Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Responsible Gun Owners, Obama Nothing Alike

July 30, 2012 by  

Responsible Gun Owners, Obama Nothing Alike
AMERICANUSSR
How exactly does the President define “soldier?”

Last week, President Barack Obama was criticized for suggesting that American gun owners would agree with him that firearms such as AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not criminals, during a speech before the National Urban League.

While he did not say it directly, the President’s remarks are indicative of a veiled push by Federal officials to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired under President George W. Bush. This is not a new goal of the Administration.

From a 2008 Obama campaign document:

As a long-time resident and elected official of Chicago, Barack Obama has seen the impact of fully automatic weapons in the hands of criminals. Thus, Senator Obama supports making permanent the expired federal Assault Weapon Ban. These weapons, such as AK-47s, belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets. These are also not weapons that are used by hunters and sportsmen.

In his speech last Wednesday, Obama, using the Aurora, Colo. massacre as an opportunity, reiterated his view on assault rifles. “I — like most Americans — believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms,” Obama said. “I think we recognize the traditions of gun ownership passed on from generation to generation, that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage.

“But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers and not in the hands of crooks. They belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities,” he added.

“When there’s an extraordinarily heartbreaking tragedy like the one we saw, there’s always an outcry immediately after for action,” Obama said. “There’s talk of new reforms. There’s talk of legislation. And too often those efforts are defeated by politics and by lobbying and eventually by the pull of our collective attention elsewhere. But what I said in the wake of Tucson is we’re going to stay on this persistently.”

Conservative columnists pounced on Obama’s use of AK-47s — synonymous with rebellions, communists and terror, as well as the chosen weapon of many American enemies — as an example. The American military has little or no tactical use relationship with the mentioned weapon.

It was also pointed out by many gun enthusiasts that of course violent criminals and the mentally unstable should be weeded out in a vetting process leading up to firearms purchases, and they often are. Even with systems designed to keep firearms out of the hands of people with criminal intentions, some people argue that without the ability to read minds anomalies like James Holmes (no serious criminal record, no reason “for him to be on anyone’s radar”) would still exist. Stricter gun laws would still fail at times. The fail-safe prevention, they say, would be the impossible: complete elimination of every single firearm in the world.

For anyone seeking irony in Obama’s remarks, it was likely easily found. Especially so if they consider the recent controversy surrounding the President’s own Department of Justice and its Fast and Furious initiative. Evidently, officials in that Department disregarded the White House memo about AK-47s belonging on the battlefield when they urged gun sellers to disregard the check system put in place to keep guns out of the hands of criminals;they allowed 2,000 Ak-47s and .50 caliber rifles, among others, to “walk” into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. Many gun sellers initially reported to the government suspicious activities like “ordering large numbers of AK-47 variant rifles and other so-called ‘weapons of choice’ used by the Mexican drug cartels, and paying with large sums of cash brought in a paper bag.” But in 2009, they were told to allow the sales and that government officials had it under control and were “tracking” the weapons. On Dec. 14, 2010, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was shot in the back by the member of a Mexican drug cartel with an AK-47 provided through the Federal government’s “gun walking.”

Here are some other results of the initiative from the Justice Department:

One AK-47 type assault rifle purchased by a Fast and Furious suspect was recovered Nov. 14, 2009 in Atoyac de Alvarez, Mexico after the Mexican military rescued a kidnap victim.

On July 1, 2010, two AK-47 type assault rifles purchased by Fast and Furious suspects were recovered in Sonora, Mexico after a shootout between cartels. Two murders were reported in the incident using the weapons.

On July 26, 2010, a giant .50 caliber Barrett rifle purchased by a Fast and Furious suspect was recovered in Durango, Mexico after apparently having been fired. No further details of the incident were given.

On Aug. 13, 2010, two AK-47 type assault rifles purchased by a Fast and Furious target were recovered in Durango, Mexico after a confrontation between the Mexican military and an “armed group.”

On Nov. 14, 2010, two AK-47 type assault rifles purchased by Fast and Furious targets were recovered in Chihuahua, Mexico after  “the kidnapping of two individuals and the murder of a family member of a Mexican public official.” Sources tell CBS News they believe this is a reference to a case we previously reported on: the terrorist kidnapping, torture and murder of Mario Gonzalez Rodriguez. Rodriguez was the brother of then-attorney general Patricia Gonzalez Rodriguez. The terrorists released video of Rodriguez before his death, in handcuffs surrounded by hooded gunmen.

On May 27, 2011, three AK-47 type assault rifles purchased by Fast and Furious targets were recovered in Jalisco, Mexico after having been fired. No other details of the incident were provided, but the date and location match with another incident previously reported by CBS News. On May 27 near Jalisto, cartel members fired upon a Mexican government helicopter, forcing it to make an emergency landing. According to one law enforcement source, 29 suspected cartel members were killed in the attack.

The President doesn’t know that the American military has never used the AK-47 as a primary battle weapon, and he is at the helm of an Administration that allowed thousands of them to be handed directly to violent criminals. It isn’t likely that “a lot of [responsible] gun owners” would agree with Obama or his Administration on much of anything regarding firearms. A responsible gun owner would not talk to large groups of people in authoritative tones about the merits, or lack thereof, of weapons about which he knows nothing. And a responsible gun owner would never hand his rifle to a criminal just to see what might happen.

Sam Rolley

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

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Responsible Gun Owners, Obama Nothing Alike”

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

  • Flashy

    Just for kicks, to see if sanity and reason exists in this world, what would be reasonable ?

    Restrict magazines to handle clips holding a smaller number of cartridges? The the Congresswoman was shot, did he not have 30 round clips for his pistols? And the shooter in Aurora, did he not have 100 round clips? And were they not both semi auto’s ?

    How about what I am told exists in Canada. you buy a firearm, two people have to sign attesting to your good character and responsibility. I am uncertain if that is a requirement in Canada…even if not, seems reasonable to me)

    Or should we continue to allow criminals to have easy access to firearms…and make it harder to vote than to buy a gun?

    • momo

      Ugh…its a hundred round drum, not a clip (which is really called a magazine)!

    • Jayne

      It Is easy for drug cartels to access guns by the program developed Obama to do so, and it is only harder to vote if you are ineligible.

    • Paul

      Flashy
      It sounds very much like that you are for telling people what they can and cannot have as far as guns go, well have you read the 2nd amendment to the Constitution lately well if not then you really do need to read it again and again until you understand it and that what you are suggesting is an infringement on our right that it is beyond, you might as well just tell people that they cannot have a gun at all

      • DavidL

        If we read the Constitution (2nd Amendment) as SC Justices and other strict constructionists demand we do, then the original intent of the 2nd Amendments entitles us to own muskets.

        I am a gun owner and supporter of the 2nd amendment. But I have no problem restricting the size of magazines. We all take our shoes off at an airport because some nut job tried to blow up a plane with a bomb (small, ineffective, and it hurt nobody) hidden in his shoe. We all see, and cooperate with, the common sense of that, The NRA is primarily a gun selling lobby, and their desire for profit blinds them to common sense and reality. I agree with President Obama. As a gun owner, I am not apposed to responsible restrictions intended to keep the public safe. If I have to change magazines after 15 rounds instead of 30, 50, or 100, so be it. That does not mean the sky is falling and our liberty is being threatened with the repeal of the 2nd amendment.

        Before you mount your high horse to defend liberty, the flag, the NRA, the American way against tyranny, etc., let me suggest this perspective. If, God forbid, your wife and kids were killed in that theater, I guarantee, I guarantee, that you would become a fierce advocate for gun control restrictions. Is that common sense, or would that mean you are a “nut-job”?

      • JeffH

        OMG DavidL…these are the words of a nutjob “If, God forbid, your wife and kids were killed in that theater, I guarantee, I guarantee, that you would become a fierce advocate for gun control restrictions.”

        This is reasoning by emotion, not common sense and not rational thought.

        AK 47 sounds pretty intimidating just as AR 15, the black gun, seems to look and sound intimidating. They are only intimidating to those people that abhore guns all together, that shake in their boots with thoughts of mass murders and massacres. Those that are so ignorant as to believe more restrictive laws will stop the bad guys from perpetrating acts of violence against each other and law abiding citizens.

        AR 15′s have become the newest hunting and sporting weapon of choice for many, the same way every modern battle rifle has influenced new interest and designs for hunters , shooting sports and gun enthusiasts everywhere.

        For anyone in the know, these so called “assault weapons” and rifles are used in less than 1% of all violent crimes. The assault weapons ban had no effect whatsoever on reducing firearms related crimes and that is why it wasn’t renewed and continues to be rejected today.

        Criminals are criminals for a reason, they don’t live by the same laws that you or I might, they will always be able to get their weapon of choice illegally and they will always prey on the weak and defensless. History proves that and FBI crime statistics prove that.

      • SJJolly

        Since the 2nd Amendment refers to milita, shouldn’t military-style firearms be allowed, and hunting-types and sporting-types be restricted?

      • Vicki

        DavidL says:
        “If we read the Constitution (2nd Amendment) as SC Justices and other strict constructionists demand we do, then the original intent of the 2nd Amendments entitles us to own muskets.”

        Let’s DO read the Constitution as SC Justices and other strict constructionists demand.
        Original intent is quite clear and not limited to muskets. It included EVERY terrible instrument of the soldier.

        Strict constructionalism is a judicial philosophy that adheres to the Constitution as written, rather than interpreting it to keep up with the times. Where the Document is unclear, strict constructionalism attempts to ascertain the Framers’ intent through letters and other documents from the time of the Constitution’s creation.
        http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-strict-constructionalism.htm

        So lets look at their intent.

        ——————————————————-
        “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. – Thomas Jefferson (1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334)”

        The Constitution shall never be construed … to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. – Samuel Adams (Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789)

        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 (Federalist 46, January 29, 1788)

        To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them. – George Mason (3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

        “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials.” George Mason, (3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

        http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=27083
        ——————————————————————————-

        Or this collection
        http://www.eskimo.com/~bpentium/articles/guns.html

        What did the founders mean by militia?
        http://www.nolanchart.com/article2901-the-future-our-founding-fathers-did-not-expect-the-second-amendment–part-i.html

        According to 10 US Code section 311 who is the militia.
        ——————————————-
        -STATUTE-
        (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
        males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
        313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
        declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
        and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
        National Guard.
        (b) The classes of the militia are -
        (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
        and the Naval Militia; and
        (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
        the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
        Naval Militia.
        http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt
        —————————————

        What did the founders mean by “arms”
        http://brainshavings.com/the-right-to-keep-and-bear-what/

        What did the founders mean by “well regulated”
        http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

        With all this easy to find literature invalidating the argument that the 2nd Amendment means “muskets” or that it is only for the “militia” you would think that liberals would come up with a better argument. Oh wait…..

      • USMC Vet

        DavidL:and eddie47 are both idiots. Question for both of you…What is a criminal? Someone who does not obey laws. So what does legislation do? Weakens the rights of the law abiding individual. Ben Franklin said it best, “Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither and will lose both” Pretty simple, People like you should leave America and go to Europe.

      • Flashy

        Paul…the 2nd stands for an armed citizenry. I believe to keep a military dictatorship from being formed. Have at it…have all you want in your home. If you want to go outside in the backyard and target practice using your tonsils as targets…have at it. Blow your brains out for all i care.

        But the moment you take that weapon off your property, you begin to intrude upon MY Rights. In addition, having walking around packing a gun a bunch of wackos, or testosterone weakened yahoos, or people who have no clue about the proper handling of guns or trained and having constant refresher courses in situational awareness (or one harboring all three)….that’s a good idea? Seriously?

      • Vicki

        Flashy says:
        “But the moment you take that weapon off your property, you begin to intrude upon MY Rights.”

        Really? Which one(s). Try to be specific. After all my right to keep and bear arms does not seem to have any limiting clause and is explicitly listed as a protected right.

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        I HAVE NOTICED, “Vicki,” OFTEN PRESENTS DETAILED COMMENTARY ON GUN TOPICS.

      • Vicki

        CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON says:
        “I HAVE NOTICED, “Vicki,” OFTEN PRESENTS DETAILED COMMENTARY ON GUN TOPICS.”

        I have noticed that CAH YELLS a lot.

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “Vicki,”

        MA’AM, I WAS ONLY TRYING TO EXPRESS AN OBSERVATION.

        WHENEVER I SEE YOUR NAME, 99.9% OF THE TIME IT IS IN A “Gun” THREAD. “Vicki,” MA’AM, YOU SEEM TO HAVE AN ENTHUSIASM FOR GUNS. THAT IS FINE. YOUR ENTHUSIASTIC AND DETAILED COMMENTS ON GUNS ARE “EYE-CATCHING.”

        “Vicki,” I AM TRYING TO COMPLEMENT YOU.

      • my 2¢ worth

        Please! No more beating around the bush:

        … And she’s trying to tell YOU that TYPING IN CAPS on the internet is comparable to YELLING in public.. It distracts the reader and creates irritation. If it’s that you can’t read what you type in normal type (lower case) then find your Magnifier in ‘Ease of access’ and bring it up a few Xes.. You don’t see others responding in all caps do you? Please, refrain yourself.. (now, back to our story).

      • Vicki

        ““Vicki,” I AM TRYING TO COMPLEMENT YOU.”

        Complement accepted. Thank you. Could you please stop using caps lock though. It makes your comments hard to read. Thanks in advance.

    • Phillip in TX

      Gun control is being able to “hit your target.” If you do not desire to own a weapon then don’t. A gun can be used for good or evil. In a criminals hands it is used for evil. In my hands (or any other law abiding citizens hands) it is used for good.

      What a gun “looks like” scares some people. I can take an ordinary “rifle” and make it look like what someone would say was an “assault weapon.”

      Magazine capacity? Someone can use a single shot weapon and kill someone else. So, should we ban single shot weapons? You need to research what happens to people in the countries where gun ownership was made illegal. The governments slaughtered their subjects because they could not defend themselves. (Notice I used the word “subjects” not citizens).

      If you desire to have Canada’s gun control laws, then move to Canada. If you really want to feel safe, move to North Korea.

      • Ferrosynthesis

        Or if you really love guns, go to Brazil. 36,000+ gun related deaths last year.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        ferrosynthesis, we are not Brasil.Varieties of human predators fight each other to acquire wealth in Brasil.

      • Walter Nawara

        Phillip: I agree with everything you say and would like to add the following: The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was not to allow the citizenry to have weapons to ‘hunt’ defenseless animals. The purpose was to be able to have a citizen militia capable of overthrowing an unjust government. This was because of the oppression by King George and the potential for future governments to impose the same oppression.

