Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Their War On Freedom: A Deconstruction

February 26, 2013 by  

Their War On Freedom: A Deconstruction
PHOTOS.COM

Perhaps a bit of background is in order. The full text of the 2nd Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” If only our current politicians could operate in such a straightforward manner. Yet liberals like President Barack Obama have managed to conjure up all sorts of fantastical hidden meanings in that perfectly worded statement. In the cold light of logic, however, the gun grabbers’ various arguments fracture like Secretary of Defense nominee Chuck Hagel under Congressional interrogation. Allow me to demonstrate:

Liberal argument: When the 2nd Amendment was written, “arms” referred to flintlocks and muskets.

Most famously deployed by CNN’s Piers Morgan, a disgraced British journalist-turned-game show host-turned-commentator, this bit of revisionism presumes that the Founding Fathers were incapable of understanding the march of progress and that the Constitution itself is anachronistic. The presence in Philadelphia in 1787 of more than one of the foremost minds in human history belies the former, and the liberal insistence that somehow abortion is Constitutionally protected belies the latter. At the time of the 2nd Amendment’s ratification, firearms were barely beginning to transition from man-portable artillery. The guns of the day were heavy, inaccurate and unreliable under the best of circumstances. War strategy of the day was essentially the same as it had been for the better part of human history: a fusillade of poorly aimed projectiles followed by a flat-out charge. Given the limitations of 1787-era firearms, war was still a pretty “stabby” affair. If the Framers were capable of recognizing the past in the form of swords and bayonets, they were certainly aware of the future in the form of guns and ammunition. Yet they worded the 2nd Amendment in precisely the manner they did.

Liberal argument: Civilians don’t need assault weapons.

Given the fact that “assault weapon” is, at best, a nebulous phrase that liberals seem to define as “scary-looking,” it has joined “gun violence” as a rhetorical red flag, indicating the user’s prejudice more than any legitimate debating point. And “need” is a relative thing. The 2nd Amendment isn’t about hunting or sport shooting or even personal defense as much as it is about defense against tyranny. And defense against tyranny is something for which the Founding Fathers foresaw an eternal need, hence the lack of language specifying hunting, sport shooting or personal defense. As the Framers gathered in Philadelphia over the summer of 1787, our fledgling union was just a few years removed from victory over the largest empire on the planet. Tyranny wasn’t some amorphous villain hiding on the periphery of society; it was a clear and present danger. Indeed, King George and his red-coated minions would prove as much within a generation of the American Revolution, booking their return engagement in the War of 1812. The 2nd Amendment isn’t a declaration of need; it’s an admonishment. Just because the forces of tyranny no longer answer to Buckingham Palace doesn’t mean tyranny doesn’t still exist; ask the people of the Mideast, North Korea, Red China or Chicago.

Liberal argument: Guns cause crime.

I’ve noticed this fallacious fluff tends to be the default argument for the tinfoil hat-wearing extremists of the far left. Leftist websites like Dailykos.com and Media Matters will flatly state a cause-and-effect relationship between guns and violence, although no such link exists. The most gun-restrictive places in America are also its most violent. By restricting the firearm-ownership rights of law-abiding citizens, the liberals have also left them defenseless against an onslaught of criminals who couldn’t care less what Media Matters thinks of firearm possession. Moreover, the guns-cause-crime talking point assigns sinister intent to inanimate objects. Without humans to wield them, all the firearms in the world are merely complicated boat anchors.

Liberal argument: (So-called) high-capacity magazines are unnecessary.

This feat of logical legerdemain is actually more ludicrous than the guns-cause-crime argument. The idea that my ownership of multiple 30-round magazines for my AR-15 somehow endangers others is wrong and offensive. As I pointed out, left to themselves, guns are merely busy-looking doorstops. Therefore, magazines are merely oddly shaped paperweights.

Liberal Argument: Some guns are more dangerous-looking and, therefore, should be banned.

Take a look at the picture below. One of the guns is one of the — if not the — most commonly owned rifles in North America: the Ruger 10-22. It’s a redoubtable and recognizable weapon, chambered in the easy-to-handle .22 rimfire. It features a no-frills wood stock and a detachable 10-round rotary magazine, and it looks about as frightening as a BB gun. The other depicts a sinister-looking death machine. Outfitted in black polymer, it features a pistol grip and a folding and collapsible buttstock, and it is normally shipped with a 25-round magazine. One looks like an amped-up version of a Daisy air rifle. The other looks like something that would make Morgan lose control of his bladder. The thing is: They’re the same rifle. Sure, one looks awfully “tactical,” but it’s really just “tacti-cool.” They fire the same .22 rimfire round. The magazines that work in one work just as well in the other. And neither would be a particularly good choice as a primary weapon against agents of tyranny, from King George’s redcoats to Obama’s cronies in the U.S. Senate. By focusing on cosmetic features, gun grabbers are making specious points about tangential matters rather than focusing on the actual causes of crime.

Guns

Liberal argument: A disarmed America is a peaceful Nation.

Sure it is. That’s why Nazi Germany was such a fun spot for a party. A disarmed America is a turkey on the day before Thanksgiving. It’s fat, it’s rich and it’s defenseless.

I can’t fault Obama and his Democratic accomplices for their tireless efforts to keep the so-called “gun control” debate squarely in their political crosshairs. After all, as long as they can keep if not the general public, then at least their media accomplices and the poorly informed voters on whose necks they stand focused on one of the most exceptionally divisive issues of our time, they won’t have to explain themselves regarding their wars on the energy industry, the economy, the unborn or even their own diplomatic corps. As I’ve said before: Manufactured crises are perfect tools to keep the poor, huddled, liberal masses frozen with fear and hatred, and there’s hardly a more perfectly tailored fearmongering campaign than one in which the government can use dead children to sow mistrust among the public. By turning guns into menacing killing machines, the Democratic elite can turn gun owners into menacing killers. To be sure, what sort of soulless monster would dare suggest his Constitutional rights trump the lives of our Nation’s future — other than abortionists, of course. Thusly, while proponents of the Bill of Rights defend their basic freedoms against an onslaught of righteous — albeit wrongheaded — fury, the real issues of the day, from violence to economics, disappear behind a wall of promises, demands and Vice President Joe Biden’s bizarre rape-prevention tips.

–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 “Their War On Freedom: A Deconstruction”

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

  • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

    Ben Crystal,

    SIR, I DISAGREE WITH THE MANNER IN WHICH YOU FRAMED YOUR ARGUMENT. YOU UTILIZED “SELECTIVE” COMMON SENSE, INSTEAD OF, TOTAL COMMON SENSE.

    YES, THE FOUNDING FATHERS COULD UNDERSTAND THERE WOULD BE FUTURE ADVANCEMENTS IN GUN TECHNOLOGY – BUT, THEY COULD NOT BEGIN TO UNDERSTAND THE FUTURE’S TOTAL BREAKDOWN OF CIVILITY AND MORALITY. REMEMBER, Mr. Crystal, WHEN EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY GENTLEMEN HAD AN UNRESOLVABLE DISAGREEMENT, THEY FACED-OFF IN A DUEL. THE SIMPLE GUNS THEY HAD WERE SUFFICIENT. IN 2013, BEING A “GENTLEMAN” MEANS MINDING YOUR OWN BUSINESS; BUT, IF YOU DO NOT MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS, I MUST ENSURE – FOR MY OWN SAFETY – THAT MY GUN IS MORE POWERFUL THAN YOURS. THE FOUNDING FATHERS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO UNDERSTAND A NEED FOR VICIOUS FIREPOWER TO SETTLE “UNGENTLEMANLY” DISPUTES.

    MY POINT IS, Mr. Crystal, THE FOUNDING FATHERS HAD NO CONCEPT OF, “Gangsta Life” – WHICH INCLUDES NO GENTLEMEN. SO, THE FOUNDING FATHERS’ VIEW OF ADVANCEMENTS IN GUN TECHNOLOGY WOULD STILL HAVE A BASIS IN PEOPLE WHO ACTED HUMANELY WITH EACH OTHER.

    HENCE, Mr. Crystal, IT IS WRONG TO IMPLY THE FOUNDING FATHERS WOULD CONSIDER ASSAULT-STYLE WEAPONS TO BE ACCEPTABLE FOR PERSONAL USE.

    • Vicki

      CAH Writes:
      “YES, THE FOUNDING FATHERS COULD UNDERSTAND THERE WOULD BE FUTURE ADVANCEMENTS IN GUN TECHNOLOGY – BUT, THEY COULD NOT BEGIN TO UNDERSTAND THE FUTURE’S TOTAL BREAKDOWN OF CIVILITY AND MORALITY.”

      Sure they did.

