Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

The Gun Gap

January 15, 2013 by  

The Gun Gap
PHOTOS.COM

Over the weekend, I had a chance to discuss with an acquaintance firearms and the current controversy surrounding them. This friend falls into the “not a fan” category when it comes to private ownership of anything powerful enough to stun a squirrel. During the course of our discussion, I realized that he also falls into the “doesn’t really know much about firearms” category; he joins nearly every liberal on the planet in that ignorance.

My friend continually referenced the availability of “automatic weapons with high-capacity clips.” I responded that those do sound awfully intimidating, and it’s a good thing they’ve been illegal in this country — excepting a tiny number of special permit-holders — for decades. He looked stunned, more so when I explained that “high-capacity clips” don’t really exist.

That’s the understanding gap that plagues the United States regarding gun politics; it isn’t a simple lack of communication between “pro-“ and “anti-.” The anti-liberty leadership has been lying to and frightening their supporters so effectively and for so long that the “anti-“ group has no idea what it’s actually protesting against. President Barack Obama and his accomplices are not trying to ban automatic weapons; those are already tightly controlled. For those of you who dismiss my argument as focusing on minutiae, I would respond by pointing out that focusing on minutiae and disseminating erroneous information are the essence of the liberal position on gun control.

It’s difficult to take seriously the Democrats’ fear and hatred of firearms if their rhetoric belies a lack of understanding of the subject. While “clip-fed” weapons do exist, they aren’t particularly plentiful, they aren’t particularly “high-capacity” and they certainly aren’t “automatic.” An M-1 Garand is clip-fed; but its capacity is limited to 10 rounds, and it weighs a relative ton. The ones owned legally by private citizens are also only capable of firing one round per trigger pull, meaning they are no more “automatic” than a .22 pistol. Furthermore, banning “military characteristics” like pistol grips may seem productive, but banning cosmetic effects would be about as useful in stopping crime as banning cars with spoilers would be in stopping the auto accidents that kill far more Americans each year than madmen with guns. Sure, you might clear out a few of those Lamborghinis favored by drug dealers, Hollywood blowhards and South Beach Eurotrash types; but mostly, you’d be ruining the weekend projects of a country full of teenagers who have seen too many Vin Diesel movies.

Should the left wish to be taken seriously on the subject of so-called “gun control,” perhaps it should reconsider not only the information on which it bases its prejudices but also the people who speak for it. I remain mystified by the idea that disgraced British gossip columnist and eternally smug peacock Piers Morgan has taken a leading role in the liberal anti-liberty passion play. The fact that Morgan is a mouthy twerp with clear disdain for America and Americans really isn’t material. The fact that Morgan is a moron really is. In an exchange on Twitter, Morgan pressed the liberal case against guns by inventing a new firearm and caliber.

…(Adam Lanza) used a Bushmaster .233 AR-15 assault rifle… Do you understand how a modified AT-15 behaves? It can fire up to 6 bullets a second, like a M-16 military assault rifle. Wise up.

Oh, my.

The Newtown, Conn., massacre that spurred on the liberals’ latest assault on the Bill of Rights tore into our sense of calm weeks ago. Since that time, the Democrats have proposed everything from forced registration to outright confiscation. Not one of those proposals would have prevented Newtown any more than similar draconian measures have made Chicago any safer. With sock puppets like Morgan leading the anti-Bill of Rights cheering section, at best, the gun grabbers think that forcing me to turn in my AR-15 will somehow avert tragedies elsewhere. At worst, they’re proposing non-existent solutions to the wrong problems. Classifying weapons as possessing “military characteristics” and then banning them based on that classification is ludicrous. My AR-15 isn’t a military weapon; it’s a replica of a military weapon. Anti-Constitutionalists like Morgan and Senator Dianne Feinstein don’t understand the difference; subsequently, they either can’t or won’t recognize that their demands will produce only one effect: more victims. And my friend (along with quite a few other people) doesn’t understand the difference… yet.

–Ben Crystal

Ben Crystal

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

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “The Gun Gap”

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

  • Vicki

    There really is only 1 understanding gap.

    ~300 MILLION Americans did not kill ANYONE today with any type of weapon.

    We are TIRED of being PUNISHED for the actions of a few criminals.

    • Flashy

      Then perhaps Vicki, you should take a stand for Common sense and quit behaving like a wacked out nutcase demanding gun owners, manufacturers and sellers of weaponry should bear no responsibility or obligation to society for insisting on having these in our society. .

      It’s getting boring listening to the same droll day after day of insistence that there should be no common sense, no feeling of responsibility, no obligation and that no one’ Rights matter excepting those of gun owners…and that “right” they claim is so out of touch with reality and the Constitution that it bears no semblance to the true meaning of our Constitution, our nation, and our society.

      Keep spouting nonsense. It proves the point we need common sense in our gun laws and regulations.

      • Flashy

        Paul…how do those people get their guns?

      • rendarsmith

        Yeah we should just rely on the government to bear that responsibility shouldn’t we? Because that has worked out so well hasn’t it?

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Hey Paul, you say GUNS DON’T KILL..PEOPLE DO! (where have I heard that before?)

        How about “Guns don’t kill people, people use guns to kill people”? Thousands of people. Now tell me about how many people are killed with hammers and baseball bats and cars and how we should ban those too. Kill me with that logic.

      • Bill

        It does not prove anything, Flashy, except that you are a died in the wool progessive and you will say anything to push your socialist agenda

        You are so predictable that we could write your posts for you

      • Larry R

        Flasky, They get there guns the same way they will get there guns after “Illegally”. Machine guns are illegal in this country and have been since the 1920′s, but guess what the drug cartel’s use them exclusively. So maybe the cartel’s haven’t got the message that they were illegal.
        What is needed is that we stop protecting the right of mental patients and start better treating those that are. Check out the history on each and everyone of these mass murders and you will see a picture that is not pretty, further more Timothy McVieh (unsure how to spell last name) used no gun, not a single bullet was fired, but yet the carnage that this individual caused 339 dead, 40 children incleded and hundreds wounded. So please get off your so called pedestal and look at things realistically. The only thing yhat would allow Chitcago to have anymore stricter gun control would be a total ban, but even with this in play my guess is that the criminals will still have them and they will still have the highest crime rate in the free world.

      • Robert Smith

        Right brain tries to make gun deaths acceptable because people are killed in other ways: “Now tell me about how many people are killed with hammers ”

        That’s a silly “argument.”

        NO deaths from anything are acceptable if something can be done about it. It’s dumb to try to justify gun deaths because someone didn’t get a shot to prevent disease or drove their car into a bridge support.

        Americans need to work on the root cause for the reason folks die. With guns it’s mostly suicide. Japan has a much higher suicide rate than America, but that doesn’t make it OK for America. We need mental health programs in place.

        Considering the VA, theater, and CT shooters all had mental issues, doesn’t that say something?

        Instead of screeching that you want to keep your guns how’s ’bout stepping up to the plate and support some mental health care?

        Rob

      • Hedgehog

        Flashy, you’re really on a roll today. Why you castigate Vicki I don’t know, because you worship a whacked out nut case, Obama. Make up your mind. Either you love whacked out nut cases or you don’t, which is it? As for guns, the second amendment isn’t about guns, it’s about the right to keep and bear ARMS! Fix that thought clearly in your mind, ARMS! Everything from the rock you pick up off the roadside to multi-megaton nuclear weapons, ARMS! The second amendment doesn’t give you the right to keep and bear ARMS, it merely affirms and protects your God given right to do so. I am a Canadian, I don’t have the protection of the 2nd Amendment, but I still have the God given right to keep and bear ARMS!To give you an example or two. If I wanted to kill someone at ranges up to about 20 yards: with a a rifle, tell me which eye you want me to hit; with a pistol, head or body shot, your choice; with a bow and arrow, best I can guarantee is a body shot. It’s not the ARM, but your ability and familiarity with the ARM that counts. Now to scare the whey out of you, I hope! If I wanted to get rid of most of the evil in the US, I’d pick 10 megatons on Washington DC while congress was in session and Obama was not on vacation. Ideally he would be addressing congress. But I don’t have nuclear weapons. If I wanted to ensure the destruction of the US, I’d support Obama and protect him with my life. But I’m not crazy so that option is out. If I had access to nuclear weapons, and was as crazy as a loon, and wanted to destroy the US and ensure my place in history and take over the US as dictator; I’d nuke Washington while all my trusted advisers were elsewhere with me, perhaps golfing in Hawaii. Does this sound like someone near and dear to your heart? The moral of this little fantasy is: (drum roll please), PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE, Arms don’t!!!

      • Flashy

        “The second amendment doesn’t give you the right to keep and bear ARMS, it merely affirms and protects your God given right to do so” <—hedgehog

        Get this through your head. The 2nd affirms there is a right…and is qualifies the 2nd in saying that. there are other Rights in plya as well…Rights which the 2nd bumps into. the wacked out gun nuts will state the 2nd dominates and all other Rights sit second. The crazies will tell you there should be no responsibility in manufacturing, selling or owning a firearm. The lunatics will tell you the safest society is where everyone packs a weapon (though they won't jump at the chance of living in Beirut…go figure).

        The 2nd may be burdened. Tim and again that has been practiced. Ownership is not being challenged. The vast majority of this nation is saying 'time for common sense".

        And y'all scream at being asked to accept common sense.

        You aren't just extremists…you're not thinking extremists. Jeesh …

        take the current push for common sense treatment of guns. Accept the fact the 2nd may be burdened as to time, place, manner and group. It has been and such is allowed…even the staunchest conservative on the SCOTUS states such. The gun nuts are fighting even the most lenient of proposals. they are screaming, yelling, ranting, threatening, etc…

        OK..so the gun debate is stalled and the screaming on both sides goes on for a few months. You know what will occur in 2013. Think it through. There will be another mass shooting. As sure as night turns to day, day turns to night. it won't be a 'government conspiracy". Though the wacko's will say it is.

        Know what will happen when the next mass killing comes? That gun debate that has been going on will ratchet up higher, and the harshest proposals now will become the most lenient of choices. And what will come down the pike will be something you guys will have heart attacks over. And you'll have no one to blame but yourselves (though, of course, you will say it's everyone else's fault and you're being picked on for being 'patriots"…jeesh)
        .
        if i were a hard core anti gun freak? I'd be hoping the extremist gun nuts fight tooth and nail with the proposals proposed by the Biden Task Force. Because that fight and insanity by the gun freaks along with the next mass killing…and y'all know there will be one … will carry the day for me and something closer to what i want will be passed.

        y'all don't want to support common sense and accept responsibility ? You are doing nothing but supporting the end of the 2nd as any potent force in the clashing of Rights.

        think about that …

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

        Then you are equally as responsible for criminals killing innocent UNARMED civilians if you want to use that twisted logic. In fact, you are more responsible if you disarm us. There are scores of examples that are never reported on TV how gun owners have stopped crime. It just happened here recently in San Antonio.

        If you chose to be a sitting duck that’s fine with me. I can only pray someone with a gun will save you if you ever get in a bad situation….but you are an idiot if you think anyone believes your tripe.

      • FreedomFighter

        Robert Smith, sometimes you skew truth to make a point not realizing other issues exist

        “That’s a silly “argument.”

        NO deaths from anything are acceptable if something can be done about it. It’s dumb to try to justify gun deaths because someone didn’t get a shot to prevent disease or drove their car into a bridge support.”

        apply this to abortion, its death by doctor, way more than any gun shooting by 10s of thousands more…

        so we can all believe your against abortion now? You Progressives really are two faced liars and mental cases, but it does not matter as long as you push your agenda

        Laus Deo
        Semper Fi

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

        Larry R says: They get there guns the same way they will get there guns after “Illegally”.

        Comment: I agree. So you would not be against registering each sale of a gun so as to go after the suppliers to the bad guys? And if the gun is unregistered as to who sold it…then the manufacturer would have a record who it was sold to…and go up the chain to find who sold a gun illegally. Understand…not registering your guns…but registering each time the gun was sold.

        Larry: Machine guns are illegal in this country and have been since the 1920′s, but guess what the drug cartel’s use them exclusively. So maybe the cartel’s haven’t got the message that they were illegal.

        Comment: I agree. I accept the fact that if you have the cash, you can get anything. But drug cartels are organized, and the feds are already battling them. it’s not the drug cartels that are the problem overall. if you speak about gangs in the urban core, again…they are known, and if they begin stocking illegal weapons, they will do time and a long time. They will take themselves off the streets as they get nailed by the police. it’s the lone criminal, the thug, the guy who enters the house … they have guns. Where did they get them? Soon..that loner won’t be able to afford a gun as the suppliers price to the risk. And…since I have the Right to own a gun and keep it in my house…a guy breaking in without a gun is much more preferable than one braking in having a gun. Same with mass shooters. i haven’t read anywhere any of those guys had any money…

        Larry: What is needed is that we stop protecting the right of mental patients and start better treating those that are. Check out the history on each and everyone of these mass murders and you will see a picture that is not pretty, further more Timothy McVieh (unsure how to spell last name) used no gun, not a single bullet was fired, but yet the carnage that this individual caused 339 dead, 40 children incleded and hundreds wounded.

        Comment: See, i view this issue of metal patients and rights and in most cases my first comment back is ‘Have you lost your ever lovin’ freakin’ mind ?????” Let me see if i have this correct.. to protect against a possible future tyrannical government, you support creating a National Database of people based not in what they do…but what they think ????

        And who’s going to decide how a name gets listed? Seeing a shrink? Committed to an institution? Named by a therapist who will name anyone having the remotest chance of getting violent just to avoid liability (oh yeah…..anyone having a husband or wife seeing a therapist will be named …. jeesh). Oh yeah…a National Database based on thoughts.

        Larry: So please get off your so called pedestal and look at things realistically. The only thing yhat would allow Chitcago to have anymore stricter gun control would be a total ban, but even with this in play my guess is that the criminals will still have them and they will still have the highest crime rate in the free world.

        Comment: I agree except maybe the past 10 words. I make no judgment there. But…the remainder i agree. Why is that?

        If someone were wanting to make a few dollars, and had no qualms about it, were in Chicago or had contacts there…think it through. They’d be driving the 2 hours to Iowa, going into a store and saying ‘ I want 10 of those, half dozen of those, oh…those are cute…two of those for the ladies…” and drive back to Chicago and make a small fortune in profit. Heck, would you be surprised if there were more guns being moved along I 80 to Chicago than what the national guard has in the state? (i don’t know that, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it were true .. would you?)

        Think it through Larry…common sense and taking responsibility…that’s what is being called for.

      • cj

        Sir, you have the right to feel that way. You do sound a lot like your o of the SIxties. I will say this to you. If you give up any right the chance of getting it back are zero. It is likely that what little you were willing to give up will also expand way past what was presented. Federal Income tax is an example. Just think about it.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Rob, you missed my point. Perhaps I was not being clear in my sarcasm but I was saying that bringing up hammers and baseball bats will be the “silly argument” when it does appear. You know, as in, “People kill people with baseball bats and hammers! Why don’t we ban baseball bats and hammers too!”

        I agree with what you say here, “Americans need to work on the root cause for the reason folks die. With guns it’s mostly suicide. Japan has a much higher suicide rate than America, but that doesn’t make it OK for America. We need mental health programs in place”. And guess what, a substantial majority of NRA members think we need to tighten the laws so that mentally ill people can’t get guns.

        An article in the WashPost today points out that we have a new record for suicides in the military and that suicides exceeded combat deaths in 2102. There were a large number of attempted suicides as well, and the fact that they all didn’t succeed probably means that they didn’t use a gun in their attempts. Maybe they were using baseball bats and hammers?