        At this time in our history, the most sophisticated weapons available to the common citizenry was twere the musket, rifle, cannon and sailing warship. All of these items were in the hands of the private citizen., i.e., Letters of Mark. As the government continued to usurp the power of the State and the corresponding power of its citizens, laws were passed making it more difficult for people to have ‘more than a rifle’.

        Many of these stringent laws came about during and after Prohibition under the guise of having the Federal government establish and maintain a superior firepower position against the unlawful. This was automatically enforced against the common citizen.

        I can imagine the comments. You want us to have a battle tank! A F18! Or as Bill Reilly would say, ‘heavy weapons’. What in fact is a heavy weapon? Is it something in excess of 14 pounds. Is that loaded or unloaded? These are facetious comments on my part meant to bring attention to the ridiculous remarks made by pundits who are no more than puppets.

        When someone addresses a grievance, the issues most important are usually addressed first. This is why the ‘founding fathers’ stated we were all CREATED equal. They did not state we are all equal, for, to be equal we cannot be free in this democratic republic. To be equal is the exact opposite of being free. For if I am equal to you, it stands that we have all of the same things, i.e., possessions, etc. For this to happen, someone must be giving something up which means that there liberty or freedom is being artificially constrained or hampered.

        The 2nd Amendment addressed the right to bear arms. I have already given some comments as to why this exists as the 2nd Amendment. Enough has been surrendered by the passing of the Patriot Act and lately NDAA.

        All of us who have proudly served this Nation or who have been elected to public office have taken a sacred oath to protect the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and/or domestic. It is amazing to me what people conveniently forget.

        I know I am now being placed on a ‘list’ because of these comments. But, this is not paranoia. Good Luck!

      • http://www.ifonlyphotos.com Alex Frazier

        Ferrosynthesis -

        Brazil’s population is in the approximate range of 175,000,000, versus 36,000 firearm deaths. That’s 2% of the population. Of that 2%, many are killed by police. And Brazil has stricter gun control laws than the United States. In the United States, we have approximately 17,000 firearm homicides in a population of 310,000,000, which is roughly .00051% of the population. So with lighter gun control laws, we have fewer firearm homicides than Brazil.

        Gun laws don’t stop crime. They just turn the innocent into vulnerable victims. This is the plain fact of the matter, and it will never be arguable. If someone doesn’t like guns, that’s their choice. But banning them from the rest of us will never accomplish anything, except to make us all victims to a government gone rogue.

      • r.p.

        Ferrosynthisis: Brazil’s gun laws are even more restrictive than the U.S.’ It’s even illigal to own an imitation gun if it resembles an automatic or assault rifle. So that would include most of the common air-soft and paint-ball guns and some water guns.
        http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/brazil#right_to_possess_firearms.

    • Dick G

      You apparently are not aware of the FBI data base and the use of the NICS system for all gun purchases.

      • http://www.facebook.com/roberttwillis Robert Willis

        Amen, That check IS done at any gun buy by a legal seller! The only time it is not done is IF the buyer has a valid pistol purchase permit OR permit to carry concealed! Those 2 items mean that the local Sheriff has ALREADY checked you from A” whole to appetite and found you to be a good person!

      • CZ52

        Both Flashy and eddie47d Are quite aware of the NICS they just choose to ignore its existance.

    • John Woodbury

      I realize this is too long (and full of big words) for you too read Flushey so here is the important part “The President doesn’t know that the American military has never used the AK-47 as a primary battle weapon, and he is at the helm of an Administration that allowed thousands of them to be handed directly to violent criminals. It isn’t likely that “a lot of [responsible] gun owners” would agree with Obama or his Administration on much of anything regarding firearms. A responsible gun owner would not talk to large groups of people in authoritative tones about the merits, or lack thereof, of weapons about which he knows nothing. And a responsible gun owner would never hand his rifle to a criminal just to see what might happen.” Lets just say this applies to you as well. You are not a responsible gun owner.

    • Chester

      Flashy, I agree with you a lot of the time, but this is one time I have to say NO! Just because you make it harder, if not impossible for a “responsible ” citizen to obtain a given type of weapon, or a given type of magazine, or any other specific item, you do NOT necessarily make it a bit harder for someone bound to have it to get it. This Colorado thing is one of the very few times legitimately acquired weapons were used in such a matter. The thing with Dillon and Klebold a few years back did not involve legally purchased weapons, or have you forgotten that. How many driveby shootings involve legal guns in the hands of the legal owners? It isn’t the legal weapons that do most of the damage, so laws to restrict what can legally be owned will have little effect on those who want a lot of firepower and don’t worry about the source, or the cost.

      • Vicki

        Agreed

        “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.”
        http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/laws-forbid-carrying-armsquotation

    • Vigilant

      Obama says, “I think we recognize the traditions of gun ownership passed on from generation to generation, that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage.”

      Another sneaky way to turn the conversation away from “self defense” as a legitimate reason to own firearms. Hey, Obama, self defense is a basic right under Natural Law, even more sacred than “hunting and shooting.”

      • http://yahoo gator

        SELF-DEFENSE IS A GOD-GIVEN RIGHT YOU WERE BORN WITH!
        NO MAN, NO LAW, NO GOVERNMENT, GIVES YOU ANYTHING!

        during the Revolutionary War, if the british had AK-47′S (as do AMERICA’S enemies) would General Washington restrict his troops to muskets? appropriate firearms for appropriate times,is what is needed!

        THE 2ND AMENDMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SPORT!

      • Kate8

        Vigilant – I don’t know if you are familiar with http://petersantilli.com/ . I’m listening to him now (internet radio) and he’s riled.

        Pete’s an ex marine, militia patriot. HE GET’S IT. And he’s rallying the troops.

        Once you listen to him, you’ll be hooked.

        He offers REAL SOLUTIONS, and tells us what we must do NOW.

      • Vigilant

        Thanks for te link, Kate, I’ll check it out.

    • wandamurline

      Criminals will always have guns…either gotten off the black market or given to them by our own corrupt government. I believe that Thomas Jefferson said it best….”Those who pound their guns to plows….will plow for those who do not”. When you can no longer defend yourself, you are no longer a free person, you become a subject of whomever is in charge of the guns. I believe Holmes was a patsy, he was drugged and the government is behind it….where did he get $20,000 to purchase all this gear and how did he know how to make bombs? Some stinks here.

      • Chester

        Wanda, first, the money he spent came in large part from his post-grad student GRANT. In other words, he was given a rather large chunk of money to help him continue in his chosen line of study. I am not sure just when he began buying these weapons and armor, but he had recently failed his orals for his chosen field. Whether that was because he had already slipped over the border in his head, or whether that was what put him over, I doubt we will ever know. None the less, the knowledge on how to assemble bombs is fairly easily obtained, if he hadn’t already figured a lot of it out on his own. He obtained everything he had legally, as he had no problems passing even the strictest of background checks. I would guess from what has been made public about his background that he could just as easily passed a top secret security background check, and those DIG for dirt.

    • RichE

      What would be reasonable is to change the culture. America is a gun culture and until the culture changes nothing will change. Americans put their faith in laws and guns. They believe if the law fails them their guns won’t. America has more gun control regulations than any other country and more gun violence than any other country. Americans do not enforce their laws by encouraging the culture to honor the law. They do encourage the individual to be a maverick and not trust the system.

      IMO it would be reasonable to ask the question, “Why can’t Americans trust their system?” They are all in the same boat. Why do they need to be armed against each other?

      • Chester

        RichE, did you ever hear the statement that “when trouble is seconds away, the police are only minutes away”? That alone is reason enough for a “responsible” citizen to want a gun or two in their home. Also, it is clear to me that you are NOT a hunter, or you wouldn’t even be asking such a question. In fact, you would be screaming that someone was coming to take your sporting weapon away from you. Look at Great Britain, where sporting weapons are no longer allowed to be kept in the home and tell me if those homeowners are any safer there than we are here. Seems like knives and clubs are back in fashion among the well heeled criminal group now, and those are even harder to detect. Now, instead of breaking into your house and aiming a gun at you as they demand all your cash, they break in and either knock your brains out with their club, or cut your throat with their knife. Either way you are damaged far more than if they had simply pointed a gun at you.

        • RichE

          Chester,
          I’m not sure what hunting has to do with the American predisposition to put their trust in guns rather than their system. They build guns rather than build trust.

      • JeffH

        RichE make an unknlowlegable and ignorant statement “America has more gun control regulations than any other country and more gun violence than any other country”

        Crime Statistics – Murders with firearms (most recent) by country
        # 1 South Africa: 31,918
        # 2 Colombia: 21,898
        # 3 Thailand: 20,032
        # 4 United States: 9,369

        The US ranks 34th in deaths by intentional homicide.

        • RichE

          It must be the economy, the U.S. slipping to #4. What’s the ratio between number of laws and amount of violence for each country?

      • Vicki

        RichE says:
        “What would be reasonable is to change the culture. America is a gun culture and until the culture changes nothing will change.”

        America is also a free culture. It is free BECAUSE it is pro-gun. Just ask Japan. The Swiss is ALSO a gun culture. It is free because it too is pro-gun. Most other countries are not gun cultures and most of them are subjects of their governments.

        RichE: “Americans put their faith in laws and guns. They believe if the law fails them their guns won’t.”

        And we have a 200+ year history to prove it. We ALSO have a 10,000 year history proving what happens to people who stop being a “gun” culture.

        RichE: “America has more gun control regulations than any other country and more gun violence than any other country. Americans do not enforce their laws by encouraging the culture to honor the law. They do encourage the individual to be a maverick and not trust the system.”

        Proof by bald assertion. Debate FAIL.

        RichE: “IMO it would be reasonable to ask the question, “Why can’t Americans trust their system?” They are all in the same boat. Why do they need to be armed against each other?”

        We are NOT armed against each other. We are armed against those who would use force (of arms) to control us. Muggers, Rapists, Murderers, Tyrants etc.

        Note that arms are useful in both the individual and collective protection of society.

        • RichE

          Vicki,
          “The pen is mightier than the sword” American culture doesn’t believe this quote. Americans believe the sword is mightier than the pen and they’re willing to prove, to anyone, that “Might makes right”.

      • Sheree C. Busher

        Because we do not trust our government RichE

        • RichE

          Sheree,
          Why can’t you trust your government? You’ve got the guns and the law, just make them do what you want.
          In a gun culture, in order to justify guns you have to maintain mistrust.

          • USMC Vet

            You should pick up a history book. You can read right?

          • RichE

            USMC Vet,
            Where in the history books does it say a culture has to mistrust that which it creates?

          • USMC Vet

            First lesson, the current government was not created by us, the people, it has been created by corrupt politicians. Second lesson, Nazi Germany, looked what happened when they trusted their government. And history shows in numerous other instances what happens when people trust their government, ie: Mao, Hitler, Stalin, etc

          • RichE

            USMC Vet,
            Why bother creating laws If those you mention, in the present, wouldn’t obey?

          • USMC Vet

            I can’t comprehend what you are trying to say. Are you intoxicated? As far as laws go, they are only as good as the law abiding citizen who obeys them, the problem is that law abiding citizens are not the ones who create problems. So once again I will say as I have said many times, criminals do not obey laws, that is why they are criminals. Anyone who trusts a government is an idiot, and history has proven that time and time again. Governments are inherently corrupt. Look at what time has done to ours.

          • RichE

            USMC Vet,
            Name calling? Too much statch in your cap?

            Tell me, why is it getting worse? Consider this; it isn’t getting worse its history repeating itself. If you don’t learn from your past you will repeat your past. The culture needs to change. Is it making sense now?

      • Vicki

        RichE says:
        “USMC Vet,
        Why bother creating laws If those you mention, in the present, wouldn’t obey?”

        Why do you obey the laws RichE?

        • RichE

          Vicki,
          The proper question is; do I obey the law or the intent of the law. If you obey the intent of the law there is no need for the law. If you obey the letter of the law you will never fulfill the law.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        So you admit that you don’t obey laws.

      • http://www.ifonlyphotos.com Alex Frazier

        RichE -

        America isn’t really a gun culture. America is a freedom culture. The fight isn’t really over the petty things. It’s over the grand scheme. Banning a magazine because of its capacity is just a step towards banning something else. Banning a rifle because of a barrel shroud (which is actually a protective device) is also just one step towards a larger goal.

        We fight each petty thing they attack because we know the goal isn’t to prevent violence, crime, murder, etc. Their goal is to take the guns away altogether.

        Without getting into a history lesson, the greatest atrocities in the history of the world were perpetrated on people by their own governments. The right to keep and bear arms, as it states in its own text, is necessary to the preservation of a free state.

        There is also what Chester said. The cops are never there when the crime is happening. The police are just social janitors. They are there to clean up the mess after the fact. They aren’t there to stop you from being murdered. They are there to try and figure out who murdered you.

        So self defense is a valid reason for any law abiding citizen to own a firearm. More to the point, crimes and assaults happen just as often, if not more often, outside the home. There’s every reason for individuals to carry protection when they leave their home.

    • JUKEBOX

      To begin with, Obama would not know which of a pistol or rifle to hold. He also would not know the difference between an AK47 and a Barrett 50 cal. It’s OK for him and Eric Holder to send those Chinese made AK’s to the Mexican drug cartels, but we can’t have them to defend ourselves. Oh, and who is the foreign outsourcer, when he buys those AK’s for the Mexicans?

    • Wyatt

      And who may I ask is going to attest and vouch that the character of the two individuals signing to verify the good character of the buyer ? Any law abiding citizen with no police record should be permitted to purchase a firearm . And while full automatic weapons are regulated by the government , I see many seem to find their way into the hands of the criminal element .

      Magazine capacity only says how many shots you can get off before you must reload and while many assault type weapons use them they really are not the problem nor are the weapons . The problem are the people themselves , the ones who wield the weapon . Since they figure they are the only one with one , they can do what they please . If they thought for one minute that someone else might have a gun , they wouldn’t try to rob the store , mug the old person or shoot up a movie theater . And armed society is a safe and polite society .

      Controlling guns only gives the criminal more power , they will always find a way to get a gun or guns . So when guns are outlawed , only outlaws will have guns . And the government will control us all except for the outlaws . Wake up and smell what you are shoveling .

    • TML

      Not that I think you would be an authority on sanity and reason regarding this topic… I’ll throw you some.

      Flashy says, “Restrict magazines to handle clips holding a smaller number of cartridges? The the Congresswoman was shot, did he not have 30 round clips for his pistols? And the shooter in Aurora, did he not have 100 round clips? And were they not both semi auto’s ?”

      Considering that it takes less than a second to switch out a magazine, I’d say that magazine capacity is rather irrelevant. And to my knowledge of the incident, the shot gun was used most.

      Flashy says, “How about what I am told exists in Canada. you buy a firearm, two people have to sign attesting to your good character and responsibility. I am uncertain if that is a requirement in Canada…even if not, seems reasonable to me)”

      Perhaps, but what two people could attest to good character and responsibility? In other words, who attests to the good character and responsibility of the two signing for the individual?