      “Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. ” John Adams
      https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Adams

      Even covers the “gansta life”

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “Vicki,”

        I DISAGREE. President John Adams’ COMMENTARY IS IRRELEVANT BECAUSE THE FOUNDING FATHERS HAD NO CONCEPT OF SLAVERY ENDING. THEREFORE, THE BAD BEHAVIOR President Adams MENTIONED IS BASED ON A CAUCASIAN MIND UNDERSTANDING HOW CAUCASIANS ACT BADLY. THE FOUNDING FATHERS WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND HOW “FREE” NEGROES ACT BADLY.

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

          Dear CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON,

          You write: “THE FOUNDING FATHERS HAD NO CONCEPT OF SLAVERY ENDING.” Your knowledge of history is sorely lacking.

          Best wishes,
          Bob

      • Jana

        Christopher,
        Why does everything have to start and end with slavery for you. If you dwell in slavery you are still a slave.
        Grow up, you are free. Your people are free. My people are free. Move onward and forward and you can be helpful, but to keep harping on slavery all of the time shows you are stuck in a slavery mindset, and will never truly be free. Help yourself out here.

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        OKAY, Bob Livingston, I ADMIT American History IS NOT MY INTEREST. BUT, SIR, NAME O-N-E FOUNDING FATHER [OF SUBSTANCE] WHO BELIEVED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WOULD EXIST AND PROSPER WITHOUT SLAVERY. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING President Martin Van Buren WAS THE LAST PRESIDENT WHO CONSIDERED SLAVERY TO BE TOTALLY AGREEABLE.

        CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

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

          Dear CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON,

          The slavery issue was much discussed during the Constitution ratifying convention. There was a strong contingent that wanted to end slavery, therefore there were some Founding Fathers. They were not the majority and several states would not have ratified had slavery been abolished. As for names: Benjamin Franklin, Benjamin Rush, John Adams and John Jay all led anti-slavery factions in their states. Others were James Madison, William Livingston, James Monroe and John Marshall.

          Best wishes,
          Bob

      • Vigilant

        Horton shouts “NAME O-N-E FOUNDING FATHER [OF SUBSTANCE] WHO BELIEVED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WOULD EXIST AND PROSPER WITHOUT SLAVERY.”

        Virtually every one of them knew that slavery’s days were numbered, and that it would be just a matter of time before the “abominable institution” would die.

        A word to the wise (which you are not): Don’t come on this site and challenge Mr. Livingston or myself regarding matters of American history when you are ignorant of it yourself.

        • Nick Czudy

          Why Not? Mr Livingstone’s comments are biased and not always factual. He can be challenged as much as anyone else. Lets look at his predictions on the election to be indicative on how much one takes his comments as gospel. He is good at it though.
          Too many times his answers are meant to illicit emotional responses from the right wing base and in that he succeeds.

          • Bob666

            Yo Nick,
            Bob knows is audience like a good comedian and that is not to say that he is a comedian (well, he certainly would qualify more than Ben Crystal). While many of his topics do promote thought, I do believe that he knows how to stir the pot & fan the flames and get his audience motivated. After all, he does have a business model and does a pretty good job at keeping attendance up

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        THANKS, “Nick Czudy,”

        Personal Libertarians LOVE TO JUMP-ON Bob Livingston’s BANDWAGON WHEN HE TAKES A “SHOT” AT SOMEONE MANY CONSIDER TO BE AN OGRE. BUT – AS I HAVE TYPED BEFORE – WHEN Mr. Livingston ASKS THESE PEOPLE QUESTIONS, THEY TRANSFORM INTO “church mice.” AND, THEY LOVE TO TELL OTHERS, “You do not know what you are talking about!”

        • Bob666

          Yo CHA,
          I don’t always agree with you, but I do believe you to be sincere in your comments. Help us out and use lower case letters, they are easier on the eyes.

    • rendarsmith

      “MY POINT IS, Mr. Crystal, THE FOUNDING FATHERS HAD NO CONCEPT OF, “Gangsta Life” – WHICH INCLUDES NO GENTLEMEN. SO, THE FOUNDING FATHERS’ VIEW OF ADVANCEMENTS IN GUN TECHNOLOGY WOULD STILL HAVE A BASIS IN PEOPLE WHO ACTED HUMANELY WITH EACH OTHER.”

      Ok. So how are we going to get the guns away from “gangstas”? Approach them and ask politely?

      • eddie47d

        Plain and simple Rendarsmith. Close the Swiss cheese loopholes that the NRA and gun rights activists endorse. Slow down the gun running (yes the government too). You may think you are a Second Amendment champion,which you are yet you are also arming the criminals whether knowingly or unknowingly.

      • cawmun cents

        It occurs to me that if you have Blight in your garden,you get rid of it.
        Similarly if you have a criminal element loose in your society,you rid yourself of that too,correct?
        Not if you leave it to the liberals.
        These people are oppressed,that is why they are acting out in gang violence,is what a liberal will tell you.
        Yeah?
        So you are saying that if I decide that I am oppressed then I can take the laws of society at large in my own hands,and do as I please?
        Then dont try to take my firearms away liberal.I may consider that oppression,and begin randomly shooting my weapon,at any passerby on the street.Or worse yet,I may decide to gather up a few of my pals who practice weekly at the range and go hunting liberals.You do know that we conservatives see you as the opposing gang,dont you?
        But that kind of behavior is acceptable and allowed if I am poor and oppressed,right?
        No need to sweep up the dust in the house,if it can be moved around for aesthetics,correct?
        You play god in many poor peoples lives liberals.
        They are the ones that suffer so you can appear as if you really care.
        But the situation remains the same,nothing changes for the person who decides to feel oppressed,and takes his weapons to the street to take his anger out on his feelow citizens.Only the faces of the idiots writing media coverage of it changes.
        Meanwhile….back safely at his flat,liberal decides that poor and oppressed people need comforting and assistance.So he/she drafts laws designed to keep poor and oppressed folks that way,because it makes him/her appear philanthropical to his/her peers when he/she attends the local luncheons and functions.
        And the angry young people still act out their aggression when they get angry in the streets and no cleaning of the neighborhoods for safety of the poor and oppressed children ever happens.
        Why is this allowed to exist as a condition of your liberal society liberal?
        Do not the poor and oppressed people deserve to live in a quiet,safe,non-violent environment?
        Or will it make your perceived care for your fellow human beings too much of a stretch when it comes to appearnces at your award shows later?
        Instead of being the sheriff,and cleaning the towns,you keep the rats infesting the neighborhoods,so you can seem to act the pied piper when accolades are given.
        How gauche.
        How tremendouly evil and hypocritical is that?
        As long as you cut them a check and make sure they are fed,(however sparsely)you feel like you are changing the world!
        Nope…there is still blight in the garden,
        Why?
        Because as long as it stays in its spot and doesnt impact your visceral lives,you are okay with that.
        But what happens when you make me (the knowledgeable conservative) poor and oppressed?
        I dont think you can fully understand the complications that are coming if you do.
        But what do I know?
        Apparently very little…..
        Cheers!
        -CC.

      • eddie47d

        We’ve heard it all before CC and you almost had a good story. You’re not the only one who says they want to “hunt Liberals”. Since you are proclaiming to be the “knowledgeable” one I’ll beg to differ and label you.. Conservative as the dangerous one! Poor and oppressed my arse!

      • Don 2

        Universal Background Checks = Universal Gun Registration = Universal Government Confiscation

        Watch the video: http://www.nra.org

      • cawmun cents

        Ah eddie47d,
        Your deficit of character wont allow you to contemplate the depth of comtempt I have for your kith and kind.You know these conditions exist but you wont clean them up,you and your liberal friends.
        If there are plague rats infesting your garbage can,do you not remove them?
        I am referring to the gangs which indicriminately kill people every day in your progressive funded and controlled big cities,eddie47d.
        I do not hear you speak of these things,are they beneath your need for attention?
        You want to disarm the law abiding but yet you let the rats continue to infest your inner cities?
        You see this as progressive?
        Dont force me to laugh in your face.
        But that is the burden which you and your kind bring to me eddie47d.
        I wish it was hatred that stirred me to violence,but you and your liberal friends save that for small school age children caught in a war zone because you are too benevolent to clean up the mess you have been sweeping into the corner for the last 50 years.
        What I have for you is not hatred,rather it is contempt and pity.
        Contempt at your false analogies of what you believe is wrong about our nation,and pity that you arent ballsy enough to admit the real one which patently exist.
        You may consider me some Jethro Bodinesque CHARACITURE in your own mind,because you think I am too slow to accept your lofty idealism.
        But make no mistake,you are dealing here with an educated man who can think in ways you may not ever have imagined.
        Now please notate for all the other liberals out there in “intellectual easing land”,that there are thousands of folks just like me out here in reality world.
        We own and posess our own destinies,and if you try to take them from us,we may become agitated like the gun wielding gang members in your inner cities.
        Please also notate that we are capable of rational thought and tactical aprroaches to doing things in a far less simple way that gun wielding thugs which you allow to run rampant in the streets.We are seperated (from gang memebers) by our ability to deduce fact from fiction,which is why we are more dangerous than you could ever perceive.
        I do not speak for a group,nor am I gathering in one to make my point heard….yet.
        But you think that because I cant see your plastic mat idealism as truth and substantial,that I am some dumb redneck with a gun?
        That is both ignorant,and arrogant.
        Getting away with one or the other is one thing,but sporting both proudly at once is truly short-sighted eddie47d.
        But that is the bane of liberalism eddie47d,that which you do not perceive while your head is buried in the sand,can still bite your posterior.
        You failed to teach a proper education to the masses which you are now going to have to rely on to bail you out once you oppress me,the conservative white male.
        What are you going to rely on when tactics are needed?
        Do you think that the interns that write your materials now are capable enough?
        My bet is that you do.

