ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.’
            Note: These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the “Bill of Rights.”

            The Preamble shows that the sole purpose of the proposed amendments by the states was to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” To accomplish this, “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” were proposed. The amendments, which were adopted, placed additional restraints or limitations on the powers of the federal government to prevent that government from usurping its constitutional powers. Every clause of the Bill of Rights, without exception, is either a declaratory statement or a restrictive provision.

            Do you understand now? The courts have overstepped the powers assigned them, as the US Constitution did/does not let them assign themselves power, anymore then Obama had the lawful right to give himself “assassination powers”. What he did was give another name to murder that gullible, immigrants from tyrant governments, and those who refuse to educate them selves would believe. He is still committing murder under OUR laws whatever he wants to call it.

            Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States: “On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

            Abraham Lincoln: “We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.”

            Patrick Henry: “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”

            “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual”. Thomas Jefferson

            “Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.”
            Joseph Goebbels, Minister of Propaganda, Nazi Germany

          • Jeff

            That’s all very nice, but the Supreme court ruled in 1803 (Marbury v. Madison) that it had the final say in interpreting the Constitution. In the past 210 years, no one has seriously challenged that assertion and it has become a bedrock principle of the law. So, you may have “proof” of the founders’ intent as to the meaning of “bear arms” and as to what constitutes a “well regulated militia,” but the Supreme Court is the body that decides the contours of “rights” conferred by the Constitution. The Supremes are not final because they are infallible; they are infallible because they are final.

          • dalek

            Once again, you are wrong. Let’s say the Supreme Court in all its claimed finality says the 2nd Amendment does NOT give the individual the right to bear arms. If the PEOPLE disagree, we will have a new court. It may be at the ballot box, it may be with force but we will correct the court.

            If the Congress passes legislation that takes away the right of the people to bear arms, they are tyrannical. If the President signs the legislation, he joins the Congress. If the Supreme Court says it is fine, then at that point, we have a tyrannical Government and the people need to, and most certainly will, overthrow that Government, top to bottom. Anyone who joined into the tyranny should pay the ultimate price.

            That is THE reason for the 2nd Amendment. PERIOD. The Founders said it was the reason and there is no argument. I have posted quotes for you before that PROVE beyond a doubt that that it what it is there for.

            The Supreme Court is not as final as it claims to be. Just like the King of Great Britain was not as final as he thought he was either. The people the King sent to enforce his orders back around the 1770′s got took to the woodshed and a LOT of them got buried. A enemy within is no different than a enemy from somewhere else.

          • Jeff

            Why bother with me or anyone else? You already know everything, and everything I say is wrong. You’re absolutely right even if only you and the rest of the cave dwellers believe it.

          • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

            Exactly! Nice post.

            If Jeff does not understand and needs further illumination, ask him this:

            If there were never intended to be action to defend the Constitution from those who are domestically attempting to destroy its power and authority, why would each Oath require it of those who take the Oaths?

          • dalek

            Well, Jeff has some very wrong thinking. He thinks that there isn’t enough people to rise up and set the Government straight but he is wrong, big time. Check out this link:

            http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/gun_control/65_see_gun_rights_as_protection_against_tyranny

            [quote]

            ” The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 65% of American Adults think the purpose of the Second Amendment is to make sure that people are able to protect themselves from tyranny. Only 17% disagree, while another 18% are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

            Not surprisingly, 72% of those with a gun in their family regard the Second Amendment as a protection against tyranny. However, even a majority (57%) of those without a gun in their home hold that view.

            Many gun control advocates talk of the right to gun ownership as relating to hunting and recreational uses only.

            While there are often wide partisan differences of opinion on gun-related issues, even 54% of Democrats agree with 75% of Republicans and 68% of those not affiliated with either major party that the right to own a gun is to ensure such freedom. ”

            [/quote]

            So, only 17%, which Jeff is likely a part of, believe that the 2nd Amendment is about hunting. Looks like Jeff is pretty lonely there. lol The part that I find interesting is this, the majority of everyone regardless of party believes the 2nd Amendment is to prevent tyranny.

            Now Jeff is going to claim the poll is wrong. Thing is, I can find no other poll that asks this question. Since it doesn’t support his theory, he will still make some silly claim about it.

            As I said before, Jeff is not able to learn.

            Oh Jeff, it’s not the Tea Party you need to worry about. Over half the Democrats know what the 2nd Amendment is for too. You better grab on to some knowledge soon.