      Flashy says, “Or should we continue to allow criminals to have easy access to firearms…and make it harder to vote than to buy a gun?”

      No laws restricting access to firearms would have prevented such a determined criminal from obtaining them.

      Btw… it’s not harder to vote than to buy a gun.

    • Greg

      Good points Flashy; the way the GOP’ers are going they are making it harder and harder to vote, but lets all have our AK-47′s — never know when that big bear will attack

      • Nadzieja Batki

        But noone is stopping you from voting unless you have no business voting.

      • TML

        Greg says, “the way the GOP’ers are going they are making it harder and harder to vote, but lets all have our AK-47′s — never know when that big bear will attack”

        First, what on earth make you think “GOP’ers” are the only pro-gun advocates?

        Second, what is with this strawman that people keep using about voting? Presenting an I.D. does not make it harder to vote except for those that are not citizens and shouldn’t be voting anyway, and heads off voter fraud claims that some people have been voting under the names of previously deceased people. It’s a very poor strawman argument that makes you look stupid for bringing it up.

        Third, an AK-47 wouldn’t be protection from a bear… that’s why they make bear mace. That’s all that’s needed along with the knowledge and awareness of bears. Don’t kill the poor bear because you were dumb enough to go hiking with food in your pocket and not making noise as you go. AK-47′s are for times like the L.A. riots to protect yourself, your family, and your property from vicious mobs trying to kill you. You do not ever know when things like that might happen.

      • http://www.ifonlyphotos.com Alex Frazier

        Greg, what do you mean by that? I’ve heard it more than once now from the liberal on this forum, that it’s harder to vote. In your case, you say that the GOP is making it harder to vote. What do you mean?

        Are you referring to prohibiting illegal immigrants from voting? (They shouldn’t be voting anyway).

        Do you mean stopping dead people from voting? (They cast all the votes they’re going to cast).

        Do you mean requiring identification, just like they do for driving, going into a bar, obtaining a credit card, bank account, loan, mortgage, or to cash your paycheck?

        Can you please explain how voting for legitimate citizens has been impaired or made more difficult by the GOP or anyone else? I went to the polling station, showed them my ID and voter’s registration card, and then cast my votes. I didn’t notice any difficulties with the process.

    • Fearfull Ralph

      I have to agree with DavidL that “If we read the Constitution (2nd Amendment) as SC Justices and other strict constructionists demand we do, then the original intent of the 2nd Amendments entitles us to own muskets” but I am compelled to add that since the musket was the state of the art front line weapon of the army at that time then that means I am entitled to own a M16, H&K XM25 and/or MP7, etc, How about a current Gatling gun (it is so much better than my father’s .50 machine gun in WW1 except a Gatling doesn’t even sound like a gun).

      Of course, there those such as myself who prefer a revolver since it doesn’t jam as easily as a semi-auto

      • http://www.ifonlyphotos.com Alex Frazier

        I agree with your position, and I disagree with the constructionists. We have a right to keep and bear “arms,” not muskets. “Arms,” by definition, are “weapons” or “tools of warfare.” While a musket may indeed save a life in a conflict, it’s hardly an adequate weapon to be used as a tool of warfare.

        If the SCOTUS is going to break the amendment down and nit pick its wording to gain a fuller understanding, then we should all have access to tanks and other weapons of warfare.

        As a responsible American who has no desire to see our country turn into Africa, I’d have to say that large bombs, tanks, fighter jets, etc., are probably unnecessary for the population to have without a good reason (like a government gone rogue). But we should still have the right to them. We can’t fight back against a government with tanks, machine guns, rockets, planes, etc., if all we have are single shot bolt action rifles with five round magazines.

    • Pat

      Go to the ATF site and download or read the form you must fill out when you buy a gun through legal channels: http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf · It allows responsible people guns, it tries to weed out the irresponsible people by ruling out those with criminal records, spousal abusers, drug users, “mentally deficient”, illegals and underage people. Obama wouldn’t be eligible…

    • Smithkowitz

      Maybe we should also require that the two references have two references and no one can be related by blood or marriage to any of the references or the party applying for the license. What if you have no friends or neighbors? What if your neighbors or people you work with are just simply anti-gun? I could ask people where I work, some would say I am fine, some would say no one needs guns and still others would say . . things we just can’t share.

    • http://www.ifonlyphotos.com Alex Frazier

      The handgun used on Gifford had a fifteen round magazine. The AR-15 used in Colorado had a thirty round magazine.

      Barring the fact that firearms are so restricted in Canada that they are useless to anyone but a cop or a criminal, I do think that the two character witness thing doesn’t sound like too bad of an idea. Unfortunately, this kid in Colorado was reported by everyone that knew him as being a quiet guy with good grades, etc. There was no hint that he was going to go berserk and rig his apartment with bombs and incendiary devices, or use his firearms in a criminal way.

      It’s also worth saying that most people can find two people to vouch for them. In fact, the worse you are, the easier it is. My whole family is liberal. My mother hates guns so much that she won’t let me bring one in her house (because they randomly float around and shoot people by themselves). But I’m loud enough, and can be obnoxious enough, that I will have my way. I once backed her down in an argument (no small task when arguing with a liberal) and made her admit that she believed that no one should have stopped the Nazis from killing six million Jews. I don’t think she really believes that, but her particular anti-war position had holes in it. I just wanted to prove it to her.

      But suffice it to say, I’d have gotten two people to vouch for me whether I had criminal intentions or not. If family didn’t work, I’d get a friend.

      For the record, it’s incredibly difficult for criminals to get firearms through legal channels. Criminals don’t use legally purchased firearms. Every new law you add to the books just makes it harder for law abiding folks to get them. The criminals don’t suffer from the new laws.

  • Theodore Gager

    This is just further proof that our would be criminal and chief does not belong in our white house. He belongs hanging from the end of a rope!

    • ann

      That’s a really ugly thing to say buddy. AK’s do belong to soldiers not people walking on the street. Obama is right as usual.

      • William Amann

        “Obama is right as usual” When was the first time?

      • Sharpshooter003

        Only soldiers I saw carrying AK’s were North Vietnamese or Cong …… and Ann they were trying to kill me an American Marine ….. but you and obama think this is right ……. says alot about you Ann or is it Jane …..

      • John Woodbury

        Ann, I really have no idea where the DNC finds you simpleton useful paid fools. Just remember useful fools have short shelf life after the total takeover.

      • Vigilant

        ann says, “Obama is right as usual.”

        I think you meant to say, “Obama is left as usual.”

      • testament2012

        your correct Ann its not a nice thing to say, but don’t let that inflammatory language mask the truth, Our Government or in the least this administration is not being an honest broker in this matter, and until Obama gets off his illegal claim for executive privilege and submits to a thorough investigation a cloud of doubt will linger, as well as his $2million bought and paid for, court order to hide his past, ask yourself, what can be worth $2million dollars to keep hidden, then how with a straight face can they accuse Romney of hiding things, there is a bad case of denial and deliberate cover up in the White House today. Its not politics its corruption and mismanagement.

      • JUKEBOX

        How can a guy who does everything with his left hand be right at any time?

      • Ralph

        “Holmes bought all his guns”, yes he did, but it was people like you who who believe in “gun free zones” in case you haven’t noticed, it is “gun free zones” where all the mass killings have taken place. Concealed carry has cut the crime rate considerably, there should not be “gun free zones” they are dangerous places.

      • JeffH

        ann, besides being ignorant about AK-47′s and Obama, when was the last time you saw anyone walking down the street carrying an AK-47, or even a gun for that matter…besides security and law enforcement. I’ll bet your answer is “NEVER”.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Careful what you say people. Ann just gets so offended. We musn’t have Ann offended, she will throw a hissy fit.

    • Chester

      Theodore, I hate to tell you this, but comments like that are a good way to find yourself wishing for a short rope and a long drop. Personally, I could care less about what you say or don’t say, but I would guess that these postings are monitored by our “good friends” in Washington, the FBI and/or the CIA.

    • Shelia

      Theodore that was a mean and student thing to say. and I bet you call your self a Christian.

  • polmutant

    repeal NFA, ATF, TTB. NO restrictions. then there would be no criminals, NO cost to keep them in Jail. No expense for desk jocky cops. LIFE LIBERTY and pursuit of PROPERTY.
    God bless America.

    • Vicki

      Oh there would still be criminals, but you are right it would cost less. More of the actual criminals would be dead.

  • http://yahoo a

    Having grown up in NYC which had the Sullivan Law which was the most restrictive in the country,the criminals always had the weapons and we the law abiders had to go thru hoops just to get a target permit even when on a military shooting team.So who won? the crminals until citizens decieded that enough was enough and faught back to change the law. God help us if we ever need a citizen army but at least we know that a good number of people are ready and armed.

    • TIME

      Dear A,

      I see you understand what it was really like back in the 60′s / 70′s in NYC.
      Back then it was all HELL in the City, whats really sad is that Blumberbutt wnats to take NYC right back to that again.

      In 1972 just a few hundred feet from Manny’s after picking up an 59 Les Paul, I was shot as well stabbed by a gang of about ten thugs who liked my LP – let alone my cash and car keys.

      Peace and Love

      • http://yahoo a

        Until Gulliani took the streets back from the criminals it was gun fight at the OK corral. The libs used every trick and it failed. Now you have nanny Bloomberg making NYC the laughing stock of the country right behind Chicago. So much for liberal idea’s and yet they keep voting the idiots in to office

    • eddie47d

      Living in NYC means you should know where those guns come from. Most are traced to the Carolina’s so blame your fellow Americans for arming the criminals. Loose laws allow thousands of weapons to be bought from legitimate dealers and manufacturers and the buyers “smuggle” them into NYC and across the nation. If these legitimate buyers can purchase these weapons so easily and them transfer them out then these “legitimate” BUYERS are nothing more than criminals themselves.

      • Chester

        Eddie, maybe some of them DID come from North Carolina, but what does that have to do with the price of rice in China? The point being made is that the crooks CAN AND DO obtain weapons, and ammunition, without going through all the steps needed to be legal when they do so. Many of those guns in NYC were sold to law abiding citizens, then removed from their possession in a most UNLAWFUL manner. Now who do you blame for that, the gun owner for not having his weapon locked up so not even HE could get to it, or the thief for breaking into this residence and taking what he wanted? Seems to me that you are trying to put the blame on the wrong heads, those of the people who TRY to obey the laws.

      • eddie47d

        It has everything to do with the price of “tea in China”. When you take on the irresponsible legal gun owners who peddle their guns illegally to the criminal elements they become irresponsible themselves. Yet you all make a big issue when the ATF/BTFA check on gun dealers to make sure they are not doing anything illegal. My comment has nothing to do with fast and furious but the private dealers committing the same misdiscrestions. It only takes a few bad apples to exacerbate the situation.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d writes:
        “When you take on the irresponsible legal gun owners who peddle their guns illegally to the criminal elements they become irresponsible themselves.”

        They don’t become irresponsible, they become criminals.

        eddie47d: “My comment has nothing to do with fast and furious but the private dealers committing the same misdiscrestions. It only takes a few bad apples to exacerbate the situation.”

        So it is ok for government agents to break the law?. Nice. Thus is the place tyrants prefer to be. Above the law.

        eddie47d: “It only takes a few bad apples to exacerbate the situation.”

        Like BATFE telling honest private dealers to to ahead and commit the misdiscrestions and sell to obvious straw dealers. Or were you being more specific and saying Eric Holder?

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Living in NYC means you should know where those guns come from. Most are traced to the Carolina’s so blame your fellow Americans for arming the criminals. ”

        We don’t blame our fellow Americans for exercising their Constitutionally PROTECTED right and we don’t blame inanimate objects. We blame the criminals. We’re conservative in our blame.

      • phideaux

        “Living in NYC means you should know where those guns come from. Most are traced to the Carolina’s so blame your fellow Americans for arming the criminals.”

        Most of those guns were furnished by crooked cops and stricter laws would not have prevented their purchase.

        I strongly suspect eddie was denied a firearms purchase sometime in the past and that is why he is so down on gun dealers and his so called “lax” laws. If he cannot have it he doesn’t want anyone else to have it.

      • eddie47d

        I’ve stated my opinion about FF and Eric Holder several times so that was irrelevant to my comment Vickie . Nice try though.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “I’ve stated my opinion about FF and Eric Holder several times so that was irrelevant to my comment Vickie . Nice try though.”

        If it was irrelevant then why did you bring it up?

      • http://www.ifonlyphotos.com Alex Frazier

        eddie, I’ll give you this one. No criminal could ever obtain a firearm illegally unless it was first purchased legally. The gun manufacturers don’t have special plants and facilities for making “black market only” hand guns and machine guns that conveniently bypass the legal system we have in place. The guns are made, transported and transferred under some of the strictest international regulations, and sold to individuals who have no criminal history whatsoever.

        The question is, how do they get to the next stage? They can only get to the hands of criminals in a few ways:

        1) Legally sold in a private sale with no knowledge of criminal intent.
        2) Legally sold in a private sale with knowledge of criminal intent.
        3) Given.
        4) Stolen.
        5) Found.
        6) Government supplied.

        Personally, I am of the opinion that most illegal firearms are acquired by theft. It is doubtful that those acquired through private sales were with the seller’s knowledge that the firearm was being purchased for criminal activities, or that the buyer had a criminal background.

        But to close that loophole requires firearm registration, and that’s a big fat “no” from me. Registration is just the first step to confiscation.

      • eddie47d

        You made the unnecessary reply to me Vickie so ditto!

      • Vicki

        Alex Frazier says:
        “eddie, I’ll give you this one. No criminal could ever obtain a firearm illegally unless it was first purchased legally. ”

        I won’t give him that one. All I have to do is find ONE case of a criminal stealing from a manufacturer or a manufacturer selling on the black (ipso facto illegal) market.

        Lets see how long this takes.
        tick
        tock.
        40 seconds later (trust me oh and it took 0.25 sec for the search engine to find it.)

        http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/09/02/16000-guns-lost-from-manufacturing-plants-in-last-2-5-years-report/

  • Zella Balentine

    The major force for marxist and communism is the taking of firearms from unsuspecting citizens–Think about it–We need self protection as well as sports use of guns. Also remember–Criminals do not register guns–most steal them. Zella Balentine

    • ann

      Holmes bought all of his gun for the massacre.

      • Patriot1776

        And if there had been anyone in the theater armed with a license to carry, the massacre would not have been anywhere near as bad. For one, the coward went into the theater knowing all were unarmed and could not shoot back. If you take away the guns from citizens, you only leave the criminals with guns. Criminals will always find a way to get guns. If there were no guns, criminals would use bombs or other weapons.