        -CC.

      • eddie47d

        Apparently you are another one who can’t see the Conservative “rats” hiding behind the trees. I don’t need a long winded spiel to say that! I also have no intention in bowing down to their ignorance.

      • cawmun cents

        Gravy Skates…eddie47d
        You are hereby renamed Gravy Skates,because you are so wrapped up in your own feelings,that you refuse to work at anything.
        Thats okay……I know you mean well.
        -CC.

      • Jana

        Eddie,
        You just wallow in your own ignorance.

      • Don 2

        So eddie47d,

        How long have you been seeing Conservative rats hiding behind trees? Yikes! No guns for you.

      • eddie47d

        Don2; I see one now! LOL!!

    • hipshotpercusion

      Christopher, you are(pardon the pun)dead wrong. Most of the founders and writers in Colonial America understood about ruffians and criminals. Just obtain some of their writings to ascertain those facts. I would state that they understood what happened to the Roman Republic could happen to their posterity, that is why they gave us the Bill of Rights. In closing, please go and consult the 260 million + people who were disarmed then killed by their own governments in the 20th century.

    • CJ

      And I object to your yelling. It proves you have a pointless opinion and feel you need to yell to, somehow, improve its validity, which there is none.

    • Nathan Smith

      Mr. Horton,

      The intent was to be armed comparitively to the military. The military then had the best rifles available for the times and so did civilians, which made up the bulk of the military. Today they have the best rifles for the times and so should civilians. Ever heard of Selective Service? Those of us still registered my be called upond to defend this nation at some point, and quite frankly sir, we won’t be able to wait on being issued the necessary weaponry or do much with a bolt action rifle that only holds a max of 5 rounds…

    • Capitalist at Birth

      When did you communicate with the founding fathers? Have you read any of the millions of pages they have written? I didn’t think so. You should quit shouting, it discourages people from listening to anything you have to say. Which is of little importance.

  • Jeremy Leochner

    None of these are liberal arguments.

    1: When the second amendment was written “Arms” did technically refer to flintlocks and muskets since those were the only arms at the time.

    2: If you are living in a small sub urban neighborhood and you have a pistol with a ten round capacity I am pretty sure your home and person are safe without an “assault weapon”. I agree the term is often used ambiguously. I want to ask what Mr. Crystals idea of an assault weapon would be. As for our liberty as long as people exercise their right to speak and print and assemble we have no need for guns to protect us from tyranny.

    3: No one liberal or conservative says that guns cause crime. They simply point out that ready access to them and the misguided belief that one needs a gun in order to solve their problems causes ever more crime. The argument against drunk driving is not that cars cause drunk driving. But ready access to cars for drunks is an issue that should be dealt with.

    4: It isn’t “so called” high capacity. A 30 round pistol or rifle can cause significant damage. And its not for nothing that guns in the home can pose a danger to children if improperly contained. And its some what of a contradiction to keep a weapon in the home which requires opening a safe or locked drawer in order to obtain. An alarm system, good locks and a trained dog are all good forms of defense. Of course each city or town is different and we have to apply different levels of security to different places. But perhaps that is the point. In small towns where people know each other and where crime rates may not be so high there really is no need for guns with 20 or 30 round capacities. In places where a home invasion is unlikely and where a burglar is far more likely to wait till no one is home to break in a gun with a large shot capacity or even a gun at all is an unnecessary danger.

    5: I am a liberal and I do not believe cosmetic features make a gun more dangerous and that they should be banned. Therefore this is not a liberal theory since there is at least one liberal who disagrees with it.

    6: Gun control was not implemented in Nazi Germany until 1938 long after Hitler came to power: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html

    It wasn’t lack of guns that lead to the downfall of the Weimar Republic. It was lack of faith in the Republic and the belief that they needed a strong leader to dispense justice from on high and destroy the undesirables of Germany. It was when people put more faith in the sword than in the pen that their Republic died.

    It is not when a person has no guns that they are powerless. Its when they believe they are powerless because they have no gun.

    • Harold Olsen

      The term “assault weapon” is misleading. If you assault someone with your fist, that fist becomes an assault weapon. Should fists be banned? If you assault someone with a baseball bat, that bat becomes an assault weapon. Should bats be banned? Just about any object can be used to assault someone with and is therefore an assault weapon. Though I do not like, nor own, guns, I believe the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to own whatever weapons we choose, including fully automatic rifles that shoot as many rounds as we want. Gun control is not about guns or, as the left claims, protecting children, since it’s clear they do not give a damn about children, it’s about taking away our rights and freedoms.

    • Vicki

      Jeremy Leochner says:
      “None of these are liberal arguments.

      1: When the second amendment was written “Arms” did technically refer to flintlocks and muskets since those were the only arms at the time.”

      This is not an argument. It is a statement of fact. It is however used as a base for the common liberal argument that the founders could not have meant machine guns and scary looking guns and……

      -Jeremy Leochner: “2: If you are living in a small sub urban neighborhood and you have a pistol with a ten round capacity I am pretty sure your home and person are safe without an “assault weapon”.I agree the term is often used ambiguously.”

      Be as sure as you want. It’s not your life on the line. (Ignoring the lack of definition for scary looking gun that you failed to provide)

      -Jeremy Leochner: “As for our liberty as long as people exercise their right to speak and print and assemble we have no need for guns to protect us from tyranny.”

      Patent false. Historical examples abound. You are living in one.
      http://personalliberty.com/2013/02/26/another-leo-ignores-rulings-on-taping/

      -Jeremy Leochner: “No one liberal or conservative says that guns cause crime.”

      Patenty false http://hnn.us/articles/871.html

      Keep in mind when reading this that

      ~300 MILLION Americans DIDN’T SHOOT ANYONE.

      STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT for the acts of a few

      STOP IT
      STOP IT NOW

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Vicki is back, parroting her old and tired 300 MILLION AMERICANS horsepucky on behalf of the NRA. To put everyone back in touch with reality, some numbers to peruse. (from the Firearms and Injury Center at Penn)

        Firearm-Related Mortality
        Firearm injury in the United States has averaged 32,300 deaths annually between 1980 and 2007
        It is the SECOND LEADING CAUSE of injury death after motor vehicle crashes.
        While the ratio varies, there are an average of five nonfatal firearm injuries for every two firearm deaths.
        Firearms are involved in 67% of homicides, 50% of suicides, 43% of robberies, and 21% of aggravated assaults. Deaths peaked in 1993 at 40,000 in the early 1990s and fell below 30,000 in 1999. Yet even at these lower levels, firearm injury represents a
        significant public health impact, accounting for 6.6% of premature death in this country The fatality rate of firearm violence is more than twice the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ “Healthy People” goal for the year 2010.

        Nonfatal Injury
        While many people are killed each year by firearms, even more are injured non-fatally. In 2008, there were 78,622 nonfatal firearm injuries in the United States, 73% of which were the result of interpersonal violence.

        ABOUT 111,000 PEOPLE ARE KILLED OR INJURED BY GUNS EACH YEAR.

        STOP DENYING THAT FACT.
        STOP IT NOW.

      • cawmun cents

        Okay Mr.Halfbrain,
        What do we do to stop Gang violence in our inner cities?

      • Don 2

        Half Brain Working is back parroting his old and tired liberal B.S.

        U.S. Senator Rand Paul cited statistics yesterday, that it takes an average of 5-rounds for a police officer to take down a criminal.

        The average home invasion involves three criminals.

        Who is going to guarantee (bet their life) that you don’t need a semi-automatic rifle (so-called assault rifle using 100-year old technology) with a magazine holding more than a 10-rounds, or more than 20-rounds?