      • Average Joe

        Flashy,

        “So you would not be against registering each sale of a gun so as to go after the suppliers to the bad guys? And if the gun is unregistered as to who sold it…then the manufacturer would have a record who it was sold to…and go up the chain to find who sold a gun illegally. Understand…not registering your guns…but registering each time the gun was sold. ”

        So, if the bad guys break into your home and let’s just say…they steal your gun’s or your gun safe….I am guessing that they need to leave a calling card…so that we know who stole those guns ?
        Psst…that’s how they obtain them illegally in the first place…they steal them…then they are used or sold out of car trunks. Criminals don’t tend to frequent gunshops or hang out looking for someone to buy a gun for them ( like some kid trying to get a sixpack)…nope…just doesn’t happen.
        Registering the “sales” will do absolutely nothing to alleviate the theft of firearms… and will do nothing other than make it harder for honest law abiding citizens to protect themselves……Got it? (yes, I know…silly question)

        AJ

      • Vicki

        Flashy says:
        “Then perhaps Vicki, you should take a stand for Common sense.”

        I just did. Were you not paying attention?

      • Vicki

        Flashy says:
        “Paul…how do those people get their guns?”

        Irrelevant. ~300 MILLION Americans did NOT shoot anyone last year, or this.

      • Vicki

        Right Brain Thinker uses it and says:
        “Hey Paul, you say GUNS DON’T KILL..PEOPLE DO! (where have I heard that before?)”

        It’s a common trueism.

        - Right Brain Thinker: “Now tell me about how many people are killed with hammers and baseball bats and cars and how we should ban those too. Kill me with that logic.”

        ~300 MILLION Americans did NOT KILL ANYONE with ANY tool nor even with their hands and feet. STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT.

      • Vicki

        Larry R writes:
        “The only thing yhat would allow Chitcago to have anymore stricter gun control would be a total ban, but even with this in play my guess is that the criminals will still have them and they will still have the highest crime rate in the free world.”

        Washington D.C. had a complete ban (Before Heller) and criminals had guns. so it is logical to infer that the same would happen in Chicago.
        http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-280_162-3941010.html

      • gunner

        Geez, the 2nd comment out of the box and you’re already hurling insults and name-calling. You lose all respect when you do that. You can make your points without the vitriol. Contrary to what you may think, your points are no more valid than anyone else’s.

      • Commiefornia

        If you mean “common sense gun laws” like posting signs outside of schools designating them “gun free zones” thinking that’s what will keep psychos like Lanza away? You’re stupid.

      • OneGuess

        Ah, flashpan. It is boring reading your biased drivel every day. You do understand the 2nd Amendment IS CONSTITUTIONAL?? Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean you can redefine it.

      • Glockslinger

        I’m a driver, yet I feel/have NO responsibility for those who drive drunk. There is a HUGE difference between those of us who own guns legally for self-defense and mass-murderers. We don’t say that Little League players and coaches share responsibility for those beaten to death each year with bats. That’s crazy talk.

      • Vicki

        Flashy says:
        “Get this through your head. The 2nd affirms there is a right…and is qualifies the 2nd in saying that.”

        Yes it does. “The the right to KEEP and BEAR ARMS” very explicetly says ARMS. Tools such as guns, knives, clubs, …..”

        - Flashy: “there are other Rights in plya as well…Rights which the 2nd bumps into.”

        And the founders, being far wiser then the current politician, placed IN the Constitution a precise method of dealing with such cases. I bet that flashy can not name even ONE right that the 2nd bumps into though.

        - Flashy runs out of logical arguments and says: “the wacked out gun nuts… The crazies….The lunatics…You aren’t just extremists…you’re not thinking extremists. Jeesh …”

        - Flashy mistakes his own extremism and says: “take the current push for common sense treatment of guns. Accept the fact the 2nd may be burdened as to time, place, manner and group. It has been and such is allowed.”

        If the 2nd can be burdened (by government) as to time, place, manner and group. Then explain why the right to speak can not. (As most of us know progressives would LOVE to restrict speech in the same way as Flashy CLAIMS the 2nd can be.)

        - Flashy runs out of logical arguments again: “The gun nuts are fighting even the most lenient of proposals. they are screaming, yelling, ranting, threatening, etc…”

        The most lenient of proposals are far beyond the limits of infringement.

        - Flashy: “OK..so the gun debate is stalled and the screaming on both sides goes on for a few months. You know what will occur in 2013. Think it through. There will be another mass shooting. As sure as night turns to day, day turns to night. it won’t be a ‘government conspiracy”.

        - Flashy runs out of logical arguments again: “Though the wacko’s will say it is.”

        And ~300 MILLION Americans DID NOT SHOOT THEM. STOP PUNISHING US.

        - Flashy: “Know what will happen when the next mass killing comes? That gun debate that has been going on will ratchet up higher, and the harshest proposals now will become the most lenient of choices.”

        Rather the point of my comment above about infringement.

        - Flashy: “And what will come down the pike will be something you guys will have heart attacks over. And you’ll have no one to blame but yourselves (though, of course, you will say it’s everyone else’s fault and you’re being picked on for being ‘patriots”…jeesh)”

        A most illogical argument even for flashy. I notice that flashy wants to blame 50+ MILLION gun owners and even more who are knowledgeable supporters of the 2nd. He wants us to believe that if we were to allow just a few (more) senseless gun laws then by magic all will be well. Then when (not if) a tragic event (mass shooting in a GUN FREE ZONE) happens he will be right there demanding more infringements. How typical.

        - Flashy runs out of logical arguments again: “if i were a hard core anti gun freak? … extremist gun nuts…gun freaks”

        - Flashy: “along with the next mass killing…and y’all know there will be one … will carry the day for me and something closer to what i want will be passed.”

        Thus proving the point of what flashy wants is far beyond what is the current proposals.

        - Flashy: “y’all don’t want to support common sense and accept responsibility ? You are doing nothing but supporting the end of the 2nd as any potent force in the clashing of Rights.”

        ~300 MILLION of us have demonstrated common sense by not killing anyone. Accept responsibility for not killing people? Ok, on behalf of the ~300 MILLION (including flashy?) I accept responsibility for using common sense and not killing anyone.

        Now do entertain us by listing JUST ONE right that clashes with the 2nd Amendment. I dare you to cause I KNOW you can’t and won’t even try.

        think about that … <<<< (echo)

      • Vicki

        Flashy

        Entertain us by listing JUST ONE right that clashes with the 2nd Amendment. I dare you to cause I KNOW you can’t and won’t even try.

      • Bartley

        Thanks! You are so right-on!

      • dbur

        ” Ownership is not being challenged. ”

        Flashy, while you make a lot of good points about responsible gun ownership you are clearly out in the woods on this one. Wake up and read the writing on the wall. This is why gun ‘fans’ are so outraged. There is a clear agenda to remove as many weapons as possible from the citizenry, and render the remaining ones so difficult to use most will give up.

        What’s really sad is that won’t fix any of our gun or crime violence problems. The evidence is there. Every region where guns are further restricted seem to have an increase in gun and other violent crime. Forget comparing us to Britain or Australia. Look at their own figures for what happened to crime rates within those jurisdictions since stricter gun laws were introduced. Also look at crime rates in the US cities where the strictest gun laws have been implemented. They are not going down. Then look at US nationwide crime rates and see that they have reduced in half over the last 20 years or so, all without stricter gun laws.

        We say get more action on mental health, and that seems good, but the real problem is what our society has done to produce so many mentally unsound people in the first place. That’s much harder to fix, even though the cause is obvious (to those who aren’t part of the problem).

      • Flashy

        OK Vicki…ready? bear with me as i am trying to cut and paste to make certain you cn follow along and not overtax your brain cells…

        Flashy says:
        “Get this through your head. The 2nd affirms there is a right…and is qualifies the 2nd in saying that.”

        Yes it does. “The the right to KEEP and BEAR ARMS” very explicetly says ARMS. Tools such as guns, knives, clubs, …..”

        Comment: Vicki..now the qualifier to that would be? it’s right there in the language of the 2nd. Exactly…in order for a …militia. Now, the SCOTUS has ruled it applies to having the Right to have guns in the home. However…the SCOTUS did not rule outside the home what the power of the 2nd is. Remember, it’s qualified…unlike any other Right identified in the Constitution. To be called for a militia gathering, one needs to own a gun. OK…but anything other than that the SCOUS has not ruled. The main case, back in the 30′s, the SCOTUS ruled the 2nd could be burdened by type of weapon allowed. i.e. a sawed off shotgun could be illegal. As could a machine gun, tank etc. That is significant.

        - Flashy: “there are other Rights in plya as well…Rights which the 2nd bumps into.”

        And the founders, being far wiser then the current politician, placed IN the Constitution a precise method of dealing with such cases. I bet that flashy can not name even ONE right that the 2nd bumps into though.

        Comment: OK Vicki..in the Constitution, as amended for that matter…when one Right clashes with another…what is the “precise method of dealing with such cases”. there isn’t any but go ahead and look real hard. The Rights affected when folks begin to state their Right under the 2nd is inviolate? The Preamble, the 1st, the 9th, the 14th. Quite possible the 5th as well.

        - Flashy runs out of logical arguments and says: “the wacked out gun nuts… The crazies….The lunatics…You aren’t just extremists…you’re not thinking extremists. Jeesh …”
        Comment: you find fault in that. Expanding extremists into ‘not thinking extremists” ? look in the mirror and you can see one.

        - Flashy mistakes his own extremism and says: “take the current push for common sense treatment of guns. Accept the fact the 2nd may be burdened as to time, place, manner and group. It has been and such is allowed.”

        If the 2nd can be burdened (by government) as to time, place, manner and group. Then explain why the right to speak can not. (As most of us know progressives would LOVE to restrict speech in the same way as Flashy CLAIMS the 2nd can be.)

        Comment: vicki…fact ios fact no matter what fantasy world you live in. Here…taken from the SCOTYUS majority decision of Heller…”Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms”

        There are a few of the time, place, manner and group burdens that can be placed on the 2nd. Crimney…checked out of thinking early today have you?

        - Flashy runs out of logical arguments again: “The gun nuts are fighting even the most lenient of proposals. they are screaming, yelling, ranting, threatening, etc…”

        The most lenient of proposals are far beyond the limits of infringement.

        Comment: Actually…name one. Go ahead. And explain how your Right to OWN a gun is infringed by common sense.

        - Flashy: “OK..so the gun debate is stalled and the screaming on both sides goes on for a few months. You know what will occur in 2013. Think it through. There will be another mass shooting. As sure as night turns to day, day turns to night. it won’t be a ‘government conspiracy”.

        - Flashy runs out of logical arguments again: “Though the wacko’s will say it is.”

        Comment: Vicki. so you’re stating that there won’t be a mass killing episode in 2013?

        And ~300 MILLION Americans DID NOT SHOOT THEM. STOP PUNISHING US.

        Comment; how is stating ‘you own a gun, and won’t be responsible? We’ll make sure you are responsible when owning a wqeapon. How is that punishing you? Vicki…that’s like saying speed limits are punishing you because otehrs speed.

        - Flashy: “Know what will happen when the next mass killing comes? That gun debate that has been going on will ratchet up higher, and the harshest proposals now will become the most lenient of choices.”

        Rather the point of my comment above about infringement.

        Comment: Except your ‘point” on infringement was wrong.

        - Flashy: “And what will come down the pike will be something you guys will have heart attacks over. And you’ll have no one to blame but yourselves (though, of course, you will say it’s everyone else’s fault and you’re being picked on for being ‘patriots”…jeesh)”

        A most illogical argument even for flashy. I notice that flashy wants to blame 50+ MILLION gun owners and even more who are knowledgeable supporters of the 2nd. He wants us to believe that if we were to allow just a few (more) senseless gun laws then by magic all will be well. Then when (not if) a tragic event (mass shooting in a GUN FREE ZONE) happens he will be right there demanding more infringements. How typical.

        Comment; Nope. nice try at twisting Vicki. What i am saying is instead of fighting everything, and in essence guaranteeing tougher controls…gun owners can man up and say ” responsible owners of weapons would do this this and this as normal course. Everyone should do it because its the responsible common sense course of action.” What is wrong with having owners of weapons be responsible? Why are the gun nuts so against being held responsible?

        - Flashy runs out of logical arguments again: “if i were a hard core anti gun freak? … extremist gun nuts…gun freaks”

        - Flashy: “along with the next mass killing…and y’all know there will be one … will carry the day for me and something closer to what i want will be passed.”

        Thus proving the point of what flashy wants is far beyond what is the current proposals.

        Comment: Vicki…you do twist things don’t you. I stated “If I were a gun control freak…” such is using a hypothetical. But you are so heck bent in denigrating and screaming to be held without responsibility, to be able to act like a child and have such permitted…you will slander and slur anything and everything. Yo0u don’t want to be held to common sense standards. Why is that?

        - Flashy: “y’all don’t want to support common sense and accept responsibility ? You are doing nothing but supporting the end of the 2nd as any potent force in the clashing of Rights.”

        ~300 MILLION of us have demonstrated common sense by not killing anyone. Accept responsibility for not killing people? Ok, on behalf of the ~300 MILLION (including flashy?) I accept responsibility for using common sense and not killing anyone.

        Comment: OK Vicki..so tell us how your Right to own a gun is infringed upon by registering sales, banning assault type weapons except by special permit, and background checks on all sales. go ahead…

      • Robert Smith

        Freedom, Freedom, Freedom… (sigh)

        Let’s watch the sick little tangent Freedom goes on: “apply this to abortion, its death by doctor,”

        No thanks. I won’t participate in your beliefs. Abortion is a medical procedure. That’s all. It’s simple. Just like owning a gun… It’s how it is used that some object to it.

        Clue: Slaughter of the born person is real and can’t be argued.

        That tissue extracted by abortion, particularly very early in pregnancy, is highly debatable about whether it is a “person” or not.

        Please quit applying your religion to those who don’t want to follow you.

        Rob

      • Average Joe

        Flushy,
        “it’s right there in the language of the 2nd. Exactly…in order for a …militia. ”

        Wrong again! It is obvious that you’ve never taken a basic english grammer course.

        Please heed the words of an actual authority on the subject of the English language:

        As passed by the Congress:

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

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

        Please take special note of the line:

        [ Copperud:] The words “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitute a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying ” militia,”

        which is followed by the…. main clause of the sentence (subject “the right,” verb “shall”). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.

        Got it? Good.

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

        I realize that as usual, anything that disagrees with your (very) simple thought processes…falls on your usual…deaf ears. Which is the only reason that I won’t waste the time to shred your entire argument…Time can never be replaced…and you’ve wasted enough of mine…

        Flashy, you are quite simply…a useless, waste of space.

        AJ

      • vicki

        Here is a link to verify Average joe’s assertion
        http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html

      • eddie47d

        The NRA and the gun manufacturers have the same problem that the Tobacco Industry had. They maneuver and manipulate to the point of insanity right up to the bitter end. Neither wants to admit the addictiveness of their product and the horrendous damage they inflect. I know no one forces a smoker to put a cigarette in their mouth. The problem is none of these outfits tell the truth and they are all some of the biggest Barnum and Bailey salesmen in the world. I also know Big Pharma is right up there with them but heck if it makes money its got to be good. Right?

      • Rock Savage

        Flashy,

        Shouldn’t we go after the doctors and hospitals for the 195,000 people who died last year from their mistakes?

        Shouldn’t we go after the automobile manufactures for the 44,000 or so souls that were killed in vehicular collisions?

        Shouldn’t we go after the alcohol and drug manufactures because around 30,000 (of the 44,000) of the vehicular deaths related to alcohol or drugs?

        Shouldn’t we go after the drug companies for the 10,000 deaths per year from aspirin?