      • eddie47d

        That’s not necessarily true Patriot and only conjecture. It could have made it worse and yes that is only conjecture too.

      • JeffH

        eddie, stop already! Everthing you say is based on assumption, conjecture, what if’s and maybe’s.

        You’ve been repeating the same lies for years now!

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “That’s not necessarily true Patriot and only conjecture. It could have made it worse and yes that is only conjecture too.”

        And I bet 12 people would be more than happy to test that conjecture. Alas they won’t get the chance.

        Btw Wise people learn from history. You do not appear to have done so.
        http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/07/the-aurora-shooting-you-didnt-hear-about-in-the-media/
        Remember when you read the above story that it is only conjecture how many more might have died. And if they knew who they were I bet they would choose to live.

    • ANDREW DOMENITZ

      YOU ARE CORRECT

    • JUKEBOX

      Somebody with a few hundred dollars in his pocket can buy a gun on the street in nearly any city or town in the U.S. without any background check. No amount of gun control laws will be able to stop this, and if you don’t believe it, look at NYC and Chicago or DC.

    • charlene

      its time to remember who aloud fast and ferus to get there hands on the same guns. our own goverment. obama has the lives of 25,000 people. look at what hed do if we had no guns, and the muslums did. think about that people, obama hates this county we need to stand our ground,unless you wount to be sheep going to slader. couse that my people is whats comeing, if this clown gets back in. or he thinks he;ll loss in the fall. watch and see.

  • eddie47d

    Assault weapons shouldn’t be on the streets.PERIOD! Get over this fantasy with AK-47′s ,Glock 9′s and any other weapon of mass destruction for the “little guy”. It doesn’t even the score or make things safer or improve the neighborhood. They have only one purpose and that is to kill as many people as fast as possible.They are not needed in the hands of any rational thinking person or to protect anything. If the US government screwed up with Fast and Furious then that should make it even clearer how wrong these weapons are yet some insist on emulating their behavior. If you want a more transparent government you don’t go out and copycat their bad behavior. That is exactly what some gun groups are advocating. This whole Fast and furious operation came about because of the illegal gun sales to Mexico from Arizona and Texas courtesy of private dealers. What a shame the government had to step in and attempt to correct the situation. It backfired big time but only proves that both sides of the gun running issue are guilty and need to stop their incorrigable behavior.

    • Chester

      Eddie, DEFINE an assault weapon as opposed to a normal, run of the mill semi automatic. You want to take one thing, but leave the definition so broad that nearly anything other than a single shot weapon fits. I don’t think the old 45 acp is an assault weapon, but under the definition used by so many gun fearing citizens, it would be classed as one. Of course, the same could be said about the old 9 shot Colt Commander revolver that only fired 22 rimfire cartridges.

    • Vigilant

      “If you want a more transparent government you don’t go out and copycat their bad behavior.”

      eddie, besides the fact that the statement is a non sequitur, perhaps you’d like to give some examples to back up that screwy claim. Who, may I ask, is copycatting or advocating bad behavior by saying it’s OK to sell guns to known criminals?

      Ain’t found a posting today on this site that says that.

      • eddie47d

        Those gun dealers in Phoenix and Milwaukee encouraged the sales to those who were not authorized. Don’t be so naive Vigilant.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Those gun dealers in Phoenix and Milwaukee encouraged the sales to those who were not authorized. Don’t be so naive Vigilant.”

        The ones who called the “authorities” to warn of illegal purchase attempts? Eddie you are treading on very thin ice there.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Eddie47d, have the courage to name those dealers. But take care to take the consequences of lawsuits made against yourself.

    • eddie47d

      That’s up to the courts and the American people to sort out Chester. Even the majority of NRA members support bans on automatic weapons that serve little purpose in our society. Time to stop listening to those who are against common sense and keep pushing their any thing goes agenda. (anyplace,anytime no matter what).

      • http://azcowboy756500.wordpress.com azcowboy756500

        who decides what classi fies as an assault weapon?where does it stop?we need stricter enforcement of laws already on the booksnot more restrictions!!!!if every law abiding citizen were armed then the cowardly criminals would be affraid to propogate their crimes.some of our best weapons are based on military type firearms.do you want to outlaw collections for military collectors.our military cannot operate on our own soil except for trainingit is up to law abiding citizens to defend ourselves and each other

      • JeffH

        eddie still believes thatif you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth.

        You’re a liar eddie and there is nothing you’ve said that you can back up regarding NRA member’s thoughts on automatic weapons. A knowledgable person knows that you have to jump through hoops to even get a classIII license to own and automatic weapon.

      • Vicki

        Eddie47d writes:
        “Even the majority of NRA members support bans on automatic weapons that serve little purpose in our society. ”

        So Eddie. And be specific. Which automatic weapons serve little purpose in YOUR society?

      • CZ52

        eddie is either so ignorant or anti-gun stupid that he has no idea what a Glock9 is. For your edification eddie a glock 9 is just a 9MM semi auto pistol very similar to the old Colt 1911. It is no more dangerous than said 1911 or a Browning Hi-Power 9MM or a Ruger semiauto or a S&W semi-auto.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Name those majority of NRA members and be prepared for lawsuits from those NRA members if you cause them mischief.

      • eddie47d

        More pro-gun puffery. How big are your heads with all that hot air? You really think an NRA member will Loudly proclaim his distest for automatic weapons. Now that poll was taken a few years ago and polls are private for the person voicing their opinion. Even some NRA members have to be fearful of what they say to other members.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “More pro-gun puffery. How big are your heads with all that hot air? ”

        Question avoidance by ad-hominem attack. How typically liberal.

        Here is the question again
        So Eddie. And be specific. Which automatic weapons serve little purpose in YOUR society?

      • JeffH

        vicki says “Question avoidance by ad-hominem attack. How typically liberal.”

        And???? How typically eddie!

      • eddie47d

        Any automatic weapon needs to be regulated as I stated yesterday. Even a good chunk of semi-automatics. Does that clarify my position or can’t you grasp that?

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Any automatic weapon needs to be regulated as I stated yesterday. Even a good chunk of semi-automatics. Does that clarify my position”

        You did bother to answer my question. (The question: So Eddie. And be specific. Which automatic weapons serve little purpose in YOUR society?)

        Well sort of. The question was not which ones you want regulated but which ones serve little purpose in YOUR society. On the bright side we know that you want ALL automatic weapons regulated regardless of their purpose in YOUR society. And I don’t get the impression that you mean regulated the way the founders meant in the usage in the 2nd Amendment.

        Lets ignore for the moment that eddies wish was granted long before he or I were born (NFA 1934) Well long before I was born. Don’t really know eddies age. And lets try another question.
        -
        -
        So Eddie. And be specific. Which semi-automatic weapons are in your “good chunk” that you want regulated. You can use descriptions of features rather than brand names if you like.

        The astute reader will already be thinking of the obvious next question which, like voters should have asked of obamas “change” in 2008.

        What does eddie mean by “regulated”

    • JUKEBOX

      Eddie, you have made the case for citizens being allowed to have these weapons. As long as we have this kind of firepower, the government will never be stupid enough to try to enslave us as they did in the Soviet Union.

      • http://azcowboy756500.wordpress.com azcowboy756500

        i agree wholeheartedly with you

      • eddie47d

        Jukebox is misinterpreting what I said. I just don’t believe a gun in every pot is the way to go.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Jukebox is misinterpreting what I said. I just don’t believe a gun in every pot is the way to go.”

        I would strongly suggest that you keep your guns out of the chicken. It tends to cause malfunctions.

      • CZ52

        After reading all his posts you come to realize eddie actualy doesn’t want a gun in any private individuals “pot”. He only wants the government and the criminals to have them. He apparently also believes the police will arrive before you finish dialing 911.

      • eddie47d

        Don’t be so dense CZ52 I never said that! With that gibberish I think you are one of those who should be kept away from anything dangerous including more than weapons.

      • CZ52

        eddie first anyone who doesn’t even know what a Glock 9 is shouldn’t be posting about guns. Second I never said you stated you were opposed to gun ownership I said it was the logical conclusion to draw after reading all your posts on guns and guncontrol.

    • http://yahoo Larry

      we need all the firepower we can get to overthrow an unjust and tyranical federal government to which the 2nd amendment was put in the constitution for in the 1st place not for hunting and sporting purposes.

  • Alex

    Reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban.

    If you are a frightened person with a tiny mind and you feel better having a rifle or shotgun to protect you and your loved ones, fine. Just STAY HOME with your guns and sweat out your life. If you cannot handle going out into public unarmed—DON’T!

    But NO assault weapons, NO high-capacity clips, and NO handguns. A rifle or shotgun may be a nice pacifier to help keep your diaper dry, but there is no need for handguns. They are too easy to hide in clothing and take out into the larger, thinking group of people.

    • Tomas

      I think Alex is off his meds. I love how the uninformed are forming opinions on the subject of firearms, and proposing restrictions based upon their “feelings”. Would Alex feel better about firearms that fall under the collective fantasy term of “assault weapons” if he had to defend himself, or perhaps his family from armed intruders? Does Alex and his ilk live so disconnected from the world that self defense w/ similar capabilities isn’t required? Does Alexs’ world only have handguns of limited cartridge capacity? Is he living in a world of wheel guns and poor marksmen? I think these folks just have their head in the sand. Personally, I have weapons as a means of defense, and sport. I hope I never have to use them for the former, but am willing to if necessary. That some clowns trying to score political points at the federal level think that they have a right to abridge my rights to self defense in kind, they have declared themselves to be known as traitors. It is laughable that “only soldiers” need these types of weapons. Let’s suppose that is true for a moment. Then how am I supposed to defend myself from these soldiers should they decide to attack if i am left with only a shotgun, or revolver with which to defend myself? Armies of countries are the single largest killer of,innocents the world has ever known. If you really want to disarm someone, start with governments. After all, the governments right to bear arms is NOT constitutionally guaranteed.

      • Phillip in TX

        Well said Tomas.

      • Alex

        You’re being very silly, Tomas.

        Say you have assault weapons. Say you and your family have thirty or twenty of them, plus acres of ammo.

        You think the “tyrannical government” out to squash you is going to say, “Never mind,” when you open the door with your Lapierre 5000?

        That then seems to clear the way for you, and James Holmes and Colin Ferguson, to legally own hydrogen bombs, tactical and strategic bombers, tanks, and flame-throwers, right? I mean, one must meet muscle with muscle, right?

        It is time that his country readdress the Second Amendment, that relic scratched out by our frightened Floundering Fathers, hell-bent on “building a nation” through theft, genocide, ethnic cleansing, and forced labor (you know, all the Nazi/Soviet stuff), and grow up.

      • Vigilant

        “…our frightened Floundering Fathers, hell-bent on “building a nation” through theft, genocide, ethnic cleansing, and forced labor (you know, all the Nazi/Soviet stuff), and grow up.”

        Alex, that despicable comment makes you a despicable person. If you can’t and won’t appreciate the genius of the Founders in creating the best nation the world has ever seen, then perhaps you should be more comfortable in Belarus, North Korea, Iran or Cuba.

        You’ve been reading too much of Howard Zinn and other communists’ proaganda. Ergo, your credibility is zero, zilch, nada.

      • eddie47d

        Our Founding Fathers never envisioned our modern scenarios and the meaning behind the Second Amendment in today’s world. They never imagined the abuse that has occurred over these “rights”.

      • Vigilant

        Indeed, eddie, abusive and unconstitutional gun control laws were not envisioned by that sage group of men.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Our Founding Fathers did forsee a time like we live in. Human natures have not changed since Adam and Eve. How do the Leftists/Progressives thinkTyrants get power over their subjects?

      • eddie47d

        The USA is the biggest gun runner in the world and we quite often control the slaughter. The Taliban controlled it’s people by way of guns and religion. So there are certain elements of society that shouldn’t have that much power. There are those groups in the USA that want that kind of power and want to use it by force. Be careful what you wish for in amassing your arsenal.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “The USA is the biggest gun runner in the world and we quite often control the slaughter.”

        Proof by bald assertion. Debate FAIL.

        eddie47d: “The Taliban controlled it’s people by way of guns and religion.”

        And the people have no arms thereby proving our point of universal individual ownership.

        eddie47d: “So there are certain elements of society that shouldn’t have that much power. There are those groups in the USA that want that kind of power and want to use it by force.”

        Indeed they are. Look at the list of federal agencies that now have their agents carry arms.

      • CZ52

        “Our Founding Fathers never envisioned our modern scenarios and the meaning behind the Second Amendment in today’s world.”

        eddie while they might not have envisioned the EXACT weapons available today they certainly would expect continual improvements in firearms. The
        Authors of the Constitution and Bill of Rights were learned men who would have been quite aware of the improvements in firearms since they were first invented and they were of the continued improvements going on at that time including repeating firearms and firearms capable of being reloaded in seconds instead of minutes. They would have expected the improvements to continue.

      • eddie47d

        CZ52;No our founding Fathers wouldn’t have approve of all the misuse of today’s weapons. By individuals and governments. I reckon they could of killed off the Indians much faster but we will never know if they would have adapted that bad behavior.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d writes:
        “I reckon they could of killed off the Indians much faster but we will never know if they would have adapted that bad behavior.”

        Interesting attempt to distract by blaming our ancestors for the alleged crimes of a few. Fortunately the Indians would have been smart enough to get those fancy fire-sticks too.

      • CZ52

        Typical eddie. He has no logical rebuttal so he tries to change the subject.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “No our founding Fathers wouldn’t have approve of all the misuse of today’s weapons. By individuals and governments.”

        They would not have approved of the misuse by individuals and governments. They, however correctly predicted the misuse. This is explicitly why they included the 2nd amendment and put no limits on what were to be considered “arms”. To protect us from individuals (like the Aurora shooter) and governments who would misuse today’s weapons as well as today’s laws.

      • eddie47d

        The subject wasn’t changed CZ52. Nice attempt at BS from you.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1729911816 David McCall

      Another of those who seem to think (or not think at all) that a person who wants to keep his of her family safe is some kind of moron. The facts speak for themselves. The cities with the highest rates of gun violence and murders are those with the most restrictive gun laws. The ones with the lowest rates of gun violence are those where the most people legally own their weapons. When the criminals know that their chosen victims are unarmed they are much more likely to commit the crime than when the criminal thinks that the chosen victim just might be packing. The refusal of the anti-gun crowd to see and understand the facts is amazing.

      • Paul

        I had an anti gunner tell me that, that is what the police are for so that if a person need protection all he has to do is make a call and the police will come right over. Well this person thought that was how things went until he needed them and it took about an hour for the police to get there. this person is no longer an anti gunner he decided that he needed a gun to protect his family. It is amazing how people change their tune when their life is in danger. Dave if you are so afraid of guns then go stick your head in the sand while you lose the rest of your rights, under the current admin IF he had his way we would not be having any more elections and we would not be able to anything or do any traveling or anything with a passport or something like one.