      • eddie47d

        Cawmun cents; You make a good reason for National laws that are enforced throughout the land. That way all the loopholes can be equally closed and gun manufacturers would have to take more responsibility to who they sell to. Gun dealers wouldn’t be allowed to release a weapon until the background check is completed. Gun shows have the biggest loopholes and straw man purchases should be stopped. Those straw man purchases funnel guns into gangster territory. Its like a border fence you may not stop everyone but most would be deterred. If those “non-existent” loopholes are closed and so forth you won’t stop everyone but you would slow down the amount of damage the gangster paradise would inflict. If you want to continue being a lawful gun owner then support meaningful laws that stop the flow of weapons into the wrong hands.

      • Kane

        Ah yes…Jeremy Leochner and Right Brain Thinker (now there’s an oxymoron if I ever heard oner!) A couple of obama’s “cyber warriors” on the loose.
        Heads up! From what I hear, there are two different “teams” tracking back to you “cyber warriors”. You are not going to like it when they find you!

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

        RBT: ABOUT 111,000 PEOPLE ARE KILLED OR INJURED BY GUNS EACH YEAR.

        Sad, isn’t it? Funny, you didn’t mention that 1.2 million Americans die via abortion each year. Are you upset that 111,000 Americans are killed by guns rather than abortion? Perhaps you’re upset over the fact that guns are taking business away form the abortion-industry? I know i know; guns-bad, abortion-good…. another stupid liberal philosophy!

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Vicki

        1: Mr. Crystal spoke as though Liberals were arguing that Arms only meant Flintlocks and Muskets when the second amendment was written. I was pointing out that technically it is true that at the time the only actual arms were in fact flintlocks and muskets.

        2: I was not asked to provide my definition of an assault weapon. Nor did I propose banning them any way. As for my view. I would say a gun designed with fully automatic capability and designed to efficiently shred enemy soldiers could be considered an assault weapon. Any weapon which our soldiers might use. Still ambiguous I admit. But that’s me. And with all due respect Vicki I never suggested people don’t need some form of defense. And I even admitted not every town and city is the same as mine. I just believe that unless your living in a city where law enforcement is clearly not doing its job I see no reason to turn your arm into a military arsenal.

        3: As long as I can speak out I refuse to believe we live under tyranny. As long as I can continue to talk politics whether on this site or to my friends and as long as I can say in public that Obama has made mistakes and immoral decisions I know we do not live under tyranny. Its only when people stop speaking and start shooting that a Republic falls.

        4: Alright I admit I made an absolutist statement. I was wrong. I will say that I disagree with anyone who says that guns cause crime. The idea of “Guns cause crime” is still not a liberal one.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Actually Kane I am trying to stop us all from falling into calling each other names and saying one side is the bad guy and the other is the good guy. It does our country no good when the people fight amongst themselves and don’t hold their leaders accountable. Obama has made mistakes and broken promises. Rarely do cyber warriors admit such things.

      • Vicki

        Right Brain Thinker says:
        “Vicki is back,”

        Hadn’t left.

        - RBT: “To put everyone back in touch with reality, some numbers to peruse. (from the Firearms and Injury Center at Penn)”

        Cool. A test.

        - RBT: “Firearm-Related Mortality
        Firearm injury in the United States has averaged 32,300 deaths annually between 1980 and 2007″

        Population in the United States has risen from ~220 million in 1980 to ~300 million in 2007

        So in 1980
        ~220 MILLION Americans DIDN’T SHOOT ANYONE
        In 1981….

        - RBT: “Deaths peaked in 1993 at 40,000 in the early 1990s and fell below 30,000 in 1999.

        - RBT: “ABOUT 111,000 PEOPLE ARE KILLED OR INJURED BY GUNS EACH YEAR.

        Hmmm. Your number can not possibly be correct. We tested guns to see if they could injure or kill. They all failed miserably. Here is the test.
        http://personalliberty.com/2013/01/23/do-guns-kill-people-pistol-shotgun-assault-rifle-put-to-the-test/

        Now if you meant to say”….INJURED by people where tool=gun” then WoW we are up to 0.037% of the population. Less actually cause I presumed 1 to 1 between perp and your unsubstantiated 111,000 people.

        All the stats offered by RBT draw us to the same inevitable conclusion that

        ~300 Million Americans DIDN’T shoot anyone
        Stop Punishing the INNOCENT for the acts of a (very very) few ( less than 0.04%)

        Stop it
        Stop it NOW.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        CJ agrees with RBT and rather elegantly and truthfully says to Vicki,
        “More semantic BS. The principle doesn’t change, despite your attempts to distract”.

        CJ is obviously quite familiar with those four types of sentences Vicki is always employing—-evasivatory, distractatory, obfuscatory, and whatever the other one is (CRS at my age).

        Vicki again parrots (with a small twist) ~220 MILLION Americans DIDN’T SHOOT ANYONE In 1981….

        ABOUT 111,000 PEOPLE ARE KILLED OR INJURED BY GUNS EACH YEAR.
        ABOUT 555,000 PEOPLE ARE KILLED OR INJURED BY GUNS IN FIVE YEARS
        ABOUT 1,110,000 PEOPLE ARE KILLED OR INJURED BY GUNS IN TEN YEARS

        STOP TRYING TO EVADE OR IGNORE THAT FACT
        STOP YOUR MINDLESS REPETITION OF A MEANINGLESS STATISTIC
        STOP IT

        STOP IT NOW

      • Vicki

        Jeremy Leochner says:
        “And with all due respect Vicki I never suggested people don’t need some form of defense.”

        You just don’t want us to have the BEST tools for defense.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Vicki a rifle with a ten round capacity sounds like a pretty good tool to me.

      • Jana

        Non Thinker,
        As I said before, If you don’t like the posts on here leave.

        But always remember since this obviously pushes your buttons:

        300 MILLION Americans DIDN’T SHOOT ANYONE.

        STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT for the acts of a few

        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW

        • kimo3690

          APPLAUDS!! Yep, it does drive ‘em crazy!!! I LOVE IT!!

      • Jana

        Jeremy,
        The AR-15 doesn’t have the hard kick that a rifle does and is easier for a woman to use.

        • kimo3690

          YOU right about THAT!!!

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

        RBT: ABOUT 111,000 PEOPLE ARE KILLED OR INJURED BY GUNS EACH YEAR.
        ABOUT 555,000 PEOPLE ARE KILLED OR INJURED BY GUNS IN FIVE YEARS
        ABOUT 1,110,000 PEOPLE ARE KILLED OR INJURED BY GUNS IN TEN YEARS

        Your numbers are incorrect, my good sir.

        Approximately 30,000 are killed or injured by guns each year.

        Approximately 150,000 would be killed by guns in 5 years.

        In ten years…300,000

        No need to thank me.

        • Bob666

          The average annual number of handgun deaths in the 5-year period before the legislation was put in place in Australia was only a little over 500. In the United States, the total number of hand gun deaths (1980-2006) is more than 32,000 per year. Firearms are involved in 68% of homicides, 52% of suicides, 43% of robberies, and 21% of aggravated assaults.

          With 60 times the number of deaths (and a similar number of families devastated) time will tell if the American people and politicians have the will to overcome the powerful lobbies of gun owners and manufacturers that have created the current gun climate and will resist change violently. There are currently estimated to be 310 million non-military firearms within the U.S, nearly one for every man, woman and child, but are controlled by a mere 35% of the population. If you add the firearms in military possession the number goes much higher. With this vast quantity of guns, even if legislation is passed tomorrow which encourages a reduction in this enormous supply of firearms and ammunition, it may take decades before the full benefits are seen.

        • R. Fine

          Oh gee, only 300,000? That’s not so bad.

      • APN

        I see the RBT loon Jobal Warming “Scientist” is back in action.

        Given your “facts” RBT, as presented, should we not classify cars as “Assault Weapons” and ban them before guns?

        Look at how many mores “lives” it would save!

        APN (:->>>>

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I want a person man or woman to have multiple forms of defense Jane. I think that a pistol with ten rounds is capable of providing a woman with good defense. A woman who knows self defense may not even need a gun.

      • Vicki

        Jeremy Leochner says:
        “Vicki a rifle with a ten round capacity sounds like a pretty good tool to me.”

        Good for you. Now how about you let the rest of us make our own choices and quit complaining when we don’t choose pepper spray. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uc0ok-nldw

      • Vicki

        Right Brain Thinker doesn’t and says:
        “CJ agrees with RBT and rather elegantly and truthfully says to Vicki,
        “More semantic BS. The principle doesn’t change, despite your attempts to distract”.”

        Most likely CJ was addressing Jeremy but you go ahead and believe as you will.

        - RBT: “Vicki again parrots (with a small twist) ~220 MILLION Americans DIDN’T SHOOT ANYONE In 1981….”

        Silly me to actually point out a self evident truth. Call it parroting if you wish. It remains the truth for all to see.