        And, the drum roll please…….According to the government’s “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, cigarette smoking causes about 1 of every 5 deaths in the United States each year. Cigarette smoking is estimated to cause:

        443,000 deaths annually (including deaths from secondhand smoke)
        49,400 deaths per year from secondhand smoke exposure

        That’s a total of 492,400 people a year!!!! I mean, almost half a million people die annually from tobacco use; not to mention all the people with medical problems related to tobacco! Why does Congress and the Prez continue to allow tobacco smoking in the USA? Why is there not a public outcry for these deaths and for the long term medical problems caused from tobacco which is also a big contributor to the skyrocketing costs of medical treatments, medical insurance premiums, and Medicare and Medicaid tax hikes.

        Why suddenly the urgent need to infringe upon the rights of every American citizen under the 2nd Amendment? If you don’t understand why suddenly Congress, the Prez, and certain special interest groups want this; then, I believe your head is buried in the sand.

      • Rock Savage

        Flashy,

        I guess you hadn’t heard or noticed that “Common Sense” from Washington has been dying since 1913 and finally died in Bush’s sixth year as Prez…..

      • Leroy

        You admonishing some one about spouting nonsense is like the pot calling the kettle black.

      • Rock Savage

        Flashy,

        You said “if the gun is unregistered as to who sold it..” There is no firearm sold in the USA that is not registered. Did you get that? NOT REGISTERED. Every gun manufactured in the USA and the ones imported from other countries are registered not once but twice (at a minimum).

        The first registration is required by the ATF from the manufacturer when the firearms are created and from the importer when the firearms are imported.

        The second registration is required by the ATF (Form 4473) when the firearm is sold.

        Why do you think some perps try to file off or acid-wash the firearm’s registration number?

      • Vicki

        Flashy says:
        January 15, 2013 at 3:45 pm

        OK Vicki…ready? bear with me as i am trying to cut and paste to make certain you cn follow along and not overtax your brain cells…

        Ad hominem attack. But do try to use whatever you have left to try and keep up.

        Flashy says:
        “Get this through your head. The 2nd affirms there is a right…and is qualifies the 2nd in saying that.”

        Yes it does. “The the right to KEEP and BEAR ARMS” very explicitly says ARMS. Tools such as guns, knives, clubs, …..”

        Flashy Comment: Vicki..now the qualifier to that would be? it’s right there in the language of the 2nd. Exactly…in order for a …militia.”

        Lesson in English for non-native speakers
        http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html

      • Vicki

        The astute reader will by now have noticed that flashy avoided my question about his rights so we will ask it again:

        Flashy

        Entertain us by listing JUST ONE right that clashes with the 2nd Amendment. I dare you to cause I KNOW you can’t and won’t even try. (you can even dig around in the 9th amendment )

      • Vicki

        Flashy writes:
        “Now, the SCOTUS has ruled it applies to having the Right to have guns in the home. However…the SCOTUS did not rule outside the home what the power of the 2nd is.”

        Let me direct your attention to this little bit of punctuation “,” It is called a comma. It has many uses.

        1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
        http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

        Notice the comma between ‘purposes’ and ‘such’?

        Flashy writes: “To be called for a militia gathering, one needs to own a gun. OK…but anything other than that the SCOUS has not ruled.”

        1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm UNCONNECTED with service in a militia,..

        You do know what “unconnected” means?

      • MontieR

        IF you were capable of grasping the SIMPLE fact that criminals are no longer punished
        and by their nature do NOT follow laws. Possibly you might understand ignoring the general public’s RIGHTS to pass more laws that can’t be enforced and won’t be followed by criminals OR most gun owners, is NOTHING but smoke and mirrors to grab more power for the elites in washington that want TOTAL control. If you doubt my statement, look to the would be dictators running New York or Illinois. Or the usurper in the oval office, he disregards the very building block of our nation, (The constitution) at every turn and so does congress and the house.

      • jag57

        Flashy, did you read the info about the writer of this article, where they said it took almost 2 decades for him to fix the damage done by higher education? Since it’s a good bet you were also damaged by the “None Dare Call it Education” system, I can’t criticize you to much, but I will tell you I am not going to take any responsibility for anyone being murdered in a criminal friendly, gun free zone. There are 2 types of people that believe in gun control, fools and those that have an agenda. The fools can be forgiven, but there is no forgiveness for those that have an agenda to take away our preexisting, God given right, enshrined in the 2nd amendment, to own the firearms of our choice, to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to protect ourselves, our families, and property. I graduated in 1954, before there was to much insane brainwashing going on.

      • Vicki

        Flashy writes:
        “The main case, back in the 30′s, the SCOTUS ruled the 2nd could be burdened by type of weapon allowed. i.e. a sawed off shotgun could be illegal. As could a machine gun, tank etc. That is significant. ”

        What is significant is your apparent reading comprehension.
        “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”
        http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=174

        SCOTUS ruled that absent evidence that a sawed off shotgun was a military weapon its possession by miller could be NFA restricted. Thus a machine gun, tank etc, being ordinary military equipment WOULD be protected.

        SCOTUS in Heller ruled that the right is an individual right and not connected to being in a militia.

      • Vicki

        Flashy writes:
        “…explain how your Right to OWN a gun is infringed by common sense. ”

        Nothing to explain. Common sense is that owning a firearm is a Creator given right explicitly protected in the Constitution. Thus there can be no infringement.

      • Dale left coast

        How’s that workin in Chitcago Flash?

        Only in the weak lieberal mind could the concept of the “Government will keep me safe” have any traction.

    • mark

      Yes, but you and so many posters on this site have the exact same attitudes toward Latin American immigrants and Muslims, Vicki. When an immigrant murders or rapes an American citizen you routinely condemn all Latin American immigrants as criminals and animals. When individual Muslims commit horrific acts of terror, you condemn all Muslims as crazed, lunatic terrorists! I see this everyday on this site. Now suddenly you are calling for fairness and justice – but never for Latin Americans or Muslims! Only for American gunowners. This is just another example on this site of the kettle calliing the pot black. It never ends. The hypocrisy is monumental.

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

        Not me….I have many Latin American friends but I can tell the difference between them and drug cartel members in a glance. I live in San Antonio TX and we live in a war zone. If you don’t have a gun at home you are taking a chance on being a VICTIM.

        After many break-ins, & a stalker neighbor pointing guns at me, the police advised me to get a shotgun. They know they can’t be everywhere and they also know that citizens have a duty to defend themselves.

        Gerber baby.

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

        I will agree with you on the Muslim thing….people have an irrational fear of Muslims. Most Muslims who immigrate to this country do so mostly because they are Christians. The others sneaking in across the border might be terrorists so we have to control our borders.

      • Flashy

        “Most Muslims who immigrate to this country do so mostly because they are Christians.” <—Rhonda

        Eh? Muslim is an adherent to Islam. Which, like its cousin Christianity, has a small number of violent extremists as well as peaceful majorities.

      • Chuck S

        Maybe Rhonda meant people from Muslim countries?

        Changing subjects, the liberal lying news media sometimes calls people anti-immigrant, but that’s a lie because we’re really anti ILLEGAL immigrant. Mark maybe you absorbed that lie.

        I do think we should be cautious about all muslims. And report danger signs without worrying about being attacked as islamophobic. Several people saw danger signs with the Fort Hood scumbag but were probably afraid to report them.

      • Vicki

        mark says:
        “Yes, but you and so many posters on this site have the exact same attitudes toward Latin American immigrants and Muslims, Vicki.”

        Proof by bald assertion. I dare you to find ANY comment of mine ANYWHERE that supports your position. You can’t. Not even in my dark history as a liberal (I got over it :) ) will you find any.

      • Guest

        Speak not of hypocrisy Mark. It flows even more deafeningly from the left.

      • eddie47d

        Lets make it real clear Vickie so you don’t become so confused and slip into denial. Dozens of posters (probably hundreds) make irrational comments about Muslims and immigrants. They say those things and post them next to yours (and mine too) yet you never speak up about the hate they spread. You’ll take steps do trash a Liberal yet never trash a “friendly” who will make a far worse statement.

      • MontieR

        When ( IF EVER) did you ever hear of a couple of christians kicking in an infidel’s door and chopping his head off because he wouldn’t convert to Christianity. And IF you did there would be a HUGE uproar from the christian community. NOT a peep from the general muslim community. As for your friendly criminal mexican immigrants they flagrantly IGNORE our laws in so many ways. Where to start. are we to have two sets of laws one for them and one for us. As it stands now we in Arizona have lost seven of our hospitals on the border to your illegal friends because the get medical help and then go back to mexico without paying. Next they rarely have a drivers licence and insurance, I know of at least ten different occasions that someone ILLEGAL has killed an American citizen in an auto accident and ran to mexico to escape the law. Next let’s talk money. I have waited in line a wally world waiting for no less than $20.000.00, yes twenty thousand dollars from several different ILLEGALS wired to mexico in a matter of minutes. It happens EVERY payday, EVERY week. They STEAL all that money from OUR economy and you support this theft and criminal action. Aside from that the drugs and gangs AND terrorism that comes with them. Now let’s talk disease. ALL along the border and in their destination cities we are now experiencing NEW out breaks of leprosy, small pox ( yes the disease we DESTROYED in America), new unknown fungal bacteria’s that are basically un-treatable.
        Why is it that a muslim woman gets a pass at the airport because it somehow violates her
        religious rights BUT a christian woman holding the SAME rights is sexually assaulted, when it was MUSLIMS that blew up the towers and MUSLIMS that we need to look for.
        Why is it that when ever there is a problem you communist/progressives ALWAYS cry for a government fix that does NOTHING to stop the problem and ALWAYS removes our rights as American citizens and gives OUR rights to someone else or worse yet simply ignores them all together.
        Your position on supporting these criminals is astounding IF you claim to be an American.

    • jopa

      Vicki: You claim 300 million Americans did not kill anyone with their guns today is nonsense.The average gun death in America on any given day is around 85 men women and children.8000- 15,000 a year slaughtered on our streets and in their homes.That’s a lot of body bags and ammo.

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

        how many of those gun deaths are done by convicted CRIMINALS vs regular citizens….got any statistics on that?

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

        Go to the FBI site and look at the map by state and see which states have the most homicides…..DC and California the worst…..strictist gun laws….get the point?

      • Vicki

        jopa says:
        January 15, 2013 at 9:39 am

        Vicki: You claim 300 million Americans did not kill anyone with their guns today is nonsense.

        Proof by bald assertion and jopa proofs the assertion false himself.

        - Jopa: “The average gun death in America on any given day is around 85 men women and children.”

        I said ~300 million. Notice the tiny ~ symbol. But let us pretend that I said 300 Million exactly. Had I said that then I accidentally insulted APPROXIMATLY15 MILLION people who ALSO did not shoot anyone with guns today.
        http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html

        I used the word approximately that time because jopa is apparently unaware of the meaning of is. Oops I mean ~ .
        -
        -
        -
        -
        Let’s look at jopas proof that his own assertion is false.

        Jopa says the average death (no year given for his stat) is 85. We know that 300 million people did NOT shoot those 85 because it is not possible to get 3,529,411 people close enough to be in range of each of the 85. Presume that only 1/3 of the 300 million are actually able to hold a gun. That is still 1,176,470 people. You would still have trouble getting them close enough even if you armed them all with a No 3. Barrett .50 Cal.

        Such a group would be REALLY HARD to miss. The satellite view alone of the concentric circles of people all holding Barrett rifles would be a sight to see and it would be news for weeks how over a million shooters managed to get ALL of their rounds to go thru the SAME few holes in the victim and not even scratch the sidewalk or buildings beyond.

      • Guest

        Sorry Jopa, that assessment doesn’t work. There are some 311,800,000 people in the United States, obviously all of which are not of gun owning age. So I feel Vicki’s statement regarding there being 300,000,000 Americans who didn’t shoot anyone this year or last a fairly safe bet.

    • krc

      Good point! I agree.

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

      I have read most of these posts and in my mind neither conservative nor liberal have thought the whole thing through. I seem to recall that once upon a time in America there were those that thought that alcohol was the cause of all the evil in this country so prohibition was installed to do away with the evil. Well if one looks into the outcome of that fiasco they will find that the outlaws had all the alcohol and run a multimillion dollar per year tax free business and everyone that chose to do so still consumed all the alcohol they wanted. In fact the number of drunk driving accidents increased as a result of the so called experts experiment. It would seem that we as Americans can’t seem to learn from our mistakes and must repeat them a few times before we get the message. Sad state of affairs that we allow idiots to kill the innocent in this country and all we can come up with is to, say, oh it’s not his fault he had a bad childhood. Does any one think he is the only one in history that had a tough childhood? I think not there are many who had it tough and yet didn’t commit murder. One person from Newtown asked “how could God let this happen? Well here is your answer. God didn’t let it happen, he wasn’t there to prevent it because you allowed God to be kicked out of your schools. Harsh, maybe even cruel, did I mean it to sound that way? Yes I did, seems truth hurts a little. Want to know the solution? Let the punishment fit the crime and stop being members of the goody two shoes association and the bleeding heart society and hold those that break our laws accountable for their actions. Sorry I forgot we can’t have the death penalty because the Bible says though shalt not kill. Well to counter that theory God sent Joshua to Jericho to kill every living thing because it was evil. In short READ THE ENTIRE BIBLE AND BASE YOUR BELIEFS ON THE ENTIRE BIBLE AND NOT JUST ONE VERSE. STOP TRYING TO JUSTIFY YOUR OWN HYPOCRITICAL BELIEFS. Put God back in our schools and in our lives and get back to living a moral life style instead of allowing the atheist and gays to ruin what we worked so long to build.Want some reference material read Deuteronomy 28 and look at this country today and where we were when we started. Stupid Americans, don’t get offended just if the shoe fits wear it

      • Guest

        Very well stated Eugene….

      • Leroy

        In reality the Bible correctly translated says, thou shalt not murder, there is quite a difference.

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

      Vicki, the dumb and blind won’t see what you just said. A women used a gun to protect her and her two daughters from a evil man that broke into her house. I ask, what would have been the out come if she had no weapon? The police would come later and if dead along with her daughters they would investigate. Wow, that makes sense to the left but, those with common sense would say that shouldn’t have happened and wouldn’t have happen if citizens were able to protect their second ammendment rights. Crooks have weapons with huge clips and got some from our own government and now the same government wants us to disarmed and not able to protect ourselves from the evil people who would take our lives. They never address the subject of protecting our way of life from a out of control government, one where in czars and a dictator who hates the constitution and wants to do away with it so they won’t lose their power and control over the masses. Some of these people own guns, Biden and Feinstein for two, one with a concealled carry lic. So it is okay for them but not the citizens they rule over? John Adams said “A armed person is a citizen, a unarmed person is a slave”. That says it all, those who rule and those that are their servant’s. To freedom loving Americans it’s all summed up in “Live Free or Die” it’s a choice of life and death because once unarmed they can take your life at anytime, either the government or the crooks who don’t care about ink on paper. We have ink on our dollar bills and you can see what that is worth today.

      • Vicki

        Benjamin Fox says:
        “Vicki, the dumb and blind won’t see what you just said.”

        Sigh. I know. But we are honor bound to defend their right to keep and bear arms too. (even if they don’t want to).

  • JimH

    How many rights should resonsable people surrender, because a handful of people abused those rights?
    Since giving up those rights would accomplish nothing, the answer is obvious.
    Even if it would accomplish something positive, the answer still should be, NONE.
    Don’t be so willing to throw away your rights, that will never come back. if you change your mind.
    I’m also tired of elitists treating us like 5 year olds.

    • Flashy

      Then quit acting and sounding like a 5 year old.