    • Jim

      Alex, you sound just like Obama. For your sake there will be an armed “thinking” person near you or your family member when their life depends upon it. You also fail to realize that our 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or target shooting.

      • CZ52

        Jim, I am of the opinion hunting, self defence, target shooting, etc were intended to be included. The Authors of the Second were well aware of the need for some to hunt for their food. They recognozed as shown by other statements the need for a person to be able to defend themselves. They would have recognozed target shooting both as a means of training for the un-organized militia as well as for fun. Therefore I believe all of these were intended to be included after the primary intent of the Second.

    • TIME

      Dear Alex,

      Its really quite obvious that you have never been anywhere, nor ever done much of anything in your life, that can be garnered by your post.

      I have been not only shot, but stabbed as well – JFTR, I was in a Rock & Roll band when most of these events took place, not just in the USA either.

      I was stabbed in London. { You know that very peaceful place where NO ONE has any GUNS.} A number of us Rockers have been held up at GUN point in London.
      By the way in Ireland after a show in the 80′s a band mate had a gang of Drunken thugs beat the living day lights out of him, Oh yea, Pistol whipped is what they call it. JFTR, GUNS were banned there too.

      So you live in your nice “little bubble” dude, when you grow up and get out in the real world, then I will talk with you.
      Until then your just one more of clueless little person’s that has a closed small mind who posts here.

      Peace and Love

      • Alex

        I, too, have been robbed by people with handguns. Twice.

      • Vigilant

        “I, too, have been robbed by people with handguns. Twice.”

        …and still don’t agree that you should be able to arm yourself? The Darwin Award awaits you.

      • eddie47d

        Maybe he’s referring to the lax laws and lack of accountability in how those robbers obtained their weapons. If they did have guns. Weapon ownership and how those weapons are bought and sold aren’t always honorable.

      • JeffH

        essie again proves what an ignorant hypocrit he is by using “conjecture” after chastising an earlier commentor for using “conjecture”.

      • eddie47d

        I always admit it when I use conjecture. Something so many won’t do.

      • JeffH

        eddie, you rarely, if ever, admit anything. You’re a well known and documented liar…that is fact, not conjecture.

      • CZ52

        “Maybe he’s referring to the lax laws and lack of accountability in how those robbers obtained their weapons.”

        Just showing your anti gun sentiments again eddie. You are well aware the only way to make any difference in the illegaly obtained firearms is a total ban on ALL firearms and even then the difference will be very small.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Alex, so why didn’t you defend yourself and your property?
        The criminals knew you didn’t have a weapon to defend yourself with. So you can thank the gun control advocates for your predicament.

    • http://yahoo a

      Alex, Maybe you’ve never been in a city that has been torn by riots and civil unrest. You won’t be calling a journalist to protect you, It will be the military just like NYC in the 60′s. The threat of Miltary intervention is what brought the riotors under control, the police could not contain and control the streets. Gov Rockefeller had the Nat’l guard ready to take control of the streets and the word was put out to the riotors to cease or else they were coming in. So put your head in the sand and leave it there. The same conditions then are now and it could happen today.

      • Alex

        On the day the verdict in the trial of the cops who attempted to murder Rodney King was announced, I was in a car, showing a friend from Chicago around Los Angeles.

        We saw the riots begin. For days we watched the smoke rise, praying that everyone would be okay.

        You assume a lot, from what you say, and that is not always the most intelligent path to take. Though I have only been able to get out of this country once, and for a very short time, I have lived in several states, nearly always choosing urban centers. So I do believ that I possess at least a working, as opposed to a media-driven, knowledge of various American localities.

      • Vigilant

        “On the day the verdict in the trial of the cops who attempted to murder Rodney King was announced…”

        “Attempted to murder?” You’re absolutely daft! Believe me, if they wanted to murder him, they would have succeeded. You are nothing but a leftist provocateur and liar.

      • eddie47d

        Apparently Vigilant would have been there helping them (police) in heaping the abuse or worse. A dream come true for you??

      • Vigilant

        eddie, you might want to depart from your norm and contribute something of value, rather than make gratuitous and presumptuous remarks.

        (1) The police did not try to murder him.

        (2) A jury found them innocent.

        (3) Case closed.

      • eddie47d

        Ditto to you Vigilant in your original comment.

    • diamond1957

      hey Alex please leave some personal info, so we don’t waste our time defending you or your family, being prepared is a responsibility, whether its from crime, or some national disaster that some people always seem to see as an opportunity to help themselves instead of others. But hey its your choice, if you can live with the threats that potentially can or may do harm to your family power to you. If the phones are still working just dial 911 and wait maybe pray, then wait some more.

    • JUKEBOX

      And you Alex have made the case for “OPEN CARRY” laws in our country. Why do you see policemen carrying their weapons out in the open? It is a deterrent to any possible criminal activity.

    • JJ Swiontek

      Alex, are you absolutely sure you want to ban guns? Maybe you should lead the movement. Start by confronting the Crips and Bloods and demand their guns. IF you get out of the hospital, let us know how that works.

    • http://yahoo Larry

      that is the whole point of concealed carry laws to have a pistol concealed from someone who is intent on harming you or others and I gaurantee if there had been someone armed in the theater of the Colorado shooting, they would have stopped this nut case before so many was killed.

  • flpi!

    “In 1982, Kennesaw, GA passed a law requiring heads of households to own a gun. From 1982 through 2012 there have been only four murders. Three of those murders happened in a “safe school” zone where guns were not allowed.”

  • http://peresonallibertydigest.. gottaplenty

    A little research in history (and very recent) would show what the .purpose of gun control was. People control. All ragimes that enslaved thier people started by disarming them .. Those countries that fell under totalitarism also had a vast majority of liberals that thought to be armed was a huge problem , not a solution.

  • flpi!

    Switzerland (A “Neutral” nation), 1 out of every 2 citizens owns a weapon and they have the lowest crime rate in the world!

    • TIME

      Dear Fipi,

      You are 100% corret, and oddly they as in the Swiss are far more progressed then we are here in the US.

      So the question to all the {quasi NEO Liberal’s} is.

      If you hate guns so much based on the deaths alledged to be so vast in numbers, {yet no one is asking you to own one.}
      First off – Why is it that you feel the need to tell others what they can do?

      Afterall, the word LIBERAL = “One who Tolerates others behavior.”

      And oddly why is it that your all so quite about the 2.4 Plus Million persons who die from {LEGAL Script BIG PHARM DRUGS} per year here in the US?

      Just look at the number’s in the US alone per year only the reported cases of over mdeication by way of Legal Script’s that cause death is 200,000 per month that equals over 2.4 Million deaths per year.
      Again thats only the reported cases.

      Yet only around 11,000 cases of death by guns during a crime per year in the US – so thats less than what .04% of 2.4 million?
      Yet your all so quite about all these deaths, so why is that again?

      Peace and Love

      • Paul

        you forgot about all the highway deaths that occur on our nations highway system every year that number is somewhere around 50 to 70,000 or more why don’t we out the the cars and make everyone either ride the bus or walk. Fact is the death rate for guns is by far the lowest number that we have, and yet the liberals want to take our guns because of a few mentally unstable people that are our there.

      • Vigilant

        Liberal sponsorship of murder results in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of unborn children per year.

      • diamond1957

        Great point Paul, and walking would do wonders for Americas obesity issues so maybe we really dont need Obama care, and you’d be able out run most threats and not need guns so much right? but then you still cant out run a bullet, so, oh well we tried.

      • eddie47d

        Americans are constantly trying to improve the safety of cars and how people drive: highway deaths are down because of that effort yet any attempt to keep guns out of the hands of reckless Americans is discouraged. Traffic laws are there for a purpose and so would gun laws. On the issue of Switzerland (again). They allow weapons in the home but are severely regulated by their government. No ammunition is allowed in the homes for any government issued weapon. Those weapons are only for the defense of the nation and ammunition is only distributed in case of a national emergency. Yes that is something that could be considered here since James Holmes wouldn’t have been allowed to buy such a large amount. Regulations do work and that is why the Swiss don’t have the violence that we do.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Americans are constantly trying to improve the safety of cars and how people drive: highway deaths are down because of that effort yet any attempt to keep guns out of the hands of reckless Americans is discouraged.”

        And how (be precise) are Americans trying to keep cars out of the hands of reckless Americans? (You did want to make a direct comparison rather than trying to distract?)

      • eddie47d

        I said guns Vickie not cars as in your reply!

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “I said guns Vickie not cars as in your reply!”

        You put cars and guns in your statement. You did not treat them to the same questions. I simply put the question to both cars and guns.

        Your avoidance of the question however is noted.

      • CZ52

        ” No ammunition is allowed in the homes for any government issued weapon. Those weapons are only for the defense of the nation and ammunition is only distributed in case of a national emergency.”

        Proven to be a lie in another post.

      • eddie47d

        That makes you or them the liar CZ52.

  • Zed

    I am sick and tired of this whole “sporting” and “hunting” use issue.
    If you read the 2nd amendment, it says:
    “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.”
    “Sporting” and “hunting” don’t appear anywhere in the amendment. The 2nd amendment only protects firearms that have a military use.
    Personally, I think that amendment was put there not just to ensure that the people could protect themselves from foreign threats but from domestic ones as well.

    • Phillip in TX

      Our Forefathers were very wise men. The 2nd Amendment was a gift to future generations to protect their country from all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

      • JUKEBOX

        The way Obama is decimating our military, armed civilians may be called upon to defend our country in the future.

    • Paul

      The reason Japan did not invade during WW2 is because they knew that behind every tree was an armed person that knew how to shoot it was the same for Germany they knew that there was an armed person behind almost every blade of grass. Fact is until now other countries have been afraid to invade because we have so many guns in this country, well you take them away from us and we will be invaded as is happening along our southern border. At no time in history has any other country had its leaders try to tell this nation what to do until now, we have the president of Mexcow tell us that we need to get rid of our guns and he is also telling this nation that our guns are causing trouble in his country, well if he would do something about his crime problem then his gun problem would go down.

      • eddie47d

        Besides the issue that Mexican officials and police are notoriously corrupt maybe crime would be down if so many weapons wouldn’t be smuggled into their country. To me it doesn’t make any difference who is doing the gun running they all need to go to prison. Whether foreign countries,the US government of private dealers. Arrest them all.

      • Vicki

        Eddie47d writes about gunrunning:
        “Whether foreign countries,the US government or private dealers. Arrest them all.”

        And how are you going to do that? You gave up YOUR guns.

      • eddie47d

        Vickie is too confused in who too arrest so YOUR guns wouldn’t be of much use either. The right always likes to be selective in such comments and are always afraid to go after the whole enchilada. If it won’t score you political points then the “other culprits” will get a free pass!

    • Chester

      Zed, when that amendment was written, sporting, hunting, and military weapons were all pretty much one and the same. Now,for a “well organized militia”, I suppose you are ready to arm all who are mandated to be members of same with ALL the military weapons and ammunition they MIGHT need, out of your own pocket, no less? That IS pretty much what the Swiss do, only they do allow their militia to use their weapons for other than purely military use, mostly so every male will know how his gun behaves and what it feels like to shoot it. Maybe all those men over the age of 18 having guns is one reason the Swiss have so few gun crimes.

      • diamond1957

        but history does tell us when called for duty it was their responsibility to come armed with a minimum of powder and bullets. Responsibility is still a word with a lot of weight.

  • fish

    Hunters do use AR15s hunting . What ever light weapons the military has , civilians in this country should have to protect the people from an “OUT of CONTROL GOVERNMENT” If you are too cowardly to own a weapon and “FIGHT for the CONSTITUTION” Then shut you mouth and stay the “Hell” out of the way. “ALL WOMEN THAT CAN’T SHOOT, CHILDREN and COWARDS to the REAR!”

    • Bandit

      Just put an AR15 in my hands and I will be out on the front lines when the fighting starts.

    • eddie47d

      The cowards are the ones who glorify the use of weapons to solve every ill in society. Having an automatic weapon doesn’t necessarily give you a backbone either. They only give you an edge in killing someone. Nothing noble about that except under extreme circumstances such as a national threat from foreign or domestic invaders. You hardly need them for robbers,home invasions or personal self defense. That’s a coward’s myth for the weak. .

      • Vicki

        eddie47d writes:
        “You hardly need them for robbers,home invasions or personal self defense. That’s a coward’s myth for the weak. .”

        Tell that to these Korean shop owners.
        “During the LA Riots after the Rodney King Verdict, as lawless chaos descended on neighborhoods and Law Enforcement sounded a hasty retreat, Korean store owners took to the front doors and rooftops of their businesses, armed with what the media calls “assault rifles” and stood their ground against the attacking mobs, defending their businesses and very lives with exactly the same firearms so many are now calling to be banned.”
        http://www.ammoland.com/2012/07/27/from-the-gun-control-lie-files-assault-weapons

      • AZMarc

        Hey Vicki…crickets. About what you would expect from them when confronted with the facts.

      • eddie47d

        Bring up those extreme situations Vickie although you know they seldom occur. Rioters can be dangerous and yes those store owners have a right to defend their property. How many times do I have to repeat that. I remember seeing them with shotguns on the roof but not automatic weapons.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Bring up those extreme situations Vickie although you know they seldom occur.”

        You mean like gun-control advocates bring up Aurora, Columbine, Virgina tech etc whenever they want to push for more laws against gun ownership?

      • eddie47d

        Like pro-gun people like to spread fear to pump up the sales of weapons Vickie.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Like pro-gun people like to spread fear to pump up the sales of weapons Vickie.”

        Since we do not get paid to pump up sales it seems quite unlikely. Besides we don’t need to spread fear. Liberal MSM does a fine job by sensationalizing mass shootings like Aurora and as if that were not enough then post widely the liberal calls for more laws infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Are you sure you would want the cowards to the rear of the women who can’t shoot and the children?

  • flpi!

    “The strongest reason for the
    people to retain the right to keep and bear arms
    is, as a last resort, to protect themselves
    against tyranny in government. ”
    Thomas Jefferson

    • JimH

      Be wary of the politician who is afraid of you owning a gun.
      They have an agenda.

    • Alex

      The joke is on you, Toter—in order for you to stand up to your oppressive, tyrannical government, you will need, amongst many other things, nuclear weapons, F-16s, flame-throwers, and howitzers, and even though these things SEEM to be covered by the Second Amendment, it just is not going to happen.

      • JimH

        So Alex, You think if we need to protect ourselves from a tyranical government, we’re going to try to stand toe to toe in a conventional war?
        It would be more like in WW2 resistance fighters kind of war.
        Nukes wouldn’t be used.
        I believe that many in the U.S. armed forces wouldn’t go after their own people and would side with them.