        - RBT: “ABOUT 111,000 PEOPLE ARE KILLED OR INJURED BY GUNS EACH YEAR.
        ABOUT 555,000 PEOPLE ARE KILLED OR INJURED BY GUNS IN FIVE YEARS
        ABOUT 1,110,000 PEOPLE ARE KILLED OR INJURED BY GUNS IN TEN YEARS”

        ~111,000 is ~0.037% of the ~300 MILLION Americans who didn’t shoot anyone.
        ~555,000 is ~0.185% of the ~300 MILLION Americans who didn’t shoot anyone.
        ~1,110,000 is ~0.37% of the ~300 MILLION Americans who didn’t shoot anyone.

        Really wowing us with your stats there RBT. 10 years worth of criminal misuse (and accidents) and you STILL haven’t crossed the magic 1% of the population.

        - RBT: “STOP TRYING TO EVADE OR IGNORE THAT FACT”

        No intention of evading that potential fact. It thoroughly supports my case that government MUST STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT for the acts of a VERY VERY few.

        - RBT: “STOP YOUR MINDLESS REPETITION OF A MEANINGLESS STATISTIC”

        I am being very mindful of where and when I repeat a VERY meaningful statistic. The US Population is used for LOTS of things. http://lwd.dol.state.nj.us/labor/lpa/census/2010/50WaysDataUsed.html

        - RBT: “STOP IT. STOP IT NOW”

        No.

        ~300 MILLION Americans DIDN’T shoot Anyone.

        STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT for the acts of a VERY few
        Stop it
        Stop it NOW

      • APN

        Jeremy said: A woman who knows self defense may not even need a gun.

        LOL! What a FOOLISH comment. You been watching way to many hollywood movies pal.

      • Vicki

        APN says:
        “Jeremy said: A woman who knows self defense may not even need a gun.

        LOL! What a FOOLISH comment. You been watching way to many hollywood movies pal.”

        I may not need a gun, but if I do there is no substitute.

      • APN

        Vicki said: I may not need a gun, but if I do there is no substitute.

        Yep! Good idea! Even a small man can be lethal with a woman regardless of her training. I know that statement ruffles feathers but I’ve seen it happen, numerous times. It basically comes down to simple chemistry and no amount of progressive feminism or martial arts training will change that fact. i.e.; The gorilla factor with rage Things just don’t work as Hollywood presents it. As in, a 110 pound female man-handling an angry 250 lb male.

        Don’t buy a small caliber either, it will not defend you against a large angry male unless your lucky enough to take out the brain function with the first shot. Big chance and risky business when it comes to a life or death situation.

        Those are the facts not silly progressive fiction.

        APN

    • CJ

      More symantec BS. The principle doesn’t change, despite your attempts for distractions.

    • Mr. People

      Hmmmm…… Below is a response from Jeremy in a previous discussion about Obama potentially being a communist. I found his statements very revealing…

      = = = = = = = =

      “Jeremy Leochner says:

      August 13, 2012 at 11:12 pm

      I disagree with that. Fine Obama said it. Gandhi once said “I am a Muslim and a Hindu and a Christian and a Jew”. Just because he said that did not mean it was his particular creed. His was Hinduism but he was tolerant and respectful of other religions. Tolerance is not the same as belief. And if Obama is a Muslim it does not matter.

      You need to love your country and be a decent human being to be a patriot. You need not have fear of god. Our country is founded on the principle that all people are equal. That means their individual creeds are all equal as well. I do not believe in god but my beliefs do not interfere with my love for my country. I consider myself plenty patriotic.”

      = = = = = = = =

      Our country was not simply “…founded on the principle that all people are equal…”

      That principle was originally an idea and that idea couldn’t be materialized without action.

      Action = The sweat, blood and tears of TRUE Patriots to destroy tryanny AND DEFEND free men against oppression.

      Jeremy your flawed logic and meticulous ways of swimming through arguements won’t hold when the passions of True Patriots rise…

      I’m sure Benjamin Franklin and George Washington would be ashamed of you…

      • eddie47d

        You are the one who is flawed Mr People. Since gun crimes continue in America that is the problem that needs to be solved and this particular issue isn’t always about our Founding Fathers or tyranny. Our Founding Fathers would be ashamed at the senseless killings that go on in America and very proud of Jeremy for addressing those issues.Many of our early Patriots didn’t like closed minds. They didn’t like living under British rules and changed the events that kept them subjected. We don’t like the continual carnage and exploitive nature of guns being the problem solver. That “oppression” needs to stop!

      • Don 2

        Yes eddie, guns are a problem solver. 2 1/2 million time a year, guns stop crimes. Problem solved!

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Mr. People I am a student of history and know full well the sacrifices made in the name of our ideals. What exactly did I say in that comment you quoted that made you think I though our war of independence was simple.

    • Tom

      All your rhetoric is nothing more than a red herring. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to help protect the people against a tyrannical government. The purpose of our Constitution is to limit the Federal Government, not limit the freedom of the people.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Tom it is not a red herring. I don’t disagree with you on your statements about Government or the Second Amendment. I am just trying to remind everyone we also have the First Amendment to protect us.

      • Vicki

        Jeremy Leochner says:
        “Tom it is not a red herring. I don’t disagree with you on your statements about Government or the Second Amendment. I am just trying to remind everyone we also have the First Amendment to protect us.”

        How long (in seconds) do you expect the First Amendment to survive considering how much damage it has already taken due to Political Correctness?

      • Jeremy Leochner

        As long as anyone continues to speak we the people will not be silenced. As long as we exercise our rights they cannot take them away.

      • Don 2

        But we do not quibble about the methods by which we practice our First Amendment rights because methodology is not the point. Red herring arguments about types of ammunition or magazine capacity or handguns versus rifles are just that—red herrings. They distract us from the underlying purpose of that right—to insure a free society that can hold its government accountable. The Second Amendment is no more about guns than the First Amendment is about quill pens. ~ Daily Kos July 4, 2010

      • Vicki

        Jeremy Leochner says:
        “As long as anyone continues to speak we the people will not be silenced.”

        Really now. Let’s see.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gt_Axj7i-4&bpctr=1361956876
        Yep. Someone was speaking. Not sure the people would consider THEIR speech free.

    • Srsanbo

      Oh boy, yea no liberal bias here at all /sarcasm off.

      “1: When the second amendment was written “Arms” did technically refer to flintlocks and muskets since those were the only arms at the time.”

      - Very true. Please do notice they say “arms” not “flintlocks and muskets”. Please do remove the liberal blinders if you don’t feel the phrase was deliberately written to be vague to be inclusive of whatever arms might be available to “the people” in the future. Our forefathers were extremely intelligent, but in their arrogance they didn’t account for the willful ignorance and self loathing the left is now bringing to the table.

      “2: If you are living in a small sub urban neighborhood and you have a pistol with a ten round capacity I am pretty sure your home and person are safe without an “assault weapon”. I agree the term is often used ambiguously. I want to ask what Mr. Crystals idea of an assault weapon would be. As for our liberty as long as people exercise their right to speak and print and assemble we have no need for guns to protect us from tyranny.”

      - Ok, please be sure to create a setting congruent (and convenient) to your argument. Another great tactic the left is adept at. Put me in a suggestively safe suburban neighborhood before you tell me how obsolete any magazines over 10 rounds are. How about I don’t live in such a safe place? Also, be sure to use the term “assault weapon”, which again is evocative of emotions running high because they have been used in recent mass shootings – but please leave out that my guns will never be used to “assault” anyone, and that statistically speaking, such firearms are used in less than .002% of gun crimes. As for your argument that liberty will surely ring free when the presses are still running, please do note that those that control the guns will control the presses. Anyone with one high-school history class under their belt should be able to figure that out.

      “3: No one liberal or conservative says that guns cause crime. They simply point out that ready access to them and the misguided belief that one needs a gun in order to solve their problems causes ever more crime. The argument against drunk driving is not that cars cause drunk driving. But ready access to cars for drunks is an issue that should be dealt with.”

      - Bravo on the statement “gun in order to solve their problems”. Nice one. Ambiguous enough to suggest that guns are used to settle financial debts and end troubled relationships. Hey, those are problems, right? Very scary. How about the problem being a 250 lb. felon beating down my door, or a meth head targeting a young coed walking to her car after a study group? (I can do it too) You are now poised to curtail the liberties of all drivers now because they might drink? Hail to you, keeper of liberty. Nice crossover and misdirection on that one.