      • Larry R

        What giving up our freedom and rights to a bunch of left-winged morons would somehow make us adults? How about you try and think like an adult and we just might listen to you. When are we going to go back into prohibition? Alcohol kills far more people than all firearms combined, this does not include all of the disabled that occur as a result of a traffic accident. You liberal moron’s and yes that is what you are always seem to think you know what is better for we the People. Here’s a hint: YOU DO NOT.. You are all for abortion, yet you think it should be against the law for an adult to commit suicide. I do not and I hope the hell I never come close to understanding you morons as at that time I think I will be declared insane.

      • JimH

        Hi Flashy, Would you like to elaborate on how not wanting to surrendering freedoms and rights I currently have makes me sound like a 5 year old?
        While you’re at it tell me what freedoms and rights you are willing to give up.
        Is caving into elitists the “grown-up” thing to do?

      • Dennis48e

        JimH in Flashy’s world if you do not march in perfest unison with him you are automaticly a 5year old, a nutcase, etc. He seems to believe everyone and everything but the criminal is responsible for gun crimes.

      • Mike in MI

        Larry –
        You may investigate them at your leisure without being afraid of losing your sanity. The work has already been done for you by a sociologist named Jonathan Haidt, PhD of the University of Virginia.
        Basically liberalism IS a mental disease based upon a genetic mutation somewhere along the line. So, rather than be irritated by the progs-frogs on the PLD site humor them and have pity, realizing that they are truly somewhat less than fully human. Haidt, et al identified eight characteristics of fully functioning human minds. These show up across cultures and generations. So, they had their statistics analyzed and rechecked by geneticists.
        Voila! All of it fit right into the proper categories. Even the outliers which represent liberal’s base traits – and I do mean BASE.
        As far as I can see the research and its implications will never hit the mainstream. Ergo, what the progs are doing will have to play out to some sort of conclusion.
        The best I figure we can do, since it seems to be worldwide, is believe for God to be good to His Word in Proverbs 1 and visit their tricks, traps and troubles back on their own heads in due time.
        ‘Til then Paul’s Gospel and letters are still in effect until “the Day of the Lord.” (II Corinthians 1:13,14)

      • Mike in MI

        Larry R -
        Look at it this way: Haidt, et al. identified eight traits in the studies I read. Normal healthy minds function more or less on all eight. Libs only fire on about three.
        If your culture needs to run on motors that have to fire on eight cylinders to get you down the road..how far do you think the “liberal version” of that vehicle will get you…firing on three?

      • Vicki

        Flashy says:
        “Then quit acting and sounding like a 5 year old.”

        ~300 MILLION Americans INCLUDING a bunch of 5 year olds did NOT kill anyone today. It would be a GOOD thing to act like a 5 year old in this particular case.

      • Guest

        You’re the one who sounds immature Flashy. All you do is whine about your “right” to feel safe. Well I’ve got news for ya buddy, you do not have a “right” to feel safe as safety is really nothing more than a perceived state of mind. If we lived in a world controlled by absolutes where violence could be controlled then I guess you could claim a right to feel safe. However, since we cannot control the uncontrollable, all we can do is commit to protecting ourselves and our families the best way we can, as is our God given right.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Mike in MI dumps a HUGE pile of horsepucky on us in what he says regarding Jonathan Haidt’s work (who by the way is NOT a “sociologist” as Mike suggests but considers himself to be a “social psychologist”). MIke obviously doesn’t have the background to understand whatever of Haidt’s work he may have read (if any), or he may have picked his “understanding” of Haidt’s work off some wing-nut site that misinterpreted it for him (as many on PLD seem to like to do). MIke has grossly misrepresented what Haidt postulated, and Haidt himself has been criticized some because he seems to be a “paid shill” for the Templeton Foundation rather than a totally “honest” researcher.

        Mike says, “….in the studies I read…..Normal healthy minds function more or less on all eight. Libs only fire on about three”

        Let’s hear about the “studies you have read”, Mike—–give a link. I would love to see what you misrepresented so egregiously to us. Haidt’s work HAS been cited by others, including Chris Mooney in The Republican Brain. a book I have recommended highly on many occasions on PLD. Mooney uses Haidt’s work properly though, Mike does not.

    • Bill

      Hi Jim,
      Flashy’s remarks are similar to me saying that Flashy should not drive a car because he might drink and drive. And we all know that those terrible cars kill much more people than guns. And they kill people much more violently than guns.

      We need more car laws to protect us from people like Flashy, who might drink and drive

      • Prougenits Singh

        I think the Flashy is simply a troll for gun grabbers and wanna-be important people like the Morgan-man. To them I say so sad that you may die at the hands of a criminal, with no chance to protect yourself – unless you know well how to use your hands and feet as lethal weapons – in such a situation your big mouth will not help you swallow an enemy!

      • Motov

        Or even worse,..Bill,…..Texting while driving, latest addiction now I hope he isn’t driving and texting on here at the same time!

      • Bill

        We need more “Car Control” to protect us from these dangerous people.

        Oh yeh, I forgot, we already have laws against drinking and driving. It is kind of like adding more gun laws

      • Steve E

        Flashy’s and other gun grabbers agenda is to disarm the public so the public will have to do what their evil government wants the to do.

      • JimH

        Hi Bill, I hope Flashy isn’t texting anyone to tell them he is driving home from the bar.
        Personaly I don’t know how I’m going to cook on my grill, because matches cause arson.

  • Warrior

    Pssst. Here’s a little secret. Progressives really love guns when they’re in their hands or the hands of their “protectors”.

  • Dave L

    Mi Garand actually holds 8 rounds !

    • http://n/a daleh

      Actually the M 1 Garand rifle usea an 8 round clip, but whe being fired in rapid fire back in the “50s before the M14 or the M16, we inserted a clip with 2 rounds first , after those were fired then the 8 round clip was inserted to make up the 10 rounds needed to fire the required course of fire—I was a Marksmanship Instructor, (USMC), during those years–rilfe and pistol—also BAR qualified , a “real” assault rifle ,I carried the BAR in Korea-1951—and other small arm weapons

      • Bill

        You are right, Daleh
        The BAR is a real assault rifle

    • http://www.facebook.com/ray.davies.10 Ray Davies

      And the M-1 weighs 9.5# and to the best of my knowledge has never been converted to full Auto. The M-14 is essentially the same action and has select fire and takes a 20 round MAGAZINE of a lesser caliber round. (30-06 vs 308)

      • http://n/a daleh

        Yep , the M1 was 9.5 lbs , and it is my favorite weapon of all time–I really never noticed the weight of it — now the BAR was almost 20lbs but the first thing i did was get rid of the bipod– the only thing the bipod was good for was in a defensive position, that did take some weight off it –I never loaded the magazine with 20 rounds that it would hold , either 18 or 19–I got that advice from an experienced Marine BARman –it stopped most of the jams in the magazine , as it let the spring maintain its strength—

        The M14 I did get to see as it was being tested never got to really do much firing of it though —

        I have never fired or handled an M16, or an AR15–so don’t really know much about them , but it seems to me that if the AR15 is a “semi-automatic” rifle , it will only fire one round on each trigger squeeze–and that is the same as any other “semi-automatic” weapon=

        Am I correct on the AR 15??

      • momo

        Yes, you’re correct about the AR15, its a semi automatic. It shoots a .223 caliber round.

  • Scott in SC

    Ben, we got it; you’re bad, you got an AR-15. Another rant with very little substance and primarily written to hurl insults. Mr. Livingston’s column yesterday was much more informative and convincing. Take some notes.

    • czman75

      If you lived in the real world, you would actually see this article is dead on right. I get the lame arguments at from a closet lefty. It gets tiring hearing the same old garbage spewed by know-nothing liberals day after day!

      • Scott in SC

        CZ,
        Apparently you didn’t read Mr. Livingstons article yesterday. I’m sure I have more guns (including an AR-15) than Ben Crystal; and shoot almost daily. I’m just tired of him talking about his beloved AR in every other column. I’m certain he is not the firearms expert he pretends to be.
        I’ve stated many times previously on this site that I believe in Constitutional carry, no permit necessary.

  • Earl

    The wild west ain’t as wild as is claimed by many Constitution Wreckers.

    School and mass shootings in the US claimed an average of eight lives per year between

    1996 and 2011. It jumped to 55 for year 2012, for unknown reasons.

    However, in 2011, Norway with a population of less than five million suffered the loss

    of 68, mostly young people, at a mass shooting on a small Island used for a summer

    camp. I believe they have very strict gun laws.

    • Flashy

      How many mass shootings does Norway have per year/ how many does the US? how many gun deaths in Norway/

      Would you walk the streets in Oslo feeling fairly safe? Would you walk the streets of any city in the US at night feeling safe?

      • Paul Wells

        Flashy, since you are obviously trying so hard to be right about something…anything…here’s a question for you. How many people in Norway have been arrested for carrying guns of any type in the last year? The last five? Again, you are comparing apples and oranges. Norway doesn’t have a problem with illegal firearms. The US does, and will presumably always will, because of miscreants, and those who support them (YOU!).

      • RivahMitch

        Feel free to surrender your rights, pussycat BUT don’t touch mine. I was prepared to kill and die for them in Vietnam and am equally so, though admittedly older and slower, today. Enjoy your slavery or dhimmitude…Semper Fi!

      • http://personalliberty.com warren

        for the sake of discussion Flashy, if “you had to walk the streets of any city in the US at night” ,let’s say it was a forced assignment in this case, and you were given an option to carry a firearm, presuming you have some knowledge of firearms, would you take the firearm along?

      • rendarsmith

        Hey Flashy, why don’t we ask secret service to give up their guns then? Does that sound like a good idea?

      • Earl

        I would feel much safer in Plano, Texas where there is no ramifications from the adverse effects which the EU has brought on Norway.

      • Larry R

        Flashy, The only way Chitcago, Detroit, Memphis or New York will ever be safe to walk at night in this country, is right after we level it with Nukes… Yes, even the fall out of radiation is a safer bet the the streets there and gun or no gun, I would love to see you high pedestal moron lefties go and do it sometime alone… Please do us a favor.

      • Bill

        That is a good place for you to move to, Flashy
        You would not have to deal with any of those gun toteing capitaists that want to keep their own money.

      • MAP

        Lots and lots of Leftist tears for those killed by lunatics with guns. Nary a drop of Leftist tears for the Leftist murder of millions of babies every year. Nor those murdered by Leftist states. Don’t look for logic with the Left. It’s all about Soviet-style control.

      • gunner

        How refreshing! A posst from Flashy without any insults. Maybe he’s turned over a new leaf.

      • Vicki

        Flashy says:
        “How many mass shootings does Norway have per year/ how many does the US? how many gun deaths in Norway/”

        Irrelevant. ~300 MILLION people did not do a mass shooting last year nor the year before nor the year before nor…. (adjust for US population as needed)

      • eddie47d

        That is a relevant question Flashy. Norway is an extremely safe country with little crime. Anders Breivik did kill those 77 kids but it was racially motivated and he had to search around the world for the weapons he bought.. He purchased his ammunition from a Internet dealer in the USA. Kind of reminds me of Wall Street which sold derivatives to Europe which also collasped their economies. We spread good times wherever we go. Touche’.

      • Rock Savage

        Flashy,

        You are making too broad of a comparison regarding walking at night in a city. Obviously, it depends not only on the city but the area of the city. I have walked by myself at 2:00 am in downtown New York City and felt safe. When I was in London, I was told by the hotel staff not to go out after it gets dark by myself.

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

      The huge increase in these mass shootings looks intentional….no reason why they should have jumped so high. The corresponding knee jerk gun controll makes it even more suspicious. What do Lee Harvey Oswald and Adam Lanza have in common? Patsys.

      • Robert Smith

        Except Lanza was caught in the act and placed in his own shadow. It’s kinda an overwhelming certainty that he did the crime.

        Rob

      • Mike in MI

        Gee, Rob, I have to admit you’re right as rain – -
        Soon as you can explain who that guy was in the camo greens in the woods near the school that day.

      • Robert Smith

        Hey Mike, google Christopher Rodia.

        He’s a guy who was in the wrong place at the wrong time when all the conspiratorial folks decided that he had time traveled from Dealey Square to CT.

        Rob

  • Right Brain Thinker

    Dave L beat me to the punch. Crystal is twisting truth a lot in this piece but he shows his ignorance when he says an M-1clip holds TEN rounds. He surely has never fired one but it goes “ping” and shoots this little thingy up in the air after EIGHT rounds. Numbers nine and ten are in the NEXT clip. Maybe he “looked up” some info on the Garand and he’s thinking of the original smaller caliber design that DID have a ten round capacity. It was never put into production because we wisely chambered it for the .30-06 Springfield round instead.

    At any rate this whole article is just a play on words—an exercise in semantics in which Ben berates people who are NOT gun owners over NOT understanding “clip, magazine, belt-fed, automatic, semi-automatic, bursts” etc. BIG intellectual argument, Ben. Just like getting on the case of people who have never driven a car because they don’t know what a “clutch” is. And looks and Lamborghini’s? Lord love a duck, Ben—-you are really overreaching there.

    Back to people who don’t “know” guns and people who don’t “know” cars. BOTH groups DO have brains and DO know that guns and cars CAN kill you. And it doesn’t matter if you get run over by Smart Car or a Hummer or shot with a .22 single shot or a belt-fed .50 cal—-dead is dead.

    And you can send an awful lot of rounds down-range in a short period of time from a “semi-automatic”—the cyclic rate of an AR-15 is the same as an M-16, isn’t it? Several hundred rounds per minute? So you can maybe throw as much lead for one or two “clips” as you can with a “full auto” (until it jams, which my M-1 never did).

    I agree with Scott that Bob L said it better and you are wasting our time, particularly when you say things like “My AR-15 isn’t a military weapon; it’s a replica of a military weapon”. Read that a few times until you realize how ludicrous that statement is.

    • Kyle

      Right Brain Thinker,

      You are absolutely wrong. An AR-15 is semi-auto only (one trigger pull = one round). The M-16 can be fired semi-auto, Tri-burst, or full-auto. With the exception of appearance, the AR-15 is no different than any other semi-automatic sporting rifle. The ignorance on the part of electorate and the American citizens is leading us on the path to tyranny. We are only disarming the weak and the innocent.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Kyle, unfortunately YOU are the one who is “absolutely wrong” when you accuse me of the same. I am getting tired of giving reading lessons, but apparently one must do so (or say things five different ways) in order for some folks to understand. I’ll try again.

        The cyclic rate of an M-16, AR-15, and full auto M-60 (loved that gun) are all in the same range—several hundred rounds per minute. The AR-15 is missing a few “pieces” that would allow it to fire more than one round per trigger pull, but if they were “put back”, it could do that, just like the M-16, and at the same cyclic rate. Somebody that’s a real expert should chip in here if I’m wrong, but my understanding of what they did to make the AR-15 single shot was the same thing they did to make the single shot versions of the M-14—and that most any semi-auto gun can be “hacked” to fire full auto, although it will be erratic and prone to jam.

        IF you squeeze the trigger rapidly enough on the AR-15, you can send out a bunch of rounds (and you CAN buy devices that use the kick of the gun to pull the trigger way faster than you can do it with your finger and come closer to the higher cyclic rate of which the AR-15 is capable, but can’t achieve because it has been made semi-auto —-have you seen the videos of that?—-quite impressive—-empties a mag in just a very few seconds).

        Does “full auto” that mean you hold the trigger down and keep shooting until your magazine or belt is empty or exhausted? No, although you might last a little longer with the M-60 because it’s a “heavier” weapon and likely won’t jam as fast. The SUSTAINED rate of fire for an M-16 is maybe 15 or 20 rounds per minute, and it doesn’t matter whether you’re shooting single round, tri-burst, or full auto—-if you shoot too “fast”, it will jam—-and that’s why they have that ugly little “push button thingy” on the side of both the AR-15 and M-16—-to help clear jams. What I was saying is that you can throw a lot of rounds with an AR-15 if you “push” it, and not all that many fewer than a full-auto M-16 that is being fired as it should be (that’s NOT like a fire hose). Is that any clearer?