      • TIME

        Dear Alex,

        OMG, {{ what are you thinking? }}

        Have you not looked into the NDAA yet?
        Perhaps that little Act known as the “Patriot Act” also slid by you.

        Both of these “ACTS” were invented by the Criminal De Facto Gov to keep its heel on the throats of its Citizens so as to allow these special Criminals who “RULE” over YOU to maintain their “POWER structure.”
        While keeping the Middle class fighting amoung them selves.

        A FREE MAN can own any GUN they so wish, Yet a man with no FREEDOM can’t own anything..

        Peace and Love

  • Dad

    So, why is Obama arming the drug cartels and reducing the security of our southern borders? Legal gun owners are obviously more responsible than this administration.

    • Vicki

      Well said :)

  • flpi!

    A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
    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 and
    from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and
    others who were unable to defend themselves were
    rounded up and exterminated.
    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.
    Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated
    in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
    You won’t see this data on the US evening news,
    or hear politicians disseminating this information.
    Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives
    and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely
    affect only the law-abiding citizens.
    Take note my fellow Americans, before it’s too late!
    The next time someone talks in favor of gun control,
    please remind them of this history lesson.
    With guns, we are ‘citizens’. Without them, we are ‘subjects’.

    • ANDREW DOMENITZ

      you are absolutely right. but our gun control friends would have us say unfair unfair strong letter to follow.

    • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

      “flpi!,”

      WITH THE EXCLUSION OF YOUR COMMENTS REFERENCING Nazi Germany, I LIKE THE REST OF YOUR COMMENTS.

  • Big Blue

    The news surrounding the Aurora shootings seem to always lead back to the current gun control debate and the 2nd ammendment. Every show I watch always take the stance that the 2nd ammendment is somehow about keeping firearms for hunting and sport useage.
    Therefore, why do we need other weaponry if it’s not what’s normally used for say…deer?
    I never hear anyone discuss that the founders were not talking about hunting for food or sport, rather to keep and bear arms for the express purpose of defending themselves from the govenment in case it gets out of hand and the govenment becomes what the founders were running away from in the first place. They wanted the right for the people to be armed to keep it known that at some point the people would be able to resist.
    I spoke with a person who was in Cuba when Castro took over. One of his first moves was to go around and disarm the population. Once the people had no way to defend themselves…..well, we all know how that turned out. The media will always debate based on a false premise to turn the disscussion away from the real point. Most people who don’t own guns don’t know what the term “semi-automatic” means, so they are easily convinced that sure, you don’t need an assault rifle to hunt, so what’s wrong with outlawing them. Prohibition never has worked, even if you could remove all of the curren t firearms, some nutcase willl buy a chainsaw, light up a gallon of gasoline….dosen’t matter. The “little Darlins” in my rather rough neighborhood don’t shop at the gun store and they don’t care much about the gun laws because they don’t abide buy any of them and have no difficulty getting all kinds of weapons. If they could read better or cared to pay attention, they would be the most adamant supporters of any kind of gun control laws. Whooeee now we don’t have to worry about anyone shooting back. All my guns were stolen in a recent robbery….yes sir officer, they took them all, guess I forgot to lock the safe last night…

  • JimH

    People were killing each other before the invention of gunpowder(Kane killed Able with a rock) there is a bigger problem than the gun invoved here. It’s the fact that some people are willing to kill and if they can’t get a gun, other weapons are available.

    • ANDREW DOMENITZ

      yes and you should have heard all the hub bub about rock control. forget about david and goliath causing all that crap about sling control too. the key word is CONTROL

  • Okie

    2nd Amendment: “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.”

    Infringed: Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on

    No more need be said!

    • eddie47d

      Some of you are still confusing the Second Amendment with the ability to slaughter people without the controls to stop such madness. You also give the perps free reign to do their dirty deeds without the ability to see the light. They also love the Second Amendment because you allow them to legally and illegally obtain their weapons of choice.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Some of you are still confusing the Second Amendment with the ability to slaughter people without the controls to stop such madness.”

        You mean like politicians who create “gun-free” zones? Or people like you who support them?

        The controls to stop such madness are the soap box, ballot box and jury box.

        eddie47d: “You also give the perps free reign to do their dirty deeds without the ability to see the light.”

        Quite true. By disarming the law abiding your politicians block the ability for the perp to see the muzzle flash from the proper side.

        eddie47d: “They also love the Second Amendment because you allow them to legally and illegally obtain their weapons of choice.”

        This statement is clearly illogical. They (perps) hate the 2nd Amendment because if it were followed then the intended victims would be able to resist with the tool of THEIR choice.

      • eddie47d

        Gun owners have the means to protect themselves so your comments are worthless. No rights have been taken away but you always make it feel that way to hype up your points. Ain’t working!

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Gun owners have the means to protect themselves so your comments are worthless.”

        Gun owners who have the gun in their possession have the means.

        “No rights have been taken away but you always make it feel that way to hype up your points. Ain’t working!”

        Tell that to the 12 dead in Aurora. The 33 dead at Virginia Tech. The 13 dead at Columbine HS The thousands dead in Chicago, New York, Washington DC and other liberal bastions of firearms ownership freedom.

        All conveniently GUN-FREE zones. Ah but no rights were taken away according to eddie.

      • CZ52

        “Gun owners have the means to protect themselves so your comments are worthless.”

        But eddie you (along with Flashy) are opposed to carry outside the home so how can a gun owner have the means to protect himself if he cannot carry outside his home..

      • eddie47d

        No rights were taken away from anyone killed in those situations Vickie . Nice play on words. The shooter took away their rights to live and enjoy life. Weapons supplied by the numerous gun dealers in America. You and CZ52 need to take at least one patch off of your eyes!

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “No rights were taken away from anyone killed in those situations Vickie . Nice play on words. The shooter took away their rights to live and enjoy life.”

        So you DO agree with me that the shooter took away the rights of the 12. But why did you first say (Quoted above) “No rights were taken away from anyone killed in those situations”

        So which is it? Were their rights taken away by the shooter or were they not?

  • Okie

    It isn’t about hunting or sport. It is about the capacity to protect ourselves from an overreaching government and maintaining a free state.

    • CZ52

      “It isn’t about hunting or sport. It is about the capacity to protect ourselves from an overreaching government and maintaining a free state.”

      Oh but it is. It is about all of it hunting, sport, target shooting, self defence, and most important protecting ourselves from an over-reaching government and maintaining a free state.

  • ANDREW DOMENITZ

    ALL I WANT FROM YOU GUN CONTROL FOOLS IS TO BE STANDING IN FRONT OF ME WHEN IM BEING SHOT AT. THIS WILL GIVE ME THE TIME TO DRAW AND FIRE MY WEAPON AT THE KILLER OF YOU. IM SURE TO SPEAK WELL OF YOU AT YOUR FUNERAL AND TESTIFY AGAINST YOUR KILLER IF HE SURVIVES. IS THAT A GOOD DEAL FOR YOU OR WHAT?

    • eddie47d

      Who says you don’t have the right to defend yourself? That is an onerous assumption that isn’t true. Too many assumptions about the unknowns and should of could of’s.

      • Vicki

        Eddie. Mirror.

      • eddie47d

        Vickie is especially guilty of what I said.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Vickie is especially guilty of what I said.”

        And what was that that you said?

      • eddie47d

        Are you now claiming you can’t read or is this more game playing .

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Are you now claiming you can’t read or is this more game playing”.

        Is that my only 2 choices? Since I can read it must be door number 2.

        Of course there is a 3rd choice. You say a lot of stuff without reference or cite or contextual reference so it is not easy to tell which of the things you said are the one(s) you claim I am guilty of.

        Using just positional context you MIGHT have meant
        eddie47d:”Too many assumptions about the unknowns and should of could of’s.”
        However that is so obviously false with respect to me that it makes no sense that you would be saying that I am guilty of it. Hence I asked the question:

        “And what was that that you said?”

        A question you have so far avoided answering.

  • Joseph T.

    It wouldn’t suprize me if that nut was found out to be working for O bal bla’s adminastration, to any things aren’t adding up with the facts. It wouldn’t be the first time the government created a desaster to take our rights from us and it seems to work. After our attack in New York look what we got, new Laws that say you fly, you get scaned and patted down like some criminal, and that isan’t lawful under the Constitution of the United States but that didn’t stop them from passing it. It’s like this, they create a crissis or masacur and then here comes the new laws and regulations on law abidding citizens, thats how our government rules us. But the Constitution states OUR right to bare arms shall NOT be infrenged upon. But when the government has been taken over by the Communist Party and it is hell bent on weakening our country and make fundamentally transform us into a one world order taxpaying drones that fund the New World Order. It’s all part of the BIG plan, they know they can’t take our country if we are loaded for bear, so they chip away at our second amendment till they finnally get it and we lose our right to bare arms, that WILL be the start of them physically taking OUR country from us cause what are we going to do throw rocks? fight guns with bows & arrows? RIGHT! tHEY TAKE OUR GUNS WE ARE DONE, OUR COUNTRY WILL FALL PEOPLE! The government is more than willing to just give our nation away, we’ve seen it in the last 4 yrs. with this Socialist Communist agenda. Stand up and tell them to go to hell! Your not going to take our country! DON’T TREAD ON ME! We need to go and make our voices heard at the polls, and if it don’t work, then we need a call to arms and stop these terrorist that have over taken our country. God bless America and ALL true Americans.

    • Bandit

      LETS FACE EVERYONE WHAT WE HAVE IN THE w/h IS A DICTATOR AND THATS ALL THERE IS TO IT, AND HE IS A DICTATOR DON’T BELIEVE IT LOOK HOW MANY EXECUTIVE ORDERS THAT HE HAS SIGNED THIS YEAR ALONE IT SOMETHING LIKE 1,200 OR MORE, MORE THAN ANY OTHER PRESIDENT IN HISTORY.

    • diamond1957

      the problem is because there were no planes back in 1776 so its not specified in the constitution, so it cant be a right, hence its a privilege, they use this for cars, Internet, etc. if they cant change the constitution they’ll say we out grew it . The main problem is they have evolved to think they are our overseers, our lords, or masters.

    • eddie47d

      It was a law abiding gun shop that sold the weapons to a law abiding citizen of this nation. Apparently there is a problem with Joseph’s theory and law abiders. They are never as innocent as they look. Now what are you going to do to correct this menacing problem and the 20 massacures that occur in this nation each and every year. Are you going to have more controls over who buys any type of assault weapons/ammunition? Maybe increase health care funding to insures the mentally ill get the help they need and possibly avoiding these confrontations? Both those issues rile you because you don’t care who buys these weapons and you continually damn more health care for anyone. So that is your dilemma to solve and I don’t see that happening soon.

      • Vicki

        Eddie47d demonstrates the desire for prior restraint by writing:
        “It was a law abiding gun shop that sold the weapons to a law abiding citizen of this nation. Apparently there is a problem with Joseph’s theory and law abiders. They are never as innocent as they look.”

        True of rapists too. Using eddies (lack of) logic we should jail all men cause they are all potential rapists. Or just outlaw the tools.

        Eddie47d: “Now what are you going to do to correct this menacing problem and the 20 massacures that occur in this nation each and every year.”

        Balance the equation by outlawing the “gun-free” zones that enabled these massacures.

        Eddie47d: “So that is your dilemma to solve and I don’t see that happening soon.”

        That is your dilemma, not ours.

      • eddie47d

        It is still your dilemma and you skirted it again. What did rapists have to do with it…really lame !!

      • Vicki

        eddie47d writes:
        “It is still your dilemma and you skirted it again. ”

        I don’t have a dilemma eddie. Perhaps you should try framing the dilemma better so that you can show what your dilemma is.

  • SSMcDonald

    What’s so hard to understand. Obama is a consumate liar.

    • Shelia

      don’t all Presidents lie. so get over it

      • Nadzieja Batki

        So according to you lying is fine. Is that the new normal for you? Musn’t have the expectation that people should tell the truth. You musn’t have the expectation that your boyfriend/husband/significant other tell the truth.

  • ANDREW DOMENITZ

    by the way. the Swiss stayed out of ww2 because the Germans were afraid of them. the Swiss national sport is marksmanship and Hitlers officers didn’t like the idea that they would be the first to go in any attack. over there gun control is hitting your target.

  • ANDREW DOMENITZ

    if gun control is as successful as weight control we got nothing to worry about eh bloomberg

  • Beanhead

    Since the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees upstanding citizens the liberty to use arms in self defense against a tyrannical government, it is evident that we individually need the ability, skill, and firepower to match that which the government can bring against us. Magazines, weapons, and caliber sizes shall not be limited. We must not continue letting our rights be further limited; nibbling the edges eventually vanquishes the whole.

    • diamond1957

      your 100% correct

    • 45caliber

      Actually, our Founding Fathers meant for us to have BETTER weapons than the military. That was one reason we won the Revolutionary War. The British were armed with muskets which are smoothbore. Most were very inaccurate. If you watched the movie, “Patriot”, you will see a battle at the end of the movie where the American soldiers were facing the British. The British were about twenty feet from the Americans – when they fired only two or three fell over. The Americans who didn’t hunt or live on the frontier were normally also armed with muskets since they were cheaper, so the return fire wasn’t much better. BUT … many Americans owned and used rifles which were much better than the muskets. A rifle could be very accurate to two hundred yards or so. The British complained during that time that the Americans didn’t fight fair – too many Americans would hide in trees to shoot or would shoot from distances the British simply couldn’t hope to achieve.

      So to tell the truth, we should all be able to get whatever we want BEFORE the military adopts their use. Not that I have any interest in an automatic weapon. Only the first shot from them is accurate and the bullets are expensive. Automatic fire wasn’t really meant to kill – it is meant to be used for fire surpression. You fire so fast the enemy doesn’t want to raise their heads to shoot back. Or you can do like the Muslims – “Spray and pray”.

  • Stephen

    We are always resorting to the AK47 assualt rifle. We should not allow people to own this weapon, and the Co. incident is being used to back up this idea. But correct me if I am wrong, Looking at the picture of weapons Mr.Holmes owned I fail to see the AK47!!! Our own government provided so many assult weapons in “Fast and Furious”. Managed to get some border patrol people killed and injured. I would be the first to agree that M-16s and AK-47s are not the best hunting weapons, but we don’t need new laws, what we need to do is just simply enforce the existing laws. It is already illegal to own a fully automatic weapon, it is already a federal offense for an exfelon to pocess a firearm of any kind. There is a Couinty Sheriff in Wi that go’s to DNR soon after deer season and gets a list of all that purchased a deer gun license. He runs these names and if they are exfelons he proceeds to arrest them as he should. Best workable suggestion at the moment is to just enforce the existing laws.