      “4: It isn’t “so called” high capacity. A 30 round pistol or rifle can cause significant damage. And its not for nothing that guns in the home can pose a danger to children if improperly contained. And its some what of a contradiction to keep a weapon in the home which requires opening a safe or locked drawer in order to obtain. An alarm system, good locks and a trained dog are all good forms of defense. Of course each city or town is different and we have to apply different levels of security to different places. But perhaps that is the point. In small towns where people know each other and where crime rates may not be so high there really is no need for guns with 20 or 30 round capacities. In places where a home invasion is unlikely and where a burglar is far more likely to wait till no one is home to break in a gun with a large shot capacity or even a gun at all is an unnecessary danger.”

      - Let’s be clear. A pistol or rifle, even with 1000 rounds, doesn’t cause damage, the person wielding it does. You just said above “no one liberal or conservative says that guns cause crime”, please don’t be hypocritical. My in-home defense handgun is in a biometric safe that gives me access within 2 seconds, but keeps my 2 year old away from it just fine. So you now determine need based on crime rates? Your argument might sound “reasonable” to someone sympathetic to the need to do “something” based on the horrors of Newtown. But news flash – “need” is not part of the 2A. “Shall not be infringed” is. My hypothetical garbage arguments that suggest that need is subjective. It isn’t.

      “5: I am a liberal and I do not believe cosmetic features make a gun more dangerous and that they should be banned. Therefore this is not a liberal theory since there is at least one liberal who disagrees with it.”

      - You’re liberal??!? You hide it so well. /sarcasm off again

      “6: Gun control was not implemented in Nazi Germany until 1938 long after Hitler came to power: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html

      - “Gun control was not implemented in socialist America until 2014, long after Obama came to power….” Sound familiar?

      “It wasn’t lack of guns that lead to the downfall of the Weimar Republic. It was lack of faith in the Republic and the belief that they needed a strong leader to dispense justice from on high and destroy the undesirables of Germany. It was when people put more faith in the sword than in the pen that their Republic died.”

      Um, yea. We are well past that point here. Look around and see how soft and stupid everyone has become. A few days of being hungry will put it all in perspective. It will probably come in our lifetimes, and I would rather fend for myself then be rounded up and “taken care of” by the elites that claim title over us now.

      “It is not when a person has no guns that they are powerless. Its when they believe they are powerless because they have no gun.”

      A very noble sentiment, written by someone who has clearly had a pretty easy life. You can hold on to that one when the lead starts flying. Me? I will be shooting back.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Srsanbo

        1: I am not trying to be bias. I am trying to be reasonable. Mr. Crystal acted like the idea that when it was written The phrase Arms in the second amendment referred to Flintlocks and Muskets. I was pointing out that at the time Arms did technically mean that. No liberal bias. Just pointing out a simple truth. I know the founders intended that the Constitution change to fit ever evolving circumstances. I was just under the impression that only liberals thought that it was a changing document.

        2: I was referring to my home town which has a low crime rate and where there hasn’t been a murder in nearly 6 years. And its a town with a population of over 50,000. And by the way I did concede that not every town is like mine and people have to adapt to their own circumstances. And I will not use the term assault weapon. I will use the term semi automatic rifle with a 30 shot capacity. As for your theory about those with guns controlling the Press that is Fascism. Our founders were Republicans who believed in a Free Press and Representational Democracy. That’s why they gave us the First Amendment.

        3: Guns are “used to settle financial debts and end troubled relationships.”. Just watch any crime show or police video show. As for someone breaking into your house I say you can have a few pistols and rifles in your home with a ten shot capacity. I have said you can have a dog and good locks. You can have bats. You can learn self defense. I never said be defenseless. I just say don’t turn your home into a bunker. Like wise I never said don’t let anyone drive. I just said don’t let drunks drive. Don’t let bar tenders serve drunks. Penalize those who allow drunk people to leave their homes without making sure their with a designated driver.

        4: It is not hypocritical to say that a gun in and of itself cannot cause damage but it makes causing damage much easier. As for your personal gun good job with the safe. I think that is a good idea. As for needs based on crime rates. We live in a Republic and do not need fear a tyrannical government. If you are not a hunter and crime rates are low in your town I see no reason to keep a powerful weapon in the home. Good lucks and a n alarm system are just as capable of preventing crime. A criminal is far more likely to attack a house with no one in it and where there is no chance of getting caught. Indeed I am using hypothetical arguments and examples. But that is what life is especially concerning matters of crime. It is the unknown. Its how do we respond to what could happen. I am trying to base response to actual threat. If the police force or neighborhood watch in your town is good and the crime rates are low I see no reason to keep a 30 magazine capable rifle or pistol in your home. It is your right to. But I do not see it as the right thing to do. So I will speak out on it.

        5: I was never trying to hide the fact that I am liberal. I was trying and still do to lay my cards on the table so there is no misconception about my views. Apparently it did not work.

        6: Yes not until 2014 when Obama had a congress controlled by the opposing party and where he only had one year before entering lame duck status.

        7: No one is rounding up anyone. And as long as you and I continue to debate on this site or in public instead of shooting each other there is still hope. Its only when we start losing faith in the first amendment that we lose our Republic.

        8: I have been blessed and cursed. My life has not been a bed of roses. I have seen terrible things and I have dealt with the scum of humanity. I choose to hold myself up to a higher standard. And please do not consider me helpless Srsanbo. I will fight to the death to protect what I love. I just choose not to instigate the fight. And I choose to try and hold myself back. And when all else fails I remember the words of the Mahatma: “They may torture my body, break my bones, even kill me. Then they will have my dead body, but not my obedience.”

    • Nathan Smith

      My dear sir,

      Do you really think that excercising your First Ammendment rights will be enough to stop tyranny? Seriously, a tyrannical government can take that away from you very easily without a way for you to enforce it. It is easy to say that firearms are not needed when you have spent a life in comfort and liberty. Try living in a state of absolute rule for awhile and then come talk to us patriots about the need for self civil defense. Oh yeah, by the way, without a way to enforce liberty, your individual right to think and act for yourself is gone. This is why the Framers of the Constitution wrote the right to keep and bear arms second. They new the importance of trying to settle things peacefully first which is why the Frist Ammendment is written the way it is. The Scond Ammendment is there to remind tyrannical idealists to behave themselves. It is also there to provide aide to our military should we ever be invaded by someone like China or North Korea. Beyond popular belief, out military is not big enough to repel a full invasion from multiple borders.

      Mr. Leochner, I would encourage you to read the history behind this nation prior to July 4, 1776. A lot of peaceful attempts were tried first before a shot was even fired. They were there, you were not. Your opinions are just that, and you are certainly entitled to them. That is the only entitlement that is ligitimate.

      Regards

      N Smith

      • kimo3690

        INDEED!!! Obama has sanctioned “No Free Speech Zones” is that not an “infringement” on the 1st Amendment?? We have “No Gun Zones” is that not an “infringement” on the 2nd Amendment???

        Tyranny is a slow methodical process that uses code words and media (propaganda) and numbin/dumbin down the masses as it spreads like a “cancer” in OUR Nation.

        Enough of the division, WE are AMERICANS; A CREED; NOT A RACE……… oldest trick in the book to take over is to DIVIDE & CONQUER… then TAKE OVER!!!

        TY MY Patriot FRIEND!!!

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Nathan the rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are self evident. No governmental act can take that away from you. And as long as people speak out their rights cannot be taken away. And bear in mind I never said people should not be able to defend themselves. I just remember that Gandhi did not need guns. Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks did not need guns. Harvey Milk did not need guns. Cesar Chavez did not need guns. You don’t need guns to be free or to effect change.

    • Capitalist at Birth

      Such a long winded attempt to confuse the issue. It doesn’t matter what fire arms were available now. What don’t you understand about “shall not be infringed”? I would be willing to bet you score low on reading comprehension tests. If you don’t like the 2nd Amendment, there is a long involved process to change it. If you want to disarm me, come and do it yourself. Of course you won’t. You will send a gang of thugs in your stead. Because you are a coward.

    • Frank Kahn

      Hello Jeremy, I am sure others will try to help you see the errors of your post but I love to type so here goes

      Jeremy Leochner says:
      February 26, 2013 at 1:31 am

      “None of these are liberal arguments.”

      YOU ARE A LIBERAL, SO IF YOU SUPPORT THE ARGUMENT, IT IS A LIBERAL ARGUMENT.

      “1: When the second amendment was written “Arms” did technically refer to flintlocks and muskets since those were the only arms at the time.”

      IF THIS IS NOT A LIBERAL ARGUMENT, PLEASE IDENTIFY THE CONSERVATIVE MAKING THIS ASSERTION. EVEN IF IT WAS TRUE, WHICH IT IS NOT, THE AMENDMENT DOES NOT SAY FLINTLOCK OR MUSKETS, IT SAYS ARMS. MUSKETS WERE NOT THE ONLY ARMS OF THE TIME. THERE WERE CANNONS, SWORDS, LANCES (SPEARS), KNIVES (BAYONETS) AND BOW AND ARROWS.