        And saying that, “With the exception of appearance, the AR-15 is no different than any other semi-automatic sporting rifle” is about as ludicrous as Ben saying “My AR-15 isn’t a military weapon; it’s a replica of a military weapon”. The AR-15 is NOT a “sporting rifle” and no amount of lipstick is going to make that pig any prettier. Ben’s intent was wrong, but he was factually correct in saying the AR-15 is a “replica of a military weapon”. The AR-15 sure is different than a Remington 750 for example, that’s a real “sporting rifle”.

        And thanks for throwing in the obligatory little “Patrick Henry” speech at the end—-you know, the “Give me liberty or give me death” guy?

        “The ignorance on the part of electorate and the American citizens is leading us on the path to tyranny. We are only disarming the weak and the innocent”. Lord love a duck!

      • Dennis48e

        “The AR-15 is missing a few “pieces” that would allow it to fire more than one round per trigger pull, but if they were “put back”, it could do that, just like the M-16…”

        RBT you should quit posting before you show yourself to be a bigger fool than we already know you to be. It takes a lots more than replacing a few missing pieces to turn an AR-15 into a M-16. It takes precision machine work to make the AR-15 convertable to a M-16 to go with the changing out of some parts.

    • Larry R

      Wrong, wrong, wrong… Just because you claim and throw a few dumb remarks in your analysis on what a semi-suto and a fully auto is (which by the way made you look ignorant). read the other gentlemen’s remarks to your as he is dead on. And now as for your stupid reference on a car and it being different. So if your analogy is correct, we can take a Chevy Volt alter the appearance so for it to look like a Corvette and it will perform and do exactly the same thing, ie: 0 to 60 in 4.2 seconds? Or m
      aybe when your son or daughter dress up like a soldier that makes them a reeal soldier? So you see because something looks like the real thing does not make it the real thing. But seriously now, try and really read up on the facts you proclaimed to have such and insight on and while you are at it, look into how long “Fully Automatic” weapons have been illegal in this country.. Yes that would make it a felony to own one that has that capability..

      • Steve E

        I put a racing number and painted some flames on the side of my Toyota Tercel to make if run faster. Now I’m ready for NASCAR.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Larry, you need to go back and reread what I said until you figure out what I really said rather than what your confirmation bias makes you THINK I said. You got it ALL wrong. After you figure out what I said, try to come up with some intelligent comments and we can maybe then talk about it. Otherwise go sit in the circle of “I love guns” guys who just repeat the same foolishness to each other and nod their heads in agreement without even thinking.

      • eddie47d

        Who gives a diddly damn which one kills the most people! Stop looking for excuses to justify the carnage they are all capable of .

    • http://n/a daleh

      An M16 or and Ar15 uses “magazines ” don’t they ?? not clips like an M1 does –I understand an M16 can be” fully Automatic”, but an AR 15 is “Semi-automatic”—so to me that means that firing the M16, you could fire the complete magazine loaded with full capacity rounds , by squeezing the trigger and holding it in the firing position– but with an AR15 being “Semi-automatic” a person would have to squeeze the trigger for each round fired ! An M1 rifle is a “Semi-automatic ” weapon, so an AR 15 is the same type , with only a different shape and style
      I have never fired either of those weapons so don’t know much aBout them , but a “Semi-automatic” weapon has to be fired one round at a time, unless a person can modify that weapon with eliminating a sear or other device to allow it to fire automatic–

      In my opinion any rifle or pistol could be called an “assault weapon” if it is used to assault any one or thing , but it is not a true “assault weapon ” like the M60 Machine Gun or Rocket launcher, or an aircooled Light 30 cal machine gun—any object can be called an “assault weapon if used to attack someone with it –

      By the way RBT– ther 2 round were loaded first with a clip in an M! Rifle for rapid fire in every Rifle Range I was on in the USMC back when Marines had the M1 Rifle as their primary Weapon—-

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Daleh is correct when he says “An M1 rifle is a “Semi-automatic ” weapon, so an AR 15 is the same type, with only a different shape and style” Beyond that, the AR-15 is also an assault rifle, just like the M-1, and there’s a reason we arm our troops with them rather than giving everyone their own “M60 Machine Gun or Rocket launcher, or air cooled Light 30 cal machine gun”, that you would somehow like us to believe are the only things that can be called “true assault weapons”. Did you ever hump cans of belted .30 cal for the MG’s or extra 3.5 rounds for the “bazookas?

        I assume you’re talking about the M-16 and Ar-15 when you say “I have never fired either of those weapons so don’t know much about them”, since you seem to have knowledge of the M-1. I’ve never fired the M-16 either—-I had just barely gotten used to the “new” M-14 when I was discharged, but I have fired the AR-15. IMO, it’s an ugly, unwieldy, popgun that is a “replica of an assault rifle” and, like the M-16 it’s modeled after, it has no use but for killing people. If that’s all I could take to the range or into the woods to “hunt”, I wouldn’t go to the range or hunt.

        Yeah, I was in the USMC also in the days of the M-1 and remember firing for record as you say—-Ben didn’t refer to USMC rifle training, though—-he said the M-1 had “a capacity of ten rounds”, period.

        (And it annoyed the H out of me when they took away my M-1 I always fired Expert with it, but couldn’t do any better than Sharpshooter with the M-14. Couldn’t figure out why since they weren’t all that much different)

      • CZ52

        ” Beyond that, the AR-15 is also an assault rifle, just like the M-1, ”

        By definition neither the AR-15 or M1 are assualt rifles. By definition an assualt rifle HAS to be able of some type of full auto fire and neither the AR-15 or M1 are capable of that.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        What’s your point? By whose “definition”? I was trained to “assault” with my M-1.

        All the troops who carried the M-1 as they “assaulted” the enemy from Tarawa to the Normandy beaches to the Chosin Reservoir sure DID think of it that way. They certainly didn’t sit back and wait for someone with a “full auto” weapon (aka a REAL assault weapon to some with tunnel viision) to get the job done for them. Stop squirming around looking for ways to get out from under what the AR-15 is in the eyes of anyone with half a brain who looks at the two of them and compares them.

      • http://n/a daleh

        To RBT,

        Nope I newer had to carry any belted MG ammo–or rounds for the 3.5—I carried a BAR in Korea in combat, then graduated to the M1 Rifle after a new man came in to the Squad after we went back in Reserve—( the normal way of things back then ) in the late 50′s I was a Marksmanship Instructor ,rifle and pistol–which i enjoyed a lot–never was a team shooter though –

        It has been many years since I have handled an M1 Rifle , I have had civilian weapons though , 30-30 Savage Bolt action was a great rifle a 25-35 Winchester , although I never hunted with it –and other hand guns and a couple shotguns–but id love to have a Match Conditioned M1 Rifle now –

        I had Weapons when a kid and never really fell in love with them like some Marines I knew, and to this day , for me a weapon is a matter of having it to survive , not something to hang on the wall and admire—I have a couple BB guns, but they are special made BB guns, made by the same co that makes the Red Ryder models –but these are made for adults, not kids –one even has a Marine Corps EGA engraved on it –I like that one best
        only 100 of them were made–I have #75–it was designed by a former Marine from the ’50′s, –I have never used them , as yet ,

        As I said in another post , any weapon can be called an “assault weapon” if a person assaults another person or thing with it –but I don’t think the AR 15 or would normally be classified as such –it was not made for that purpose–I think the only folks that would classify it that way would be the ones willing to contol all guns by whatever means they ccould accomplish that —-

        In my opinion ” GUN CONTROL” as some one else has said is ” hitting the Bullseye” or your target—whatever it might be –

      • Vicki

        Right Brain Thinker explains why we KNOW gun grabbers (like flashy) are lying when they claim they only want to ban “assault type” firearms and not all firearms:

        “I was trained to “assault” with my M-1. “

      • CZ52

        “What’s your point? By whose “definition”? ”

        By the US Army’s definition. I am paraphrasing here: An assualt rifle is a rifle capable of both semi-auto and full auto (or burst) fire in a small caliber with power between a full size round(308 or 30-06) and a submachine gun (usually 9mm or 45). Note the words FULL AUTO (or BURST). Neither the AR-15 or the M1 are capable of full auto or burst fire. By your definition an 1870s Sharps single shot buffalo rifle is an assualt rifle as long as it is used offensively.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        CZ52 may not have noticed the quotation marks around “definition” and “assault” in my comments When used like that, they’re “qualifiers” and mean that I’m not using the words exactly as their definitions might call for.. Yes there are many definitions for “assault rifle”, and the Army’s may suit them for the purposes of distinguishing it from other Army weapons. Unfortunately, that is NOT the definition that we are likely to see in any proposed legislation.

        The old law that banned assault weapons for 10 years defined them as (paraphrased) “…semi-automatic firearms that possess the cosmetic features of an assault rifle that is fully automatic. Actually possessing the operational features, such as ‘full-auto’, changes the classification from assault weapons to Title II weapons”. That law specifically included the AR-15 as a “banned” weapon. And note the distinction that actually having a full auto capability moves the gun up to Title II (i.e., “machine guns”).

        So, it’s hard to retrofit an AR-15 so that it doesn’t look like its parent M-16, and playing with words and definitions isn’t going to cut it when the “definitions” that count are written into law if they sound like the old ones.

        By many definitions, an 1870s Sharps single shot buffalo rifle is a “hunting” rifle when used to obtain food, a “sport” rifle when it’s used in target shooting, and an “assault” rifle when it’s used to kill “Indians”. It can also be a “paddle” if you’re up the creek without one. All just words, and I’ll say it again, when I had my M-1 in my hands back over 50 years ago, it was an ASSAULT rifle—-period.

    • Howard C

      Nobody cares that you were a marine RBT. Your inability to see facts totally overshadow that fact. The fact is that more laws don’t make anyone more safe. It is already against the law to go into a school and shoot it up and taking guns from law abiding citizens infact make people less safe because they can no longer defend themselves from those who do not care about the laws that already exist.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Vicki says something that is not clear to me. What are you saying here? What am I explaining and how does it relate to Flash?
        “Right Brain Thinker explains why we KNOW gun grabbers (like flashy) are lying when they claim they only want to ban “assault type” firearms and not all firearms:
        And what are you implying with, “I was trained to “assault” with my M-1.“? Sometimes “cute” doesn’t work as well as spelling it out, unless just being cute is your goal.

        Guess what, Howard? Nobody cares about what YOU say since you’re just spouting all the same old horsepucky like a mindless parrot and everything you’ve said has been said before (and better) by many others.

        You talk about “facts”? Say something factual and I’ll believe you know what the word means—running your mouth with just opinions and beating your chest doesn’t show us much. The proof that you are running your mouth without thinking is saying, “The fact is that more laws don’t make anyone more safe”. The FACT is that you are not stating a fact there but merely offering an opinion—-the FACT is that some laws may make people more “safe” (as in drunk driving laws), others may not. Obviously you meant to imply that laws that restrict guns do not make people safe—-that’s not a fact either—some do and some don’t—-other people ARE talking about that here—you ought to join in.

        Back on point with daleh. Don’t know how you served, Howard, but daleh and I DO care that we were Marines and old Marines love to BS about lots of stuff. And dale has to be 5 or 6 years older than me so I welcome the opportunity to learn something about the “Old Corps” from him. If daleh and I have to listen to your horsepucky, you can certainly listen to us (and maybe learn something). Otherwise, go away.

        “–but id love to have a Match Conditioned M1 Rifle now –”, says daleh. Me too, but the price is out of sight anymore—-wish I had bought an M-1 way back when they were $100-150.. Never had a BB-gun, unfortunately, but yours sound great. My first gun was a Remington 870 that I bought with paper route earnings—it had upgraded wood and checkering, a beavertail fore-end, and a matted top surface on the barrel—-nice gun and pretty to look at—-like the Franchi autoloader I bought to replace it when I got a real job.

        You said, “In my opinion ”GUN CONTROL”, as some one else has said, is ” hitting the Bullseye” or your target—whatever it might be”. True enough, and have you heard what the Marine sniper said to Hilary Clinton when she asked him what he felt when he shot people? He thought about it a little bit and gave her his answer—-”Maybe a little recoil”.

        I will still argue that it’s just word games to say an AR-15 is not an “assault rifle”. To paraphrase you, I think the only folks that really fight classifying it that way are the ones who want to fight all control of guns by whatever means. (And I’m not totally unsympathetic to them)
        S/F

      • Vicki

        Right Brain Thinker asks for an explanation of my comment in a subthread above (I presume he misplaced his question.)

        Let me change what I said slightly.
        ——————————————————————————–
        Right Brain Thinker explains why we KNOW gun grabbers (like flashy) are lying when they claim they only want to ban “assault type” firearms and not all firearms
        when RBT says: “I was trained to “assault” with my M-1. “
        ——————————————————————————-

      • Right Brain Thinker

        I’m sorry, Vicki, but I lived in a professional world where people took pains to communicate exactly and precisely. I’m getting old but I’m not senile and I STILL don’t know what you’re talking about. Do you think you could reword it a whole lot and try to say it in plain language? That’s what I try to do, even though it often takes a few more words to do so.

        And I put it under “howard” because I wanted to address both of you and his was the more important one—-I’m still painting the kitchen and only checking PLD on breaks so I’m “down the page” on my replies by the time I get to them.

      • Vicki

        You gave an even more detailed example of my point in your comment here
        http://personalliberty.com/2013/01/15/the-gun-gap/#comment-810522
        “By many definitions, an 1870s Sharps single shot buffalo rifle is a “hunting” rifle when used to obtain food, a “sport” rifle when it’s used in target shooting, and an “assault” rifle when it’s used to kill “Indians”. It can also be a “paddle” if you’re up the creek without one. All just words, and I’ll say it again, when I had my M-1 in my hands back over 50 years ago, it was an ASSAULT rifle—-period.”

        Thus the gun-grabbers really intend to take all guns because any gun becomes an assault weapon when used to assault someone.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        “Thus the gun-grabbers really intend to take all guns because any gun becomes an assault weapon when used to assault someone”, says Vicki, and cites my comments on the different definitions we might apply to a Sharps as evidence (?) of that.

        Vicki, I still don’t understand how you can make the leap from what I said to knowing the intentions of the gun-grabbers. Your logic is may sound good to the members of the circular firing squad but is just a semantic game in the real world. I say that because I am not a “gun-grabber” and therefore you can’t take what I say as being proof of what gun-grabbers intend to do. Or does that logic escape you?.

      • Vicki

        Lets try a few less words.

        Thus the gun-grabbers really intend to take all guns because any gun becomes an assault weapon when used to assault someone.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        How about trying to use the words that really explain what you mean—-as I said, the correct ones and at least enough of them to make the message clear. Maybe even a few too many—-beat me to death with explanations because it’s not getting through.

        You said, “Thus the gun-grabbers really intend to take all guns because any gun becomes an assault weapon when used to assault someone”. The intended meaning of that part I sort of understood a while back, but I’m still trying to understand whether or not you consider me a “gun grabber”, and how you have made the leap from my discussion of “definitions” to saying that my words somehow show that all gun grabbers “really intend” to take ALL guns. Looks like a big “logic fail” to me, or is your coyness and evasion just your way of avoiding the issue?

    • Leroy

      Replica in appearance only, just looks like one. It is not full automatic ,selective or otherwise. It is a one pull of the trigger= one shot deal.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Right, it’s semi-auto, so it doesn’t fit one “definition”.