    • Bandit

      Holmes did not have an M16 it was for all intents and purposes an AR15 two different rifles and neither of the holding more than 30 rnds What he had for the mags was a drum not a clip or mag. What they showed on the news were extended mags that were taped together.

  • boyscout

    I noticed that we focused of the AK47 and not the Armalite issue – something that I have personally done since the M16 first brought curses and vulgarity from my own mouth. Sorry, I digress.
    Agreed that these weapons belong in the hands of soldiers; American citizen militia soldiers unwilling to accept misrepresentation and tyranny and willing to assemble and combat those forces which would stifle those inalienable rights promoted by our nation’s forefathers. Citizens should be willing to accept this responsibility along with the necessary training required, or give up the idea of freedom, justice, and the AMERICAN WAY.

  • T. Jefferson

    Full auto weapons can not be bought by “straw buyers” these weapons are heavily regulated by the Feds. You require an extensive background check, a ton of paperwork and at any time you take it to shoot you are required by law to inform law enforcement. Not to mention the Very high cost. Average full auto weapon costs over $10,000.00

    • diamond1957

      as a side bar ; full auto guns are the simplest to manufacture illegally, so if they really want to ban firearms, they will not like the black market versions. in the Philippians they build a lot of them and their quite good.

  • JQcitizen

    Our Founding Fathers recognized that free and law abiding citizen’s right to keep and bear arms must be preserved. Through the years free citizens have used arms to feed their families, protect their property, their families, and their communities. To this day, those same reasons apply. While government at various levels have improved citizen protection, any person who believes that a law enforcement officer can be immediately available when your family come under threat from those who would do you harm is living in fantasy land. As I have read on numerous occasions many citizens who exercise their right to own and or carry arms do so because it is ” a lot easier than carrying a policeman.” It is also very obvious that most law enforcement units usually arrive after evil has been done and hopefully will eventually apprehend those who perpetuated that evil. While this is commendable it provides little comfort to the victims and little deterrence against future acts, even assuming that our judicial system works.

  • William Amann

    What we have not heard is, which weapon did the most damage? The 100 round magazine is not reliable (jams). The shot gun with 3 inch magnum, 00 buck can do more damage in a crowd than most any weapon, yet all the talk is about ” the assault weapon!!

  • Vigilant

    A conservative is a liberal who got mugged the night before.

    http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/conservative.html#Q3Q3FEwoBZHdpuck.99

  • Munnster

    What everybody fails to mention is that the “AK-47″ available for US Citizens to purchase is NOT the same as the AK-47 that is used for military purposes. They LOOK the same, but one is a semi-auto (civilian version), the other is fully-auto, HUGE difference. The proper name for the civilian version is SAK-47, but it isn’t as juicy to call it by the correct name. The lamestream media plays it up to enhance its argument for gun control. Oh by the way President Dumbamo, AK-47′s ARE in the hands of soldiers, not US Citizens (unless illegally). He somehow thinks we believe his LIE that he believes in the Second Amendment, when he has spent his WHOLE LIFE deriding it. Oh yeah, it is election time again. Need to try to lie your way back in the White House.

    • RichE

      The simplest is to file down the sear, but it won’t be semi-automatic anymore, always full-automatic. This article covers installing a selector switch for several AK47 look alkies.
      The AK47: Full Auto Conversion for Dummies http://www.angelfire.com/anime5/unclero/books/AK47_Full_Auto_Conversion_for_Dummies.pdf

      • diamond1957

        I am a gun smith do not follow any instructions found on the internet to convert any firearm into full auto, theres more to it than a little file job, chamber pressures, heat dispensation alone can cause cook offs and explosions, its not a toy, internal ballistics is a science that must be left to the experts, many imports must have certain American made parts in them that prevent any conversions as least safely.

      • 45caliber

        diamond:

        You are correct. Further, I wouldn’t have one anyway. You can’t hit anything on fully auto after the first shot (the recoil throws off the rest of the bullets) and wasting all those bullets is expensive!

  • Steve

    Ya, same old story, only the government gets to decide what we can have. That is the reason for the 2nd amendment, so governments around the world know there will be a price to pay if they try to force their will on the US or it’s people. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

    Still, I would be willing to give up all my guns, if all guns could be taken away. That is not possible. Even if it were possible, any one with even a tiny bit of skill can make a gun. Inner city gang kids use to make guns out of a car antenna and a rock!!! Guns are just to easy to make, Really they aren’t that complicated, they were making guns in the days of wooden boats, before there was a USA….

    • Vicki

      Steve writes:
      “Still, I would be willing to give up all my guns, if all guns could be taken away.”

      I would NOT be willing to even if I was the last woman on earth to have one.
      “God created man, Sam Colt made them equal.”
      http://www.infoplease.com/biography/var/samuelcolt.html

      I am rather on the small side and not likely to win a fight with even an average rapist without the equalizing power of a firearm. And as someone else said, a policeman is to heavy to carry around. Can’t conceal them very well either.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Vicki, notice how the first paragraphs of the Leftists/Progs always try to make them look like they are such reasonable people, then they admit what they are.

      • Vicki

        Yes I had noticed :)

  • David

    Mr. Holmes used an AR-15 NOT AK47!

  • http://peresonallibertydigest.. gottaplenty

    The police are not there to protect you ,,they are there after the fact to investigate!!

    • Vicki

      And when events happen that they DO protect you they use GUNS.

  • Nick

    I wonder if the Colorado massacre had been carried out with a can of gas and a match if the left would then be trying to restrict citizen access to fire?

    You could cover the entire world and everything in it with nerf material and psychos would still find a way to kill. The problem is the psychos and not the tools they use.

    Prohibition has a long history of failure in this country.

    • eddie47d

      More silliness from the right! Gas cans are also illegal to carry into a theater but if someone wanted to do the damage that way I’m sure he could pull it off. Try using some common sense in the phony comparisons. Banning fire? LOL!

      • Vicki

        eddie47d talks of silliness from the right.

        Eddie. look in a mirror.

      • 45caliber

        So, eddie, if someone was to burn down a theater with a bunch of people in it, that would be acceptable? No attempts to ban anything? My, my, what are you coming to? Or is it that you need fire but you don’t believe anyone should like guns which you hate? You know, getting rid of what YOU don’t like but keeping what you do like, just like Bloomers is doing with his 20 oz. sodas.

      • eddie47d

        Rewriting what I said again Caliber. Now you sound like Vickie in searching for a clue!…or is that a mirror. LOL

  • George

    I am a gun owner and a Concealed Weapon Carrier permit holder, I also spent 33 years in the Marine Corps and I am a combat veteran. For the first time ever, I agree with anything the administration has to say: that automatic assault rifles belong in the hands of a soldier. Any semi-automatic or automatic rifle was specifically designed to kill people quickly and efficiently, it was not designed to hunt deer or bear ( I doubt a .223 or 9 mm would stop a bear with one shot). So why do gun shops sell them? Probably to satisfy the ego for all the wannabes who didn’t have the guts to go into the service and learn how to use them. Semi-auto assault weapons should not be in the hands of civilians, or former military for that matter…unless you’re going hunting for an entire deer herd or want to exterminate a species.

    • eddie47d

      At least someone else grasps the issue. We can all value the Second Amendment without going off the deep end.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Value how? By putting it on a shelf or under glass and not living by it.

      • eddie47d

        By not flaunting it and behaving like gangsters in doing so.

    • VOREASON

      George you are a dope pal. I own many weapons AR platform included and also carry concealed. I shoot well and was 4F so not able to serve but service or not the constitution writers knew well about guns for personal protection and hunting. George they did not include that amendment for any other reason than to insure “we the people” could rebel just as happened in 1776. Oh, and for the rest of the goofs worried about magazine capacity etc. just shut up and sit down that is just smoke. To restrict the type of weapons available to free citizens would reduce their credibility against a tyrannic force (ie government).

      • USMC Vet

        I agree George is an idiot, I am a combat veteran too, and George is completely out of touch with the intention of the Constitution and why we have the 2nd amendment. It is the last bastion of our freedom, if we are unable to defend against tyranny we will become slaves to it. Wake up Georgie boy, you should be smarter than that.

    • JeffH

      George, for a marine you’re not very bright are you?

      “Any semi-automatic or automatic rifle was specifically designed to kill people quickly and efficiently, it was not designed to hunt deer or bear ( I doubt a .223 or 9 mm would stop a bear with one shot). So why do gun shops sell them? ”

      Well let’s see…anyone that uses a 9mm or a 5.56/.223 to hunt bear ain’t to bright to start with.

      Secondly, a .223 is a very capable caliber for deer.
      Here’s what a “proffessional” had to say regarding that: ““We would agree that there are adequate loads/bullets for humanely taking deer with the .223,” said Tim Brandt, Federal Premium Public Relations Manager. “We have several .223 loads featuring a couple different bullet options that are designed especially for hunting. Our Fusion line is great example. We see excellent weight retention, expansion and penetration from this bullet in the .223 platform. Hunters that live in areas where it’s legal to use this caliber should have no problem finding an effective load to take into the deer stand.”

      20 versatile semi-automatic rifles that can be used for big-game hunting or target shooting:
      http://www.outdoorlife.com/photos/gallery/guns/rifles/centerfire/2011/11/20-best-semi-automatic-rifles-big-game-hunting

      Thirdley, semi-auto rifles aren’t limited to one or two calibers, they come in a wide variety of calibers. Ar’s and semi-automatic rifles come chambered in .30 RAR/6.8 SPC Spec II caliber cartridges and heavier….7.62, 308 Win., 7 mm-08, and .243 Win., 50 Beowulf, .270, .30-06 Springfield, and .35 Whelen, 7mm WinMag and .338 Win.

      Regardless of what you think or how you feel about using semi-automatic guns for hunting, autoloaders and AR-style rifles are becoming more common in hunting camps and virtually every major manufacturer is producing these guns in calibers heavy enough to drop deer, hogs and bears. Not to mention the fact that they’re a blast on the range.

    • 45caliber

      George:

      What were youi in the Marines (if you actually served)? A clerk? First, you called an AR-15 an “automatic assault rifle” – and no real Marine would do that. He KNOWS the differences – and would keep them in mind. Second, you insist that this was made to kill humans and not animals. Actually, it was NOT made to kill humans. It was made to WOUND them. If you kill an enemy, you eliminate one enemy. If you wound one, then two others are required to take care of that person and get them to medical treatmen. Yes, it will kill – so will a BB gun if you aren’t careful with it. But it was never made to KILL!

      Further, semi-auto is very nice when hunting, especially if your game can also hunt you. I would bet that you’d want a .50 machine gun if you went lion hunting as it seldom runs AWAY when you shoot it. It comes hunting you, as various other animals will also do. You definately know nothing of hunting, from what you said. So you strike out on weapon identification, combat, and hunting. Three strikes and you are out.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      So you are a liar as well. Who amongst us asked if you have weapons or what kind or if you have a CC?

    • JeffH

      George, if you actually did a 33 year hitch in the Marines, you would know that there has never been used in AR 15′s in military service.

      M16, M16A1, M16A2, M16A3, M16A4
      is the U.S. military designation for a family of rifles derived from the ArmaLite AR-15 and further developed by Colt. It is an assault rifle which fires NATO standard 5.56 mm ammunition. It has been the primary infantry rifle of the United States military since 1967, is in use by 15 NATO countries, and has been the most produced firearm in its caliber.

  • diamond1957

    I am not advocating anything here or implying anything, however if the law breaks down there are no laws, if marshal law goes in effect, the constitution is suspended, again in effect there are no laws or rights, we all become criminals or suspects until we prove ourselves innocent of whatever. If we don’t stand together we become easy pickings, imagine if the full force of the red-man met the Europeans on their shores instead of only the local tribes, and at that weren’t waring amongst themselves, this would be a much different nation today.

    • 45caliber

      Martial law is a tyrany – run by a tyrant. Most politicians have a secret wish to have total power and martial law grants it to whoever is in charge. That’s the main reason we citizens retained the right to have guns to begin with – to insure that when (not “if”) a tyrant came to power we could get rid of him. And I hope it never comes to that because many of the real citizens of the US will have to “water the roots of freedom with their blood” to do it.

  • FreedomFighter

    Regardless of what Eddie or any of the other Commies spew — the 2nd Amendment protects the 1st Ammendment to the constitution of the United States of America:

    The right to bear arms is not for hunting rabbits or deer or bear, its to protect against TYRANTS, USURPERS and a government that not longer serves the American people and expects the people to serve it.

    Anyone that wants to disarm Americans seeks destruction of this protection against such government.

    Laus Deo
    Semper Fi

    • eddie47d

      Having an automatic weapon in a movie theater is little different than shouting fire in a crowded theater and causing panic. Maybe you Freedom Fighter better lay off the name calling and try and understand the 1st and Second Amendment!

      • USMC Vet

        That person was a criminal eddiot, they don’t obey laws. You should move to Canada.

      • VOREASON

        Eddie,eddie,eddie – what the H are you talking about. What automatic weapon in any where? Where is that allowed and the guy you are replying to never suggested anything like that. Nobody can carry that type of weapon (called a long gun) into a building. You may if not posted or local or state laws disallows carry a concealed handgun. Oh, and stop yelling “fire”.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Having an automatic weapon in a movie theater is little different than shouting fire in a crowded theater and causing panic.”

        Prior to the Aurora shooting most people would probably not think it useful nor necessary to have one in the theater. The shooter proved them wrong. Had the audience returned fire with automatic weapons his supposedly “ballistic” armor would not have saved him.

        eddie47d: “Maybe you Freedom Fighter better lay off the name calling and try and understand the 1st and Second Amendment!”

        Perhaps you should follow your own sage advice.

      • 45caliber

        eddie! LOL! Who had an “automatic” weapon in a theater? It certainly wasn’t the Joker! Why try to tell lies like that? First thing you know, you will be trying to convince people that he had an “assault” weapon! Either you known nothing of weapons – or you are simply lying to try to get people excited. Which is it?

      • JeffH

        45caliber, both!

  • 45caliber

    Oblama has no idea of what a “responsible gun owner” is like – and he has no interest in learning. If they don’t believe as he does, then they are not “responsible gun owners”. Like most liberal politicans, he fears any responsible gun owner for they own guns – and he fears guns in the hands of anyone he cannot control.

    • eddie47d

      Then tell us what you responsible gun owners are going to do with the easy access to any weapon or bomb making material. What are you going to do about the irresponsible gun owner instead of waiting until after the terrible acts have been done. Oh I forgot you will do nothing but blame the boogeyman of your dreams. To be as inane as your comments Caliber you want to be like the Taliban who ruled their country with guns and controlled the lives of the citizens. If you didn’t believe in their authority,their religion,their treating woman less than equal then the gun would serve as your eviction notice. Unless you have also been living in a cave then you will clearly notice the damage that gun owners can inflict on society. They are never as pure or romantic as in the movies or in real life. That is also a reality you need to address.