      “2: If you are living in a small sub urban neighborhood and you have a pistol with a ten round capacity I am pretty sure your home and person are safe without an “assault weapon”. I agree the term is often used ambiguously. I want to ask what Mr. Crystals idea of an assault weapon would be. As for our liberty as long as people exercise their right to speak and print and assemble we have no need for guns to protect us from tyranny.”

      YOU MIX MANY IDEAS HERE, AND EACH HAS A DIFFERENT PROBLEM.

      A. SOME SUBURBS ARE LARGER THAN MOST CITIES IN MY PART OF THE COUNTRY, SO WE NEED A DEFINITION OF SMALL HERE. IF, YOUR SMALL SUBURB IS LARGER THAN THE CITY I LIVE IN, DO I GET THE SAME AMOUNT OF AMMO? WHY DO YOU PICK 10 ROUNDS AND A PISTOL? ARE YOU AWARE THAT MOST PEOPLE, IN A FEAR CRISIS WILL CONTINUE TO FIRE A WEAPON UNTIL IT IS EMPTY REGARDLESS OF TARGET ACQUISITION? THAT MEANS THAT THE PERSON WILL PROBABLY EMPTY THE 10 ROUNDS AT THE FIRST TARGET THEY SEE, IF THERE IS A SECOND, THEY ARE S.O.L.. CALIBER SELECTION IS ALSO VALID, A 22 PISTOL WILL NOT SCARE CRIMINALS AS MUCH AS THE BARK OF A .44 MAG PISTOL GOING OFF.

      B. I AM CERTAIN MR. CRYSTAL HAS GIVEN HIS KNOWLEDGE ABOUT WHAT A REAL ASSAULT WEAPON IS HOWEVER, IT IS A SELECT FIRE CAPABLE OF AUTOMATIC FIRE WEAPON.

      C. THIS IS THE BIGGEST ONE ON PROBLEMS. PILOTS HAVE A SAYING “IT IS BETTER TO BE STUCK ON THE GROUND WISHING YOU ARE FLYING THAN TO BE STUCK IN THE AIR WISHING YOU WERE ON THE GROUND”. WITH GUNS, IT IS “IT IS BETTER TO HAVE A GUN AND NOT NEED IT THAN TO NEED IT AND NOT HAVE IT”. IF YOU WAIT TILL YOU NEED A GUN, IT IS ALREADY TOO LATE.

      “3: No one liberal or conservative says that guns cause crime. They simply point out that ready access to them and the misguided belief that one needs a gun in order to solve their problems causes ever more crime. The argument against drunk driving is not that cars cause drunk driving. But ready access to cars for drunks is an issue that should be dealt with.”

      HERE WE HAVE A PERCEPTION PROBLEM. SINCE MANY OF THE LIBERALS IN GOVERNMENT ARE PUSHING LEGISLATION TO RESTRICT SALES AND OWNERSHIP OF WEAPONS, IT IS BY DEFINITION SAYING THAT GUNS ARE THE PROBLEM, NOT THE PEOPLE. WHILE YOUR DRUNK DRIVING ANALOGY AND CARS IS VALID, IT IS NOT WHAT THEY ARE PUSHING IN THE GUN VIOLENCE AGENDA. WE RESTRICT DRUNKS FROM DRIVING CARS, SO WE SHOULD RESTRICT CRIMINALS FROM HAVING GUNS. RESTRICTING THE LEGAL PURCHASE OF GUNS DOES NOT ACCOMPLISH THIS. YOUR OTHER POINT ABOUT USING GUNS TO SOLVE PROBLEMS IS CORRECT. THIS PROBLEM, HOWEVER, IS A PARENTING AND EDUCATIONAL PROBLEM NOT A GUN PROBLEM.

      “4: It isn’t “so called” high capacity. A 30 round pistol or rifle can cause significant damage. And its not for nothing that guns in the home can pose a danger to children if improperly contained. And its some what of a contradiction to keep a weapon in the home which requires opening a safe or locked drawer in order to obtain. An alarm system, good locks and a trained dog are all good forms of defense. Of course each city or town is different and we have to apply different levels of security to different places. But perhaps that is the point. In small towns where people know each other and where crime rates may not be so high there really is no need for guns with 20 or 30 round capacities. In places where a home invasion is unlikely and where a burglar is far more likely to wait till no one is home to break in a gun with a large shot capacity or even a gun at all is an unnecessary danger.”

      ON THIS ONE YOU SLIP INTO COMPLETE LIBERAL SPEAK AND IT IS A LIBERAL ARGUMENT. IT IS, “SO CALLED” HIGH CAPACITY BECAUSE IT IS ARBITRARY. HIGH CAPACITY MIGHT ALSO MEAN 50 OR 100 ROUNDS. THE STANDARD CAPACITY OF AN AR-15 IS MORE THAN 10, SO HOW CAN IT BE HIGH CAPACITY IF IT IS STANDARD? SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE? A 44MAGNUM WITH 8 ROUNDS WILL DO MORE DAMAGE THAN A 22 WITH 20. ANY GUN CAN POSE A DANGER IF IT IS HANDLED IMPROPERLY, CONTAINMENT, AS YOU CALL IT, IS NOT NECESSARY IF EVERYONE IS AWARE OF THE RULES OF GUN HANDLING SAFETY. SOMEWHAT OF A CONTRADICTION? IF YOU HAVE A GUN FOR SELF PROTECTION, IN YOUR HOME, AND YOU HAVE TO RETRIEVE IT FROM A SAFE AND THEN LOAD IT, YOU ARE PROBABLY DEAD. YES, ASSUMING WE ALL TURN INTO PARANOID LITTLE CHICKENS, AND HIDE IN OUR LOCKED HOME WITH A ROTTWEILER DOG AND THE ALARM SYSTEM ARMED, WE MIGHT NOT NEED A GUN.

      “5: I am a liberal and I do not believe cosmetic features make a gun more dangerous and that they should be banned. Therefore this is not a liberal theory since there is at least one liberal who disagrees with it.”

      JUST BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH SOME OTHER LIBERALS DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT LIBERALS (IN GOVERNMENT) WANT TO DO IT.

      “It is not when a person has no guns that they are powerless. Its when they believe they are powerless because they have no gun.”

      WRONG, THE PREMISE IS BACKWARDS, YOU ARE POWERLESS IF YOU HAVE NO GUNS, YOU HAVE NO POWER IF YOU HAVE NO WEAPONS.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Frank

        1: The fact that the word arms at the time of the second amendment referred to flintlocks and muskets was not created by liberals. And since when did conservatives believe the constitution is a living document. I thought only liberals were supposed to believe that.

        2: I admitted in my post that not all towns and cities are the same.

        3: If someone is going to fire off all their rounds regardless of the situation perhaps they should not be relying on a gun for defense.

        4: Mr. Crystal hasn’t given a definition of assault weapon. And if it is as you say then I agree with you.

        5: If you do not need a gun it is a danger to you and your family: http://www.news-medical.net/news/20100204/Guns-in-homes-can-increase-risk-of-death-and-firearm-related-violence.aspx

        And if you had things like good locks and a security system and a dog and self defense training or any combination of those you may not “need” a gun ever. I base my actions on likely threats like a break in when I am not home or a single bad guy who can be scared off or fended off with a single weapon. People have a right to carry weapons like guns for self defense. But it doesn’t mean they need them.

        6: Restricting the legal purchase of guns is how we restrict criminals from getting guns. In the same way we make it illegal to drink and drive we have back ground checks to make sure the person trying to buy a gun can in fact be trusted with a gun. We don’t let drunks drive and we don’t let mental patients buy guns.

        7: Parents can’t teach children not to rely on guns when so many keep talking about how much we need guns.

        8: Questioning an argument which I disagree with does not make me a liberal. I don’t support arbitrary definitions of high capacity. I just don’t know enough about guns myself to provide my only proposals on legislation governing magazine capacities. I will learn as much as I can. For now if a law is proposed and I agree with it I will vote for it. If I disagree I will oppose it.

        9: Here is where I develop a problem understanding Frank. Wanting to have a dog and an alarm system makes me a “PARANOID LITTLE CHICKEN”. Even as you say such a measure would mean I ” MIGHT NOT NEED A GUN”.With respect Frank it sounds like your saying that taking defensive measures which would keep my family safe makes me a coward. But keeping offensive weapons which could hurt my family means I am brave. This makes it seem like less an issue of personal protection and more about personal preference and paranoia. You basically just admitted to me Frank that you don’t need a gun to protect your family. And for some reason you choose to insult me and others for trying to protect their families in a way which they believe in and which you yourself appear to endorse as an effective defense. I apologize if I seem rude Frank but that is my impression of the argument you just made.