        But it LOOKS like an M-16, and under the last assault weapon law, the AR-15 WAS banned because of its LOOKS, not its functioning. The “definition” of assault weapon under that law was concerned with cosmetics more than anything else.

  • Charles D. Calhoun

    If guns are banned get ready for more mass slaughters and get out your white flag. Don’t you notice Al Qaeda and Muslim brotherhood use weapons and have designs on the USA. Disarming might not be the wisest approach.
    And what if the Sandy Hook “massacre” was a government psych op used to disarm the public. Wouldn’t be the first one. Fast and Furious was also one. ANd the evidence says Sandy Hook is a hoax. The big question though, Did they actually shoot children?

    • Steve E

      Yes, they shot the children, but they only look at it as a late abortion.

      • Robert Smith

        Isn’t lying a sin, Steve?

        Rob

    • eddie47d

      Charles: Ask the parents or is their privacy/suffering more important to hide than your conspiracy “truths”.

  • Bill

    Firearm marksmanship and safety should be mandatory classes in schools

    • Robert Smith

      That’s where I got the basics.

      I’d vote for that in a heartbeat.

      Rob

  • Ted K.

    Initial reports said he was found with the Glock and the Sig, the police later found in the trunk of his car the shotgun and the Bushmaster. The news media not one to waste a crisis changed the story to say he was using the Bushmaster. The news media chooses to bend the facts to go along with the present administration’s point of view.

    • krc

      Good point! I agree.

    • Richard

      I think your almost correct but it seems there was no Bushmaster. Only three weapons were found. They are now saying the Sig was a SIG 556 but they also said it was a Pistol. Maybe a P 556? and a 9 mm Glock.

    • Veronica

      http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495

      I found this interesting… Have solid info that there was no .223 or any rifle brass found on scene…

      • Richard

        I would like to know where you saw that there was no .223 brass. The Sig Sauer P556 looks like a pistol but uses the .223…..

      • Mike in MI

        Well, then, Veronica – (GOOD POST)
        Whoever did this awful thing really enjoyed himself, took his time, knew he was safe,
        Had to RELOAD the Glock 3 or 4 times and
        I wonder if Adam would have enough presence of mind to prepare all that stuff himself? Then, drive himself to the school without attracting attention, walk to the door (hauling the weapons and ammo), know how to get the locked door open then get to a (or the) room he wanted to exact retribution (if that was what he was doing).
        Sounds like a, possibly, disabled assisted activity.???

  • Adolf Schmidt

    I think Ben is right! Maybe everyone involved in the gun debate should be instructed on the use and availability of your basic firearms. Throw in some statistics and they might have a better chance of making a educated decision.

  • Mr Diesel

    I always carry a gun. Most of my guns are the evil black kind and their stocks are plastic. Why? Black goes with everything and I’m very fashion conscious.

    • Larry R

      excellent, I love it.. I guess I never was that fashion minded but you are correct, my millenium Pro 9mm goes well with all my clothing.

    • Bill

      Hi Diesel
      Yes, I like my black Glocks. They seem to go with anything I am wearing

    • Steve E

      I carry a .357 Ruger 5 round Revolver (2 1/4″ barrel). It is made of stainless steel, but the silver shine matches my belt buckle when I not carrying it concealed.

      • Vicki

        No worries. Silver goes with most everything too.

  • http://www.facebook.com/walter.roginski.5 Walter Roginski

    I believe the .223 was developed as a flat shooting, high speed varmit round, as the AR-15. The hunting bullets expand when within the target to insure rapid death to the varmit; or, breaks up(because of its high speed) if it hits any impediment like grass or a twig— preventing unwanted riccochets. The M16 evolved from the AR-15–the smaller round and lighter weapon was better suited for our smaller Asian allies to carry. Military rounds don’t break up.

  • jopa

    I really don’t believe Ben has an AR 15, he doesn’t look as though or sound as if he passed the daisy stage.I know it may sound good for your article for some with their heads buried but it’s not very convincing.When the right has all these wackos on Piers Morgan and the internet saying they are going to kill somebody it really doesn’t help their cause much.Even on this site some of the post would make most people with an IQ over 100 start to think twice about all these folks claiming to have guns and sound as though they belong in a loony bin.

    • Steve E

      No, only gun grabbers belong in the loony bin.

    • http://n/a daleh

      Piers Morgan should keep his mouith shut when it comes to the US , it’s laws and it’s citzens and their rights—I am not against Britain in any way , they are our allies , now, but Morgan is a GUEST here in the US , earning a very nice living , which evidently he could not do in his own country–so he would be wise to chat with his guests and not show how uninformed he is —

    • eddie47d

      Amen Jopa!

  • dan

    I carry a gun because bombs are illegal.

    • Andy

      I carry a .38 ’cause I don’t have an Uzi!

      • Vicki

        I carry a firearm cause a policeman is too heavy.

    • Bill

      Good reply, Vicki
      There was an old Texas Sheriff who was asked why he carried a 45. His reply was because they did not make a 46

  • http://theconservativecrawfish.wordpress.com reelman1946

    The arrogant apostles of utopian socialism are braying their ignorance again…clueless control freaks.

    Private citizens have to have the right to match their rifles with local police and there is NO such thing as a assault rifle…its a liberal term…the fantasy-based parenting and gun-free zones are dumb…

    what country has the lowest murder rate? Go ahead, guess…its the one with a law REQUIRING every family to own a firearm….SWITZERLAND…its not America’s fault, the utopian socialist (aka dimdems) party refuses to hold individuals accountable or blind liberal parenting like Columbine…the rich liberals get armed guards, etc…Fidel is applauding Barackaclaus now…

    and what did the Nazis ask when they entered a village? Where are the men? Where are the guns? Not where are the feelings, the wishes, the utopian baloney.

    The most tiresome national political situation is the constant stream of bold lies from Obama that go unchallenged by the pawn media and the pantywaist Republicans.
    This must stop. America is rotting due to the virtual dictatorship of 900+ E. Orders and 30+ czars….SPEAK UP REPUBLICANS!!! (theconservativecrawfish)

    • BruceRB

      Lets get it right, it was Kennesaw Georgia that required house holds to be armed. SWITZERLAND issues rifles, sub-machine and machine guns to everyone. The only thing required is to be able to use it well, once a year with Government supplied ammo.

      • eddie47d

        That’s not true that all Swiss are required to have high capacity guns in their homes. Strictly for National Defense or those who do!

      • Right Brain Thinker

        BruceRB repeats some of that endlessly repeated wing-nut horsepucky when he says,

        “SWITZERLAND issues rifles, sub-machine and machine guns to everyone. The only thing required is to be able to use it well, once a year with Government supplied ammo”.

        NOT TRUE, Bruce, and you shouldn’t be repeating it.

    • Paul Kodish

      how about a list of President Obamas “lies” right wingers keep spouting off about? Name some. When did President Obama ever say he was going to change the Constitution, and take your “toys” away? The only ones spouting that nonsense is fox phoney news, and the NRA.

  • Greg

    Dozens of already established laws are broken when a crime is committed-with or without a gun. But the left doesn’t care-just be sure to write more of them-or duplicate them-do something-do anything. Anything to continue that feeling of superiority and “compassion.”

  • Ralph Austin

    Correction from Larry R’s post. Machine guns are not illegal int he US, anyone who can pass a background check can own them, they have just been taxed and registered since 1934 when the NFA was enacted. This law should be repealed, along with the 1968 GCA and the Brady Bill because they do nothing to increase our safety.

    • Vicki

      They don’t actually need to be repealed. They are unconstitutional and therefor null and void from their inception. All we need to do is educate enough of the population.

  • roger

    machine guns illegal? nope. just the new manufacture of them. educate yourselves people.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw-ydGfsrbY

    • r b

      it is possible to own an automatic weapon. if you pass the checks, are granted a license, AND, have a lot of money to burn.
      the govt can do the same with all weapons, ammunition, parts, supplies, etc.
      how many americans have 15k plus to invest in any weapon?
      a very simple means to restrict the 2nd. while giving the impression that the 2nd has been protected.

  • r b

    you self described right wing extremists support current gun ownership restrictions. those restrictions affect 50% plus of the current population.
    you only complain now because you might be affected.

  • Larry

    I hate to be a pain in the tail, but my M1 and every other M1 I’ve ever seen can ONLY hold 8 rounds in its en bloc clip no matter what round it’s chambered for (.30-’06 or .308, although others have been, but still only 8 rounds). The M1 has also ALWAYS been built as a semi automatic infantry rifle.

    The idea that various “military” features make an AR-15 more “deadly” or effective than say a Ruger Mini 14 which is chambered for exactly the same cartridge, and is also a gas operated semi automatic rifle is ludicrous. Flash hiders, bayonet lugs, pistol grips, and forward assists along with “high capacity” magazines do not increase the rifles “deadliness” or effectiveness. Except for requiring more reloads which in a combat situation might be important, “high capacity” magazines offer no particular advantage in a “gun free zone” where nobody is shooting back. For self defense on the other hand a 20 or 30 round magazine might well come in very handy. Those who say that an AR-15 has no use for self defense obviously have some less imagination than the average stump. Self defense isn’t about playing fair with the criminal assailants it’s about coming out alive.

    A shotgun loaded with buckshot and a “legal” short barrel (18″) would be far more deadly in most of the mass shootings (short range, generally massed victims) seen recently, and if sawed off to a shorter length would possibly even more effective (and why not do that if the intent is to kill a whole bunch of people, I mean illegal is illegal). But shotguns are okay, at least as long as they don’t have pistol grips, because they’re seen as “gentlemen’s guns”, not those nasty ugly semi-auto rifles.

  • George Charles

    As a matter of ‘fact’, an AR15 was never used by Adam Lanza at Sandy Hook, four handguns ONLY were found in the school. The unused AR15 was found in the trunk of a car.
    The Sandy Hook incident has all the earmarks of being a staged Hollywood production. There has been ongoing discrepancies uncovered in the short time after we all heard of this horrendous incident. Well, this ‘incident’ is starting to look shaky in authenticity. Do I believe in ‘conspiracies’? No. Do I believe that it’s not unfathomable that Obama would stoop so low to ‘stage’ this whole thing with help from his buddies in the film making world?
    You bet. Watch this video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx9GxXYKx_8

    • Richard

      The first reports were that 3 guns were found, 2 pistols found in the school and a rifle found in his car trunk. The pistols were reported as a Sig Sauer and a Glock. No other specifics were reported. I would like to know why……. I believe the rifle turned out to be a Shot Gun. I did note that Sig Sauer makes a P556 pistol which uses the .223 round. I believe the P556 was the weapon of choice and the 9mm Glock was his backup. What is the problem with our News Media?

  • JCfromDC

    Flashy says: Eh? Muslim is an adherent to Islam. Which, like its cousin Christianity, has a small number of violent extremists as well as peaceful majorities..

    How !@##@! NAIVE can YOU BE????
    Islam is a religion of SUPERIORITY over ALL other faiths (read the Koran, Quiran, whatever) and its practitioners are submissive to IT. (Islam = submission). It is not just a religion, it is a LAW and a GOVERNMENT. Jihad is an OBLIGATION. Of the 1400 odd mosques in this country, about 1300 are supportive and advocative of Jihad against the US and are smuggling and caching arms. The FBI, State Dept., and CIA have all been hiring Muslims who refuse to infiltrate and investigate these same mosques because of our “religious freedoms”. The courts have even protected this. It’s OK to bash and restrict Christians, but God help us if we offend one, single Muslin here. If there is REAL a “gun bloodbath” coming, it will be as soon as “We the People” give up OUR rights, and our “religion of peace” “friends” are the only ones left with the bullets and the means to deliver. Oh, and all their active recruits from the jails, too. This proposed upcoming presidential order or legislation is JUST what they’ve been waiting for.

    Somebody needs to read “The Dunces of Doomsday” and our policymakers’ stupidity regarding our “peaceful” Muslim “friends”. It’s a bit dated (2006), but our dear elected elite are still making the same stupid decisions and statements. This goes all the way back to Carter, and everybody since.

  • roger w. rohe

    With all the talking here, guns still don’t kill. People kill. Babies are killed at the rate of more than one a minute. Doctors manage to accidentally kill almost 200,000 people every year. Drunk drivers get arrested many (up to 12) times. Then they kill someone & really feel sorry. Whoops. If you think guns kill people, forks make people fat & cars make people drive drunk. Let’s ban all of them. This is really a dumb conversation, I’m outa here.

    • Wellarmed

      I agree with Roger wholeheartedly. It is pretty amazing that we even need to have this discussion, but I have noticed over the last 40 years in particular that both sides D & R seem to be hell bent on using the actions of criminals to create the laws that we are currently faced with. We did not as a nation get in this mindset overnight. I personally do not support any piece of legislation or honor any ruling from SCOTUS that forces Americans to be guilty until proven innocent. Whether it be drug testing, polygraphs, DUI check points, finger printing, or hair sample requirements. We as American’s gave up giving crap about our liberties a long time ago, and now we are about to pay that price for our inattentiveness.

      If any of you feel your local sheriff will not confiscate your weapons if registration is the new standard. Do not hold your breath while thinking it, as the Feds will most likely federalize your local authority and fire those who will not impose El presidente’s Executive order. After watching what happened at Waco I have no hope what so ever that our local authorities will come to the aide of our fellow citizens in the event that this scenario plays out. And as much as think David Koresch was and absolute dirtbag, and probably did belong brought up on various charges on the federal and state level, how the BATFE handled that incident was no better than what occurred in Tienamen square. It was a show of force only, and again had nothing to do with the weapons charges or his arrest warrant. He could have easily been captured while out jogging ( his almost daily routine, as evidenced by later reports ).

      I hope I am honestly wrong about my assumptions, and do not wish to see our country fall apart through secession or through civil war, but at some point in the very near future their will be a point of no return. I do side with those about the need to have some way to screen out those who suffer from a mental defect from taking ownership of a firearm or any other weapon for that matter, but the system put in place could easily become a slippery slope where those who have vocal disagreements with government at any level find themselves on such lists with no way to get out. This could happen regardless of which party is in power.

      In in exchange for an equitable mental health interlink with the NCIB system, our more liberal neighbors should recognize that any gun free zone is an affront to individual liberty and should be acknowledged and corrected through statute on the Federal, State and local Level. I would like to hear potential solutions to this nations problems hashed out rather than us all attacking each other. After all if our nation does fall into civil war there will be no winners only losers regardless of the outcome.

  • BobfromSoCal

    Most of the people that argue against guns, never truly grasp the true reason for gun deaths. The fact that evil exists seems to elude them. It has been around since the garden of Eden. Since Cain slew Able. It is in the intention of the heart. God has said that “Mans’ heart is exceedingly wicked”. And he didn’t just mean a few, he meant all that are not born again. It would not take much to turn many to murder under the right set of circumstances. Evil has been with us, and will remain with us for a long time to come. Until that Evil has been vanquished I will arm myself to protect myself and my loved ones from it. In whatever form it takes.
    Should you disarm because a government that is increasingly turning toward tyranny tells you to? I say not. Governments have killed more of their own citizens in the name of security in the last century alone, than all of the deaths that have occurred in all of the battles throughout history. Evil is here and a government that is not guided by God will surely follow their father “the Devil”.
    We as a people need to get this country back to God and the constitution or this country is done. As for you people that want to take away my right to self defense; when you can show me that there is no more evil in the world; then you can have my guns.