      • VOREASON

        Eddie put the kool-aid down unless it is the same brand J. Jones used then by all means drink up! Easy access? What’s easy? I have to pass a background check and wait (for NGR) 5 days for a handgun that is not easy to me. Eddie people do naughty things. Maybe we could bubble-wrap all of us so we would get no boo-boos. News flash! Freedom is weird that way but you types only like it one way, safe and restricted whether, guns, violent sports, helmet laws, child seats (heavens I can’t be trusted with MY own children’s well being), 40oz soda ….except it’s ok to abort tissue.

        • USMC Vet

          Haha excellent!!! He should be referred to as Eddiot.

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

        For those that want to ban guns, it’s to late the genie is out of the bottle the very act of writing the law would tell those that break the law they needed a gun. The genie of explosives is out and mot people can either make their own or know someone that could, explosive plus tube plus projectile equals gun,cannon,shotgun. Rifling is a known thing so any criminal will riles his tube. oh and Air in a compressed form can readily cause death.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Then tell us what you responsible gun owners are going to do with the easy access to any weapon or bomb making material.”

        Since that is, and has been the case in this country for 200+ years. We will use the best tools for the job of defending freedom, liberty, the Constitution and all that.

        I suppose it is only conjecture on my part to think that eddie actually realizes that knives, hammers, bats, propane, oxygen, hydrogen, gasoline etc are all easy to access.

        eddie47d : “What are you going to do about the irresponsible gun owner instead of waiting until after the terrible acts have been done.”

        Proof positive that eddie47d supports prior-restraint. Somehow we are NOT surprised. We need to lock eddie47d up cause eddie might decide to kill someone using a car.

        eddie47d : “Oh I forgot you will do nothing but blame the boogeyman of your dreams. To be as inane as your comments Caliber you want to be like the Taliban who ruled their country with guns and controlled the lives of the citizens.”

        Somehow forgetting that the Taliban controlled the lives of citizens who had NO guns. Or did eddie forget that? (conjecture on my part. I’m so bad)

        eddie47d : “If you didn’t believe in their authority,their religion,their treating woman less than equal then the gun would serve as your eviction notice. Unless you have also been living in a cave then you will clearly notice the damage that gun owners can inflict on society.”

        Like rescuing society from tyrants? Very damaging to tyrannical societies. We noticed. It also gives us a hint as to what type of society eddie wants.

      • 45caliber

        LOL!

        You have certainly proved your inability to think! Me? A Muslim terrorist? LOL! I happen to believe that everyone should be free – and the only way everyone can be free is to allow them the same freedom I have. I have no interest in taking away everyone’s freedom – as our esteemed politicians want to do. You know, the ones you support. I’m not going to go out there, just because I own a rifle, and try to tell everyone else how to live their lives. I’d say you have as poor a relationship with “responsible gun owners” as Oblama does. And you know nothing more about them than he does either.

        As far ease of getting guns, perhaps you should check into buying them. We depend upon the FBI to keep a record of those who shouldn’t have one. But you don’t depend upon them? Actually I think that people like the Joker should be found guilty THIS WEEK and then executed THIS WEEK on public TV. And I’m not talking about a painless injection. I’d like to see him shot to pieces. Then, perhaps, it might discourage others who believe he is a hero or something. As it is, it takes about 20 years to execute someone like him – and our youth, like him, can’t think that far ahead. As for elimination of all explosive items, I much prefer to eat. If you eliminate those, most of us would starve. You can live with them.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Where do you come up with some of the nonsense in your comment? Law abiding citizens are just that, law abiding.It is no more complicated than that.

      • eddie47d

        Everyone is law abiding …until they get caught Nadzieja!

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Everyone is law abiding …until they get caught Nadzieja!”

        False. They are law abiding until they are NOT law abiding. After they break the law they MIGHT get caught.

      • 45caliber

        Vicki”

        I think eddie just accidently released some of his history. It is a criminal belief that EVERYONE COMMITS CRIMES. They were just unlucky enough to get caught – the rest of us are lucky but no more innocent than they are.

      • Average Joe

        45caliber says:

        “It is a criminal belief that EVERYONE COMMITS CRIMES. They were just unlucky enough to get caught.”

        Actually, considering these 2500+ page bills that our criminal government passes without actually reading…there isn’t much left….that hasn’t been “criminalized” in some fashion…

        “You are charged with Posting an opinion without a license…it can be found right here on page 1702 of SB 1050893…. subsection 1205…lines 47-62…how do you plead?”

        “But yout Honor, I didn’t even know that such a law existed.”

        “I am sorry, Mr. 45caliber, ignorance of the law is no excuse!”
        “Bailiff, cut off his fingers and his tongue! Now Mr. 45caliber..let that be a lesson to you!”

        “in the future Mr. 45caliber, you might want to spend all of your time reading up on the laws that Congress has passed…rather than worrying about which laws they are planning to pass in the next session…you apparently have too much time on your hands…maybe spending the next 10 years behind bars will give you enough time to read the laws?”

        “OK Bailiff, take him away…fingers, tongue and time! Next case please.”

        While this was meant as humor, the reality is all too close to home.

        Best Wishes,
        AJ

  • http://twitter.com/SilasLongshot Silas Longshot (@SilasLongshot)

    Prezident Zero, when you can guarantee that these weapons will not fall into the hands of criminals, which the existing thousands upon thousands of gun ‘control’ laws currently DO NOT, then perhaps we’ll talk of a ‘responsible gun law’. Otherwise, you merely continue your socialist doctrine of disarming the citizen and impowering the state. But then, that’s thw whole idea, right?

  • chuckb

    the last i heard “murder” is against the law, this doesn’t seem to prevent it, in fact there are many hungry defense attorneys waiting to bail you out by any means. gun control doesn’t stop crime it only gives the government more power, you have no means to stop their tyranny.

  • http://Liberty Tony

    To Everyone here:
    I’m a staunch supporter of the second amenment like any rational citizen would. I have a small arsenal of firearms, also, i have my c.c.w. license.However,we have to be fair and realistic when attacking the president on this issue. He has been a supporter of gun rights during his four years in the w.h. In addition, gun rights have increased not decreased during his tenure. Check this out and you’ll see what i mean. http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/230925/how-gun-rights-advocates-benefit-from-obama's-presidency. So, let’s be clear with the facts. Thanks!!

    • 45caliber

      Tony:

      If you actually believe that Oblama supports the 2nd Amendment, you are so enamoured with him that you can’t believe anything we tell you. Actually, I think you are a troll who is trying to confuse people to get their votes for him.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      But Tony, you are a liar. We didn’t ask you if you have weapons or what kind. So your statement was a distraction to make people let go of their guard.

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “Nadzieja Batki,”

        YOUR COMMENT TO “Tony” SHOWS YOUR BIAS. IF “Tony” IS NEGRO MALE (I BELIEVE HE IS), HE MAY REALIZE CAUCASIANS ON THIS SITE KNOW (OR, HAVE “FIGURED OUT”) HE IS NEGRO; THEREFORE, MENTIONING HIS GUN COLLECTION AND “CCW” WAS A WAY TO ILLUSTRATE HIS LEGITIMACY IN THIS THREAD.

        Ms. Batki, IT IS COMMENTS LIKE YOURS WHICH MAKE NEGRO MALES VERY ANGRY – ESPECIALLY, IN A DISCUSSION ABOUT A PERSON’S RIGHT TO OWN A GUN.

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “Tony,”

        PLEASE FORGIVE ME, SIR, FOR COMING TO YOUR DEFENSE. “Tony,” SIR, IT WAS NOT MY GOAL TO GET INTO YOUR BUSINESS. Ms. Batki’s COMMENTS TO YOU, UPSET ME.

        YESTERDAY, I FOUND OUT FROM “Alondra” AND “Ron r,” SOME PEOPLE THINK I AM A FRAUD BECAUSE I DO NOT FIT THE STEREOTYPE OF THE AVERAGE AMERICAN-NEGRO MALE. “Alondra” TOOK THE INITIATIVE TO “COMPARE-AND-CONTRAST” MY COMMENTS UTILIZING Personal Liberty’s DATE-AND-TIME STAMPS.

        ANYWAY, I DO NOT UNDERSTAND PEOPLE WHO RIDICULE OTHERS WHOM THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND.

        AGAIN, “Tony,” I AM EXTREMELY SORRY IF I OFFENDED YOU BY GETTING INTO YOUR BUSINESS.

        WITH GREAT SINCERITY,
        CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

  • Jack

    Instead of talking about controling what guns we americans can have and how many rounds the magazine can hold why don’t we ask the question. If the colorado movie theatre was a gun free zone as I heard it was then having a law restricting gun models or magazine sizes would only restrict law abiding citizens, not the like of this henous criminal. If the theatre wasn’t a gun free zone then legally armed citizens carring concealed would have taken care of this guy before he was able to kill and wound so many people.

  • chuckb

    baloney, barry doesn’t favor the 2nd amendment, are you kidding, he knows this a tough subject and he does not yet have the power to erase it. give him a second term and you can bet that will be on his agenda, is it possible he will use an exec order? he seems to be using irt for everything else and the congress sits idly by and lets him get away with it.

  • dcjdavis

    If the good citizens do not have guns, then who will there be to take the guns from the hands of the criminals in our government?

  • http://twitter.com/rosieroos Rosie Weather Hound (@rosieroos)

    So as some have said the 2nd only protects muskets. Muskets were the state of the art then. Your telling me the framers of the constitution were only saying it applied to what was then, not now? Ok, so then the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches only means agents coming into your home? Wiretaps, looking through walls with thermal imaging equipment or reading your email is ok? After all those are things the framers never knew about so it must mean those ways of searching you are ok right? How about free speech? Back then the only way to speak would have been by printed word or standing on the corner and talking. So the gov can restrict anything you say anywhere else? Like say radio, TV, internet?

    • Chet

      I’m sorry but you need to do a little research. The supreme court has said that citizens, under the constitution, may have what militiamen carry, and that is the same as infantrymen carry. Over the years the list of approved weapons has been added to and sometimes removed from. For a short time in the early 60′s that list included a mortar for 2 or 3 years! When the VietNam war protests started, some nut cases, on both sides, misused them and the courts quickly banned them. Obama speaks as usual without authority. A Sovereign Citizen in this Republic Nation of States (not a Democracy) may have AK-47′s, AR-15′s, and any other number of infantrymen weapons. You can find this in the law libraries in the “Statutes at Large” which are the “words of congress” that are written for every code out there as well as the Constitution it’s self. It takes a little digging but any law student can show you how to cross reference (Sheppard, West Key annotations and the like) and find court cases that will show you these lists.

      • Chet

        Sorry Rosie, I meant “YOU ALL” as in the whole gang here, not picking on you okay :)

  • Gary M

    You can bet your bottom dollar that if Obama is re-elected he will make a hard push to reinstate the assault weapons ban. And there won’t be any provision in there about reimbursing the gun owners for their loss of property.

  • A.X. Perez

    Ak-47′s belong in the hands of soldiers and the closets of all honest folk (properly secured to keep unauthorized hands off, I’ll concede that one point, but that is just common sense. ) and in trunks and rifle racks on the way to shoot up paper targets, tin cans, and other proper targets, including animals that have been declared vermin. Unreformed criminals belong in prison, psychopaths inclined to murder belong in Hospitals for the criminally insane. Any question

  • Bimbam

    This shows how foreign born this negro is. AK-47 is the weapon of choice in COMMUNIST COUNTRIES.

    What an idiot! Please, get rid of this negroe in November! He has nothing in common with America, except having everything handed to him by generous whites, who he decided to stab in the back.

    No wonder the Bible warned us of putting in foreign kings. That was strictly forbidden by God!

    • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

      THANK YOU, “Bimbam!” THIS IS A “white man’s” COUNTRY!

  • Thinking About

    It is interesting this article list Fast and Furious suspect and target. These weapons were being purchased not by fast and furious but by gun buyers and resold to Mexican drug cartel, etc because in the state of Arizonia the purchase by the “buyer” is legal. One of the “buyers” was on food stamps but was making a good living by being the buyer of multiple weapons. This was an operation of watching these transactions and some how it turned into “gun running” by ATF. It makes one wonder if you are truly a responsible gun owner why NRA does not back regulation on these issues and the only conclusion I see is the NRA is not a responsible orga

  • Commiefornia

    Maybe it could come to pass that the streets of our cities WILL become battlefields of war?

  • United States Marine

    Obama said that AK 47′s belong in the hands of the soldiers. Really? First is he strictly talking about the army? Last I checked we had Marines, Airmen, Seamen, and soldiers, but he just says soldiers. Second, I guess he’s saying any military member outside of NATO because we all use the same type of ammunition. 5.56×45 NATO .223, 7.62×51 NATO .308. When he is wanting AK 47′s in the hands of the military he must mean those we are fighting. Every middle eastern country, African country, Russia, Mexico, most of Asia, and so on has an AK 47 as their Primary weapon. Does this idiot even know what the American military uses as its primary weapon?

  • http://none nick beck

    give the lefties on this site 1mm and the next thing you will wake up to some day will be no weapons at all and you and your future generations will be the slaves you deserve to be

  • Chet

    I am trying to think of a time that some retard drove a car through a crowded marketplace. I see it on the news from time to time. The last time I remember 5 or 6 people being killed and 10 or 15 going to the hospital with a couple in ICU. Never once did I see anyone come out and say “Oh we need to outlaw cars” “We need to outlaw gasoline” “We need to make the gas tanks smaller.” “We need to have water filled bumper” “We need to outlaw V8′s and allow only 4 cylinders!” “We need to have them restricted to only 6 MPH”

    NO! It was always the *drivers* responsibility/accountability. It was the mental condition of the driver, whether being an elderly, a confused individual, someone on a bad drug interaction, or a ticked off jerk that actually planned to mow down innocent people. When the tank was stolen in San Diego and the moron was running over cars, no one cried “Outlaw Tanks!” “reduce the size of the Army” When kids drag race and crash, the President doesn’t come on television and say “Outlaw Corvettes, Mustangs and Barracudas!” Remember the Ferrari going over 100 mph on Pacific Coast Hwy a few years ago? No one said “Outlaw those cars because they belong on a race track, not in the hands of a citizen”. What is it about guns that have Liberals so “up in Arms”?

    If you apply all this crap I’m reading about restricting magazines and caliber to any other issue in the world you would be laughed out of the room! The right to travel never has these kinds of retarded arguments, nor other rights. What is it with the guns?

    Actually, it’s only the government that is after our guns, they just use the feeble minded Left to facilitate the downfall of America :(

  • Shan

    Ha, but according to obama admin they also belong in the hands of Mexican drug cartels!!!

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.