          • Jeff

            Rasmussen is a Republican polling outfit. I think they’re still referring not only to President Romney but McCain, Goldwater, and Dewey. I recently saw a similar post with a link to the actual questions asked. They were a joke. They asked people “Is the 2nd Amendment there to protect you from tyranny’? A bit suggestive you think? It would be like a cop asking a witness in a photo line-up if this scary-looking Black criminal looks like the mugger.

          • dalek

            If you don’t like that poll, post a link to your own. Oh wait, the liberals don’t want to do a poll like that because it would show that the people support something they want to get rid of. Remember Feinstein and her comments now. She wants to take ALL guns so don’t say they don’t either.

            I said you wasn’t going to like that poll. You know why I said that, I know a bit about your silly way of thinking, which is very little thinking actually.

            If you bother to look, the link to the questions asked are in the article. The question is what is called a direct on point question. “6* The Second Amendment to the Constitution provides Americans with the right to own a gun. Is the purpose of the Second Amendment to ensure that people are able to protect themselves from tyranny?” Sounds pretty direct and to the point to me. No leading or anything, just asking a question.

            Also, you see this:

            “NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence”

          • Jeff

            Hey, guys. ANOTHER SHOOTING. How about that? This time at a college in Texas where everyone is packing at all times, I thought. I thought such things don’t happen where the “good people” are all armed. Guess not, but I’m sure you can console the dead kids’ parents with a nice script version of the 2nd Amendment.

          • dalek

            Hey Jeff, after a google search, Lone Star College appears to be yet another “gun free zone” campus. Now what if some people besides the bad guy had guns? You see a trend yet? Gun free zones are what gets attacked by criminals. Of all the mass shootings, even some that were not mass shootings, they happen at gun free zones. Only one exception so far. Never mind, you won’t see it anyway.

          • Jeff

            Isn’t the idea of the oath that it is between the oath taker and God (so help me, God)? I don’t think the mere fact you are of the opinion a President of Justice is making the wrong decisions constitutes a violation of his oath unless you can prove actual treason or other such crime, in which case there are statutes proscribing the behavior and prescribing a penalty. I believe W violated his oath by starting the war in Iraq. Does that mean he can be prosecuted for breaking his oath? I think not. You’ll have to leave that one to Jesus.

          • http://www.facebook.com/kansas.bright Kansas Bright

            No, it isn’t Jeff (“Isn’t the idea of the oath that it is between the oath taker and God “)

            It is a REQUIREMENT of the US Constitution of all who want to serve in the three branches, etc.

            Clause 2 of Article VI of the Constitution: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

            The Constitution of the United States of America IS the Supreme Law of this land, NOT those who serve within the federal government.

            The first law statute of the United States of America, enacted in the first session of the First Congress on 1 June 1789, was Statute 1, Chapter 1: an act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths, which established the oath required by civil and military officials to support the Constitution.

            The wording of the Presidential Oath was established in the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8.

            Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

            The Framers placed the presidential Oath after the beginning clauses setting forth the organization of the executive department, and before clauses that specify the contours of the President’s assigned power. The President takes the oath after he assumes the office but before he executes it. The location and phrasing of the Oath of Office Clause strongly suggest that it is not empowering, but that it is limiting – the clause limits how the President’s “executive power” is to be exercised.

            The requirement for all Federal and State Civil officers to give their solemn and binding Oath is established in Article VI, Section 1, Clause 4.

            They are bound by their Oath to support the Constitution, and should they abrogate their Oath by their acts or inaction, are subject to charges of impeachment and censure. (Political Remedy for a criminal offense)

            Once given, the Oath is binding for life, unless renounced, refused, and abjured. It does not cease upon the occasions of leaving office or of discharge.

            Solemn: “Legally binding, Common legal phrase indicating that an agreement has been consciously made, and certain actions are now either required or prohibited”, “The other requirement for an agreement or contract to be considered legally binding is consideration – both parties must knowingly understand what they are agreeing to”
            .
            Bound – “Being under legal or moral obligation; to constitute the boundary or limit of; to set a limit to; confine”

            Legally Binding: Common legal phrase. Lawful action, such as an agreement consciously agreed to by two or more entities, establishing lawful accountability. An illegal action, such as forcing, tricking, or coercing a person into an agreement, is not