  • Jeremy Leochner

    I admit I am no expert on guns. And perhaps I do not know enough about what exactly I am against. The best I can come up with is I am like everyone in being anti violence and anti massacre. I do not wish to have bad guys have guns. I think an example that is related is the issue of drunk driving. I like most people are sickened by tragedies caused by drunk driving. I do not hate cars or car companies or drunks as result however. Neither do I suggest that we should ban cars. What I do think we can do is apply strategies both directly and indirectly affecting the issue of drunk driving. We can lower the legal blood alcohol level. We can require that Bar owners either not serve drunks or make sure people who are drunk have a safe ride home. We can launch public awareness campaigns to help stigmatize the behavior of drunk driving. We can make laws that aid to the liability of friends who may have known the person was drunk but did not stop them. And we can increase penalties for drunk driving. At the same time we can indirectly combat the problem by improving rehab programs in our country. We can improve peoples awareness of the signs a person is too intoxicated to drunk or that a persons blood alcohol level is above the legal limit. All of these are ways to both legally and proactively combat an issue that will never go away but can still be dealt with. I see gun related deaths and crimes in a similar war. We can push for tougher standards for obtaining a license to sell guns. We can require the ATF or at least gun shop owners to routinely inspect their inventory and report stolen weapons. We can pass laws limiting magazine capacities. And we can teach adults the importance and value of self defense training and non lethal forms of defense. We can toughen laws against assault with a deadly weapon. In the same way we have campaigns against drug use we can launch public awareness campaigns to show children and teenagers that there are better ways to solve their problems than with guns. We can create liabilities for gun shop owners who sell guns to insane people who use them to commit mass murder in the same way we make bar owners who serve drunks or allow them to leave without making sure they have a ride liable. We can improve our mental health system and help people struggling with mental illness that they can be honest about it and seek help instead of hiding it and allowing it to get worse. We can try and temper Hollywood from creating films that glorify death and destruction. And at the same time we can try and temper our national news media or at least the pundits to tone their rhetoric and stop exaggerating every little event and turning it into a media blitz. And we have to accept that guns are part of the issue of gun related violence.

    • BobfromSoCal

      And when you make everything illegal, everyone will be a criminal. Is that how you really want to live?

      • http://midcontent ridge runner

        Can not beleive how ignorant and stupid people like Jermee are. Must be all brain dead socialist democrat. Just listen to what the Rino/Socialisy wanna be democratwhining about discrimination. Trouble is look back on history and it was blacks that caputured their own people and sold the off to the pedophile worshipping, rug scrubbing muslims to trail the slaves to a shipping pens. Since muslims gathered the blacks they should have a hate for muslims, but they embrace the abormation behavior and beleifs. Look at their heritage and see they can not function as an individual, but need some one to control them and keep them in line, all that comes from eons of being under some ones total control. The embracing of victomazation mind set and someone else work and gods are theirs. The blackazation of any culture produces 2 results, family structure disintergrates and support your off spring, goes out the window and there goes the culture. All tenants of socialist democrats, what is yours I’ll take what I want and leave you what I think you need. Another tenant of socialist/dictators embrace the subservation citizenary. Facts and reality is hard are hard to swallow.

      • Vicki

        To truly appreciate Jeremy’s position go to this thread on PLD from a few days ago and search his (or my) names to see a VERY VERY long set of discussions between us.
        http://personalliberty.com/2013/01/11/dont-buy-piers-morgans-lies-and-those-of-the-other-gun-grabbers/#comment-806424 is the first of Jeremy’s posts.

        I should also thank Jeremy for helping me to focus on the key to the problem of gun control.

        ~300 MILLION Americans did not shoot anyone last year nor so far this year. We are TIRED of being punished for the acts of a few criminals.

        STOP IT.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I don’t want to make everything illegal. I just want to try and deal with the problem of gun violence other than simply giving more people guns.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Thanks for the link Vicki. As for people being punished I again refer to my analogy of a drunk driver. Not all drunks have killed people. Not all people with a blood alcohol level that is above the legal limit have killed. Not every drunk driver has killed people. Not every person with a blood alcohol level who has gotten behind the wheel has killed people. However that does not mean we just allow any drunk or any person with a high blood alcohol level to get behind the wheel. You could argue that we are punishing all drunks or all people with high blood alcohol levels by not allowing them to drive. But that does not change the fact that a drunk behind the wheel of a car is dangerous to other people. In the same way just because not every person has committed murder with or without a gun does not mean we allow everyone to have a gun. Because just as a drunk behind the wheel of a car is dangerous so a crazy person is dangerous with a gun. The tool may not be committing the killing all by itself but it makes the killing much easier and much more likely. The same argument that gun control laws treat everyone like criminals could be applied to practically any law.

        And for the sake of argument lets talk about back ground checks. You support back ground checks as far as I know Vicki. Well one could easily argue back ground checks are really intended for people with criminal records or with a history of mental illness. You could easily argue that by requiring all Americans to go through back ground checks you are treating all Americans like criminals. But I doubt anyone would argue we should get rid of back ground checks.

        But if strengthening existing laws regulating the legal gun trade is not your cup of tea than lets talk about the illegal gun trade. I have heard time and time again and people have provided credible evidence that a majority of gun crimes are committed using guns obtained illegally. If you believe the legal gun trade has enough laws lets look to the illegal one. Like I mentioned we can require gun owners to conduct inventory inspections and report stolen weapons. I am even less familiar with the illegal gun trade than I am with the legal one. So if any one has ideas on how we can combat the illicit gun trade I am all ears.

      • Vicki

        Jeremy Leochner says:
        “And for the sake of argument lets talk about back ground checks. You support back ground checks as far as I know Vicki. Well one could easily argue back ground checks are really intended for people with criminal records or with a history of mental illness. You could easily argue that by requiring all Americans to go through back ground checks you are treating all Americans like criminals. But I doubt anyone would argue we should get rid of back ground checks.”

        I think you just made a fine argument for getting rid of background checks. We also discussed this at great length in that other thread.

        Criminals are IN JAIL.

        Mentally insane enough to not be trusted with a gun are in Mental Institutions (Oh wait. I think the progressives let them out)

        - Jeremy Leochner: “I have heard time and time again and people have provided credible evidence that a majority of gun crimes are committed using guns obtained illegally.
        (snip)
        Like I mentioned we can require gun owners to conduct inventory inspections and report stolen weapons.”

        You really can’t stop punishing innocent people for the crimes of others can you?

        - Jeremy Leochner: “So if any one has ideas on how we can combat the illicit gun trade I am all ears.”

        Put thieves in jail. This problem was solved over 200 years ago.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Vicki

        First I was making a hypothetical argument against back ground checks. Back ground checks are how we determine if the person coming into a gun store to purchase a weapon has either a criminal record or a history of mental health issues. I would consider giving a weapon to such a person to be a unwise move. And since not requiring back ground checks would drastically increase the chances of such a thing happening I would consider getting rid of back ground checks to also be an unwise move.

        Second there are plenty of mentally unstable people who should be in a mental hospital who are roaming free. And I never supported letting mentally ill people out. I just don’t believe in putting people with mental illness into what amounts to a prison. We need to reform the institutions, not abandon them.

        Third we need to stop the illegal trading and obtaining of guns. I am pretty sure requiring inspections to see if anything is stolen is a good first step. Its pretty easy to steal something and get away with it if no one realizes any thing is missing. Here is a site I think is informative on this issue: http://www.propublica.org/article/five-federal-policies-on-guns-you-never-heard-of

        Forth we need to find and catch the thieves before we can put them in jail. How do we catch them is my question.

      • Vicki

        Jeremy Leochner says:
        “First I was making a hypothetical argument against back ground checks. Back ground checks are how we determine if the person coming into a gun store to purchase a weapon has either a criminal record or a history of mental health issues.”

        We don’t need to. If they are criminals they are IN JAIL. You didn’t let them out again did you?

        If they have mental health issues severe enough that they mis-use a tool (gun, knife, bat whatever) then they are criminals. You put them IN JAIL.

        - Jeremy Leochner: “And since not requiring back ground checks would drastically increase the chances of such a thing happening I would consider getting rid of back ground checks to also be an unwise move.”

        It’s only a problem cause you let criminals out of jail. Oh and btw criminals STILL BUY GUNS. They just don’t have to put up with the paperwork.

        - Jeremy Leochner: “Second there are plenty of mentally unstable people who should be in a mental hospital who are roaming free. And I never supported letting mentally ill people out. I just don’t believe in putting people with mental illness into what amounts to a prison. We need to reform the institutions, not abandon them.”

        Hop to it. Start a charity. Get all your liberal friends to donate. It’s (currently) tax deductible.

        - Jeremy Leochner: “Third we need to stop the illegal trading and obtaining of guns. I am pretty sure requiring inspections to see if anything is stolen is a good first step. Its pretty easy to steal something and get away with it if no one realizes any thing is missing. ”

        This may be a shock to you but I really like this idea. We should immediately DEMAND that all households create and maintain a complete and accurate inventory of EVERYTHING they possess so that when a burglary happens people will notice.

        That should keep people too busy to notice government stealing away their rights.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Vicki

        First I did not let them out. I was talking about people with criminal records. There are people who have committed serious crimes and either through “good behavior” or an excellent legal defense are let out after 5 to 10 years. There are plenty of ex cons out there. And again not every criminal is known. There are plenty of criminals who commit crimes and get away with it. Sometimes the only indication that they should not be trusted is the record of the times they did not get away with it.

        Second I want to find a way to stop them before they commit a crime like killing dozens of children. I want to stop them from evening getting a tool.

        Third I did not let criminals out. And the only reason they get them without paperwork is because they would need to go through paperwork to obtain a gun legally. Without paperwork they could get a gun legally as easily as they could get one illegally.

        Forth Vicki I am not sure what you want from me regarding mental institutions. First you accuse me of letting all the mentally ill people out of the institutions. Now I say I want to improve them rather than get rid of them and your still giving me grief. Are you saying we should just assume mental institutions need no improvements.

        Fifth I wasn’t talking about households. I was talking about gun stores. I would imagine a good way to get a gun so you can commit a crime is to steal it rather than go through the paperwork. You have often questioned my supposed willingness to treat all Americans like criminals. I am trying to find a way to not do that. I want to turn the screws on those who steal guns from gun stores and than either use them to commit crimes themselves or to sell them to others who will use them to commit crimes. I hardly think its a burden for a gun shop owner to make sure none of his inventory has been stolen and to report it if it has.

    • Dennis48e

      “I admit I am no expert on guns.”

      You are damn sure right about that and being “no expert on guns” you should not be arguing or commenting on something you have admitted you know nothing about.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Dennis,

        Be fair. Jeremy doesn’t have to “be an expert on guns” to talk about gun control, which seems to be what he is mostly talking about.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Just because I am not an expert does not mean I know nothing. And I have has much a right as anyone to speak out. One does not need to know how to operate a gun to be upset about gun related violence. And I need not own a gun to know its destructive capabilities.

        • C

          But you do need to know how guns operate if you are trying to say I don’t need one. Because of what ever reason it is that you decide that I don’t need it so you will not confuse a full auto with a semi auto or another type of gun with another. Full autos are illegal to own if you don’t have the very red tape filled license to own one.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Well right brain thinker I just believe a discussion of gun control or at least guns should be made when discussing the issue of gun violence.

      • vicki

        I’ll help you make your discussion on violence short and to the point.

        ~300 MILLION AMERICANS DID NOT SHOOT ANYONE
        STOP PUNISHING US FOR THE ACTS OF A FEW CRIMINALS.

        There. See how easy that was? Now change the word “shoot” to kill or injure someone and you can then focus on violence and how to deal with it.

        Guns aren’t the problem. Violence by a few criminals IS.

        • Motov

          Are suggesting that guns do NOT jump into people’s hands then cause a “brain fart’ and presto you have a mad killer on the loose? Do you know liberals do not have a valid point against that the person holding the gun* *(baseball bat, lawn dart, knife, etc) is really responsible for his own actions? How dare you? speaking the truth! what’s wrong with you? how can we disarm you so we can call the shots in your life? Never mind the constitution! We know what’s best for us,….ummm you! LOL
          Yeah ,………..Right,……….LOL

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Yes I understand Vicki. But it does not change the fact that it is a little easier to commit crimes or hurt or kill someone with a gun than it is without a gun.

      • Motov

        @Jeremy
        It is also easier to protect yourself with a gun as well thus making the victim a less desirable to the crook, criminals will find a way to get their weapon of choice, it is only fair their intended victims are equally as armed rather than relying on the police.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Motov There is no way for a criminal to know if a person has a gun. And a gun is no guarantee of safety if the person fumbles with the gun in the heat of the moment or if the thief gets the drop on them.At the same time not having a gun does not render one helpless. There are options like self defense training and tasers and stun guns and even knives. And bear in mind the potential thief has no way of knowing if you have these forms of defense or if you have a gun.

        And how exactly does anything I have said or proposed stop people from obtaining guns if they wish to.

    • Wellarmed

      Thank you for at least offering some solutions even if I disagree with your premise. We already have incredibly tight gun control laws for those who have their FFLs. It is a paperwork nightmare were a mere typographical error can land a law abiding business owner behind bars or best case scenario rack up a very high legal bill.

      it is not the job of the FFL holder to screen each applicant for a mental defect, and I could see the gun hating ACLU fighting to protect the ability of those who were denied the ability to purchase a firearm due to mental defect. I am joking of course!

      The ACLU claims to be a civil liberties organization, but when queried about the natural right of defense, or property rights violations on the local ordinance level, they merely say you need to hire a lawyer. I have neighbors that can vouch for their comments.

      We hire representatives, not legislators! the vast majority of laws should be repealed not added to in infinity. I do agree their should be some mechanism that will prevent those with mental defect from being able to acquire weaponry, but our fellow citizens must recognize that we must assume greater protection for those who we limit access to firearms. AKA obtaining their respective states CCW ( which is also a violation of individual liberty interest ). May I remind all of our liberal neighbors who may be reading that your life is of no greater value than the first responder who will risk his/her life to save yours after you dial 911. By bearing arms in an incident you may not only be saving your life as well as your family members but also potentially the first responders and they may never know it or appreciate it.

  • Rick O.

    put the responsability AND the punishment on the individuals who commit the crimes, Not on the Law abiding people. Inforce the laws we already have. If armed protection works for the sorry elected few, then maybe it will work for our children. If big gov lets it.

    • Rock Savage

      Rick O

      I agree with you but that no longer happens. What everyone is doing is taking a situation and using it for their agenda. A few years ago, I went to my company’s picnic and after a few hours, two guys got into a fight. Common sense says that the company should fire the two or at least the one that started it. But NO, they cancelled all future company picnics. Why? My guess is that they took a crisis and used it to reduce their cost of doing business.

      The same thing with this gun control situation. Washington isn’t really interested in preventing future mass murders; rather, they are using this crisis as a means to achieve their agenda. For the life of me, I don’t understand why every person on this blog doesn’t see what really is going on!!!!!!

  • http://midcontent ridge runner

    Look at any prision population and see what these pukes of society are dominated in thr dregs of this society. The generational mind set of living off of someone else sweat and labor is their to take on real world, their beleif of any time they get a wild hair up their noses, there is no laws or rules.. This is the same idea of letting society raise their spawn, the same mindset as socialist democrats beleive, in it takes a village to raise someone else’s off spring, no wonder blacks vote democrats 98% of the time.

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

    The warning signs of a tyrannical takeover of our Constitutional Republic have been flashing red for some time now and are now reaching a fever pitch. Despite the flashing signs, the clamor of the alarms and the cries of the watchmen, most Americans of this era remain in denial or have been rendered intellectually catatonic by busily chasing immediate gratification in the form of the newest version of the iPhone, iPad, or whatever “i” device will satisfy their ADHD addled intellect.

    Others have simply chosen to adhere to a normalcy bias that is continuously fed by the familiar faces and voices of political pundits who remain dedicated to the lie of the right-left, Republican-Democrat paradigm of American politics, unwilling or unable to look at the larger picture for fear of being shamed by accusations of being part of a conspiracy fringe. Instead, these pundits would rather ignore the lie and squander their ability to make a difference, to educate and inform others of the dangers of the lie they know exists.