        10: So you admit these are not liberal arguments. They are “liberals in government” arguments. Okay that I can somewhat agree with. Its less generalizing and slightly more accurate than Mr. Crystals suggestion.

        11: “YOU HAVE NO POWER IF YOU HAVE NO WEAPONS.”

        Try telling that to Jesus, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, The Tiananmen Square Protestors, Harvey Milk, Cesar Chavez and Mother Teresa.

      • Nick Czudy

        HI frank. Long time no chat with you.
        I read with interest what you said to Jeremy L. Some of it made some sense but other parts were biased and typical right wing responses. In other words the gun worshiper’s answer.

        What was interesting to night was a poll that showed that 60% of Americans want stiffer gun controls.
        Also the by-election in Illinois to replace Jesse Jackson, was a surprise. The front runner and incumbent was a Dem with a NRA “A” rating. She had her clock cleaned by someone that had an “F” rating“ Another key ad that is running is one with General McCrystal and other generals that were saying that the AR15 type of weapon belongs on a battle field and not on our streets and cities. He stated that the amount of damage they inflict on a body is immense. They are the professionals and I respect their opinion.

        Now to your response to Jeremy.
        1. when they wrote the part of “Arms” they were certainly referring to muskets and flint locks. They would not add that to mean knives and clubs, etc. as those items would not have any restrictions. It is obvious. Also, I do not think that the science of that era would allow any one of the founding fathers to invision the advances in firepower. they would not be able to believe that you could keep pulling a trigger and shoot multiple shots instead without reloading. In 1865 during the civil war, that one difference would have made a massive difference.

        2. A. It might come to pass that a person would empty their guns in panic. But it is also possible that they would measure every shot and shoot sparingly. They would need the proper training if they get licensed to own and operate a gun. these types of people would be dangerous with a gun. A good gun for home defense would probably be a glock with a 10 bullet capacity. they could easily have two or three extra magazines and they could exchange them easily if they are in the safety of their homes. There might be a possibility if having bad luck and run out of bullets exactly when the bad guys do an all out assault. But the likely situation is that they will turn and run as it will not be worth their effort to get shot up for what they might be able to steal.

        2. B. Retired 4 star general Stanley McCrystal specifically mentioned that the .223 caliber is a military weapon that belongs on a battlefield and not on our streets. It projects massive damage on the human body. some of the Sandy Hook children were torn apart with multiple hits of this caliber. I will tend to believe him.

        2. C. You are correct here, it is better to have a gun than not have one when needed. There will be many choices available for you to mount a defense. In fact you could have a pistol, some extra mags, a shotgun and for longer and more accurate shooting some kind of rifle. You should be able to mount a decent defense. I mean if you pissed off the mob and they have come in force, then you will need more hardware, but the majority of citizens will be fine with the above.

        3. The issue now is not that guns cause crime, It is the easy access to guns that encourage more crimes. The lack of registration and tracking means that it is easy for people to buy them black market or from straw purchasers. I vaguely remember that in Arizona, for the fast and furious, that an 18 year old unemployed man purchased about 30 to 50 guns, paid cash and stated that they were all for his personal use. Yeah, get serious. This type of straw purchases need to be stopped. It was far too easy for straw purchasers to procure guns for illicit use.

        4. The high capacity questions if getting narrowed down to be somewhere above 10 bullets. Definitely 30 to 100 is not a question. But maybe 10 to 15 will be debated and we will see what happens. The case is that when the shooter has to change magazines, then the victims have a chance to over power them. Even a schoolteacher at Sandy Hook. if hit by the 9th and 10th bullet, could jump the shooter and give the kids a chance to escape. The number will have to be debated. I cannot think of a reason for home defense to have a larger capacity. Some of the higher magazines are more prone to jamb, especially if not cleaned properly and maintained.

        5. It is not an issure. Cosmetic issues are not a concern, If they improve the capacity or speed, then it might be a problem.

        Come on the typical right wing reply of the possibility of taking all of the guns are not possible. That excuse will not hold any water.
        take care.
        nick Cz

  • Harold Olsen

    I have actually heard liberal politicians claim that there is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that says anything about a citizen’s right to bear arms. This shows how biased the left is and how much they are out to take our freedoms away from us. They are too stupid to realize that it is their freedoms that are also in jeopardy.

    • Jeremy Leochner

      Its not about left versus right liberal versus conservative Harold. Some liberal politicians say something it doesn’t mean all liberals or “the left” share those same views.

      • FreedomFighter

        After all, as long as they can keep if not the general public, then at least their media accomplices and the poorly informed voters on whose necks they stand focused on one of the most exceptionally divisive issues of our time, they won’t have to explain themselves regarding their wars

        Anti gun people can NOT defeat this
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KztkvfeyO80

        Winston its about power. If you the people have arms, you have power. If government has the onlly arms, they have absolute power.

        doublethink
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5NGAOJL2nM

        Laus Deo
        Semper FI

      • rendarsmith

        As usual, the individual basis argument. Funny how libs think it’s ok to bash conservatives collectively, but point out something like this against the left and we get the whole “no not all libs are like that” statement. This is COMPLETELY left vs right, with the left pushing for gun control and the right protecting the 2nd amendment! If you cannot see that you have not been paying attention!

      • eddie47d

        The right is protecting the Second? No the right is continually extending the Second to mean just about anything they want. No matter what weapons are included or how they are obtained. They have encouraged so many loopholes that almost every gun law is meaningless. (That is why they don’t work). Some of you Second Amendment folks are a criminals dream. What is easy for you to obtain just makes it easier for them to obtain. You can buy fully Automatic weapons through trusts (39,000 were purchased by individuals in 2012). These weapons are generally considered banned yet they are not. So enough of this tomfoolery in proclaiming there are enough laws and that loopholes don’t exist.

      • Don 2

        radarsmith,

        You are correct. It is all about Left vs. Right, and there is no room for compromise.

    • Vicki

      Harold Olsen says:
      “I have actually heard liberal politicians claim that there is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that says anything about a citizen’s right to bear arms.”

      They are correct. It says The PEOPLE. Citizens are a sub-set of The People. And in the minds of liberal politicians the sub-set is also inferior to the elite class (them).

    • CJ

      Stay of focus, the Constitution puts limitations on government, not on us. We have inalienable rights the Constitution protects. The politicians are wrong to say that it limits US.

  • Michael

    The Liberals use the first amendment, freedom of speech to knock the second amendment . Do they realize without the second amendment they could kiss the first amendment GOOD-BY!

    • nc

      Michael. when in the history of this country has the assault weapon in the hands of civilians within our borders been used to defend the 1st amendment!?
      Have you ever asked yourself why those who protect our lies, police chiefs and sheriffs, had rather not see those type weapons so free in the hands of the perps?? People dying in masses is a problem that can be fixed! The biggest obstacle is the paranoid mind!!

      • Capitalist at Birth

        Who do you suggest decides whether ones mind is paranoid? YOU? I don’t think so. You are a totalitarian. Why don’t you admit it. I will decide what is best for me. Who gave you the right to be in charge, Hmm?

      • eddie47d

        C.A B: What gives you the right to control someone elses thoughts with your paranoid mind?

      • Jana

        Eddie,
        Uh oh Eddie. I think your computer made another mistake as that statement made no sense at all.

    • Jeremy Leochner

      Michael I am a liberal and I do not attack the second amendment nor do I wish to get rid of it. But I do not carry any guns. And I have certainly not lost my right to free speech. Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are Self Evident. No act of government can change that.

      • Jana

        Jeremy,
        But if an act of Government did change it, you would comply, being the good young little liberal you are.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Actually I would not Jana. My allegiance is to the Republic and not the government.

  • rendarsmith

    “Assault weapon” is just a vague umbrella term. A butter knife could be considered an “assault weapon”.

    • eddie47d

      Any weapon that fires multiple rounds is considered an “assault ” type weapon. Whether a Glock pistol an AR-15 or a machine gun. There is no confusion from Liberals except that some states consider 7 rounds a multiple clip,some 10 and some 15 and it goes up from there. Generally most don’t consider a 6-8 round handgun an assault weapon and almost no one considers an action bolt hunting rifle an assault weapon. Who cares whether one person can quickly load a 7 round pistol vs a 30 round magazine. The 100 round weapon used in the Aurora shooting was definitely an assault weapon yet legally obtained. The problem is that there is no solid consensus from one person to the next and each state needs to address that issue . Bringing up “butter knives” or hands doesn’t help in defining the issue and is only used to obfuscate.

      • Capitalist at Birth

        You are attempting to obfuscate the 2nd Amendment. If you do not like it, see if you can get enough votes to change it. Although I did not own a fire arm until November 4th, 2008, I still supported the 2nd Amendment, then and will die in it’s defensed if necessary. You, on the other hand, are a coward that will hide behind someones