    We must realize that we are not witnessing the fundamental change of America as represented by the mindless mantra of the Obama campaign, but something much deeper, much more nefarious, and something that will not be rectified through the ballot box. As uncomfortable as it is, what we face cannot and will not wait for the next general election. Actions have consequences, but so does inaction.

    We are living in a time in history where some will rise to be held in high esteem as heroes in history books that have yet to be written, and victims who never saw their unfortunate status coming or were fooled into believing that things are not as bad as some make them out to be. The former will suffer greatly by selfless acts performed to save what previous generations have fought to preserve, while the latter will remain complicit by their cluelessness and catatonic in ignorance that will be anything but blissful.

    The fuse that will ignite one of the most turbulent times in American and global history has been lit and now burns with incredible speed. It’s ignition is neither an accident nor does it originate from good intent, but a deliberate act by a “deluded elite” advancing an agenda that is so breathtakingly evil that it defies all rationality.

    Hanlon’s Razor does not apply

    There is a familiar adage known as Hanlon’s Razor that states “[N]ever attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” Unfortunately, too many people have chosen to believe that the events we are seeing, including all of the related consequences, are due to the incompetence of those who have been elected and appointed to lead our nation. This is particularly evident by those who continue to purvey the defunct notion of the right-left, Republican-Democrat paradigm of American politics, and the people who follow them.

    The Agenda

    We are not witnessing incompetence, but the fulfillment of an agenda generations in the making. A century ago our Republic experienced a coup in the form of a monetary takeover through the creation of the Federal Reserve, followed by a consolidation of power through the IRS. We were slowly being led into a system of global governance by the same international banking cabal that exists today. Yet, too few understand the larger picture.

    Over a half-century ago, Senator Joe McCarthy was vilified by trying to warn Americans that our government was being infiltrated by Communists. Much like today, his warnings went unheeded, and the infiltration of the Communist element into America thrived. History books have been not only been unkind, but incorrect, as we are bearing witness today to the very threat of which he warned. In fact, documents and testimony related to his findings were found to have been inexplicably removed from the national archives. Not in the 1950′s, but as late as the 1990′s. The timing of such removal is no accident.
    The Communist infiltration combined with the Islamic infiltration, the Balkanization of America through our open borders and lax immigration enforcement, and numerous other policies and practices antithetical to the survival of our Republic have been embraced and advanced by both political parties to bring us to the point we find ourselves today. We are on the verge of a civil war, exactly as warned by my source inside the DHS last spring.

    This civil war is designed to divide America, to soften us and ultimately destroy us from within. United, our Republic poses an insurmountable impediment of the implementation of a global society rooted in Communism and disguised as social progressivism. The methods of implementation are not secret. They are outlined in part by the Cloward-Piven strategy, and well documented by Carroll Quigley, a god of the Clinton power structure. At the base of the agenda exist the Fabian Socialists, Karl Marx. Antonio Gramsci, and the Frankfort School of neo-Marxist interdisciplinary social theory.

    Bitter clingers in the cross-hairs

    Today, we find ourselves at the precipice of a tyrannical takeover and the complete destruction of our Republic, best illustrated by the talk of disarming the American populace.

    The assertion is that the it’s for the children when, in fact, the children are being used as political capital to advance the political agenda of American disarmament, loss of liberty, sovereignty, and the rights bestowed on our Republic by God as enumerated by our Constitution. Notice how there is a war not only against gun owners, but a parallel war against the very Judeo-Christian principles on which this country was founded.

    Today, we are facing a crisis of epic proportions where you will have to choose a side. Will you be the one who stands bravely and alone before a column of tanks, or will continue on your quest for instant gratification?

    The war we face is not just about guns. It’s about our survival as a nation and the fate of our children, grandchildren and future generations. Which side of history will you be on?

    http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/archives/7462#more-7462

    • Right Brain Thinker

      Way to go, JAY. Copied in its entirety from a wing-nut web-site without any additional commentary from you to tone it down at all? Looks like you’re just trying to fan the flames with more overblown rhetoric from those who say they do but actually do NOT have the best interests of the country at heart. Why do you do this?

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

        My dear RBT, why do you insist on muzzling me. Your obsession with trying to control what other people think, believe and say is becoming rather troublesome. You exhibit all the classical symptoms of a control-freak.

        You display a gargantuan ego.

        You pick fights over anything you dislike.

        You are very dominating, and want every small thing to be done as per your thinking.

        You try to control the behavior of everyone.

        You want everyone to listen only to what you say.

        You want everything to be perfect, and you know best so everyone has to abide by your opinion.

        You think all the decisions should be taken only by you.

        You think people should live their lives according to your whims and fancies.

        You keep interfering with other people, and try to correct and direct them in everything they do.

        You don’t trust anyone else performing any of your tasks because you are scared that if at all they fumble, you will have to pay for it. Hence, you do it yourself.

        If anything that doesn’t level up with your expectations disturbs you, leaving you with major disappointment, anger and frustration.

        If you know people are afraid of your anger if they do not meet your expectations, and you use their weakness to your advantage.

        RBT, this simply won’t do. You need to allow people to express their thoughts and ideas, and you need to stop trying to control what everyone thinks and believes. You need to let go, dude…you are bordering on the pathetic!

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Give it up, JAY. You post over two full screens (~75 lines) of copied-word-for-word inflammatory and biased horsepucky and I respond with four lines questioning that and I’M the one with a problem? May I suggest that the pattern YOU have shown in many of your postings across many threads, especially as the “old” Wake The Sleepers (Jay), is far more “controlling” than anything I have done.

        How is that, you say? Much of what you have posted (and the whole string of CO2 foolishness on that “O’Bama Green” thread is the best example) is propaganda rather than real argument, and you have sought to “control” what people think by bombarding them with it burying them in such a volume that they are deadened by it. And it all sinks in a bit—a good propaganda tool. If someone questioned you back then, you got quite nasty in your responses. Muzzle you? That’s a laugh—if someone tries to discuss with you a comment you made (that has “reply” automatically printed beneath), they’re MUZZLING you? Why don’t you just answer my question instead of attacking me, JAY? Why DID you post that pile of horsepucky? Did you believe it all? Explain y9our motives to us.

        YOU fit this listing of classical “symptoms” better than I do. And why didn’t you give us a link for this list—-I’m quite sure you didn’t make it up yourself and copied it word-for-word from somewhere. I WOULD like to see where you got it, because there is a chance you have also “cherrypicked” and /or distorted the data here, just as you have done on a number of other occasions.

        The only part of your comment that appears to be original with you are these two short paragraphs that begin and end your comment.

        “My dear RBT, why do you insist on muzzling me. Your obsession with trying to control what other people think, believe and say is becoming rather troublesome. You exhibit all the classical symptoms of a control-freak”.

        “RBT, this simply won’t do. You need to allow people to express their thoughts and ideas, and you need to stop trying to control what everyone thinks and believes. You need to let go, dude…you are bordering on the pathetic!”

        This too is classical propaganda technique—-plant a seed in everyone’s mind—–glibly accuse someone of something, hang a label and pile up the purported “evidence”. Then close with a “See, that seed I planted has now been proved”, use the same words to reinforce your opening, demonstrate some scorn for others to emulate, and walk away quickly, hoping that no one will notice your duplicity

        You are a Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde and I am beginning to think you are playing with us all and are not an honest man. You throw wing-nut horsepucky around PLD even though it’s sometimes like putting gasoline on a fire—-just because you want to see flames. You say “You need to allow people to express their thoughts and ideas” to me? You have all the freedom in the world to do just that, JAY—-the other side of the coin is that I do also, and this kind of low-down attack is YOU doing what you accuse me of. Lord love a duck.

        “trying to control what other people think, believe and say”
        “trying to control what everyone thinks and believes”

        Fit you far better than it does me. You need to let go, dude—-you are bordering on etc..

    • Rock Savage

      WTS/Jay,

      Thanks for sharing that; for it speaks volumes of truth. The only problem is that, just like in Nazi Germany, most will refuse to believe it, mainly because they don’t want to believe it. They chatter, batter, squirm, and marginalize others who try to warn them. Most will end the conversation by saying, “Oh well, it won’t happen here!” — a common expression used throughout mankind’s history by the ignorant, unbelieving sheep who, when they finally do get it, it’s too damn late; the gate has closed and they’re trapped.

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

        Rock Savage: They chatter, batter, squirm, and marginalize others who try to warn them. Most will end the conversation by saying, “Oh well, it won’t happen here!” — a common expression used throughout mankind’s history by the ignorant, unbelieving sheep who, when they finally do get it, it’s too damn late; the gate has closed and they’re trapped.

        You just described some who post here that are always referred to as left-wing radicals. I like to call them what they truly are; enemies of freedom, God-haters, viscously-depraved and corrupt! You can recognize them by their double-speak, their constant personal-attacks against anyone who speaks against the status-quo, they attack anyone who dares criticize their beloved-leader who’s name i need not mention, and they ridicule, lambaste and lampoon those who try to warn the unsuspecting. The best way to deal with these brown-shirts is to simply continue doing that which infuriates them the most, that being; speaking the truth and warning others!

      • Patrick Henry

        This message is for anyone that is against our 2nd amendment rights and those that are in favor of it with certain restrictions…….I think mental health stability is nessessary for 2nd amendment freedoms to be used by Citizens in purchase etc….that is my belief . Athough, restricting clip capacity, semi-autos etc. are not things a criminal will heed when he has a law-breaking plan and a underground market to supply the needs or wants of the plan. Just look at the decades old “War on drugs” and how it has stopped all the drug usage!..Ha! We all must be very cautious and do not give up any Constitutional freedoms like the 2nd Amendment ..please look this chart over to see what can happen and what HAS happened when you start down that incremental restriction highway ..there will be some that say …..”it can’t happen here!”….>> http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2013/01/chart-death-by-gun-control-human-cost.html

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

    Those who live in artificial cities, plugged into the fabricated media and hypnotized by television are unable to see it, but America stands today on the verge of war. Not war for an enemy in some far-off land, but war with an enemy that has cleverly occupied our soil, our structures of power and our information infrastructure. This enemy is the enemy within, and it is insidious, dangerous and voracious in its appetite for power.

    This enemy devours liberty without thought. It usurps power without conscience. It manipulates minds as quietly as a python enveloping its sleeping prey. It is a sinister serpent that strangles freedom, and it is this serpent that the masses have placed into power and begged to abandon the separation of powers that have kept our Republic relatively free for over two hundred years.

    Today, America stands on the verge of domestic war precisely because America stands on the verge of dictatorship. A corporate-flavored variety of fascism has reared its ugly soul, where corporations and government conspire in dark rooms to rob from the American people their health, their paychecks, their voices and their rifles. The face of that fascism is unimportant because it is the same face that fascists have presented throughout history: the face of a talented orator, a handsome, even noble-looking gentleman, a man of the people who explains that his acts of power usurpation are only pursued with great reluctance and at the desperate demand of his constituents. This is the well-worn justification of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Teng, and now Barack Obama.

    Such stories almost always end in blood. Those who do not respect the boundaries of power inevitably overstep them with a sense of delusional arrogance. They misconstrue, they miscalculate and they misunderstand their true place on the pages of history-to-be. Hitler believed he was creating a thousand-year era of peace and order, but instead he was remembered as a genocidal maniac. Stalin believed he, too, would build a “great empire” of innovation, production and expansion, but he went down in history as murderous tyrant.

    Barack Obama is not nearly as popular among the U.S. masses today as Adolf Hitler was to the German population in the 1930′s, and history has yet to reveal the final role Obama will deserve. But it increasingly seems to be one that thrusts tens of millions of innocent people into a bloody conflict, drenched in mass murder carried out under a campaign of “political cleansing.”

    Obama’s political doublespeak and veiled hatred for any who oppose his personal views are near-perfect echoes of the mannerisms of history’s murderous tyrants. Obama is not yet a mass murderer — not unless you count unmanned drone bombings of children in other nations — but he has set the stage for it, and America today stands as a tinderbox of potential revolt, ready to be ignited with even the slightest hint of further oppression.

    True leadership is found in those who see the peace and prosperity of the nation as more important than their personal policy desires. To be a true leader is to put the future of the nation ahead of one’s self; to steer America away from a dangerous rise in hate-filled rhetoric and the endless antagonizing of patriots and constitutionalists by the media, Hollywood and politicians.

    Beware, radicals on the left. Beware what you wish for… and what you unleash. Your continued insulting and “terrorist” labeling of legal firearms owners across America is only strengthening the resolve of those you would be unwise to provoke. Do not make the mistake of thinking that the military and law enforcement are on your side; they are not. The most capable defenders of American society today are also the most dedicated, sworn defenders of the American constitution and its Bill of Rights. If you press your fascist agenda too far, you will trigger an almost automatic response from every sector of society, law enforcement and the military.

    http://www.naturalnews.com/038677_civil_war_history_lessons_learned.html

    • Right Brain Thinker

      More wing-nut horsepucky, pandering to paranoia, and gasoline on the fire from WTS/JAY. He is NOT trying to control you, though—-just ask him.

  • Jim Mapes

    Actually an M1 Garand only hold 8 rounds in its en-bloc clip. Minor point really, but its hard to do 8+1 in a Garand since the clip has to be in place before the bolt is closed.

    The big thing to stress about magazine capacity vs killing potential is that in both Columbine and VA Tech, the shooters were using 10 rounds magazines. In other words, limiting to this capacity would have little to no effect. Its only when forceful opposition is offered that magazine changing really becomes a factor. Its not when you are shooting fish in a barrel.

  • c

    I was totally going to post that Average Joe. At least someone other that me read it. Any law that does not mean what it says is unconstitutional. I read this some were while investigating these type of articles and the true meaning of the second amendment. Sorry I cant remember where or I would give you a link. If you need some special law dictionary (just an example) to define words that already have a meaning in the English language, and defined in a Webster’s or any English dictionary. Then the law or statue is unconstitutional at least that is how I understand what I read. So basically lots of our laws are not because of this perversion of the language. I hope that I explained this properly.

  • Kathy Hagans

    I don’t know if our government is smart enough to keep a complete and accurate list of those with registered guns. Look how poorly they keep track of “visas”. Remember Obamas aunt had overstayed her visa by fourteen years but then when the public found out, she suddenly became a citizen. Someone sure was not doing their job. Let’s have less violent movies and video games. Just the advertisement for a video on t.v. is pretty gruesome. I would never allow my children view them. Remember: In a robbery or shooting from a bad person – only a good person with a gun can stop the bad person! Obama (or his children in school) have persons protecting them CARRYING GUNS!!! He’s such an embarrasment as a president!

    • Rock Savage

      Kathy,

      To most people, the government’s actions make no sense; so, they think the government is not very smart. Maybe that’s true, maybe not. But believe me, the people controlling the federal government are smart — very smart, very cunning, very powerful, very rich, very influential. very controlling, and very EVIL.

      If you can understand the motivates, the mini-agendas, and the ultimate agenda of the people controlling the federal government and connect the dots; you would not only understand what they are “really” doing but the why!

    • vicki

      Kathy Hagans says:
      “I don’t know if our government is smart enough to keep a complete and accurate list of those with registered guns.”

      I have to agree. Look at how well they tracked the Fast and Furious guns. :)

  • James

    Obama, and the left get all in arms about gun control….they should get more cncerned about the debt he has made and will be making . It doesn’t matter how much taxes he get, it’s just more for him ato waste.

  • Ed

    If our 2nd Amendment were really still intact, heeding “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”, Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms would be a convenience store, rather than a government agency. I really miss America…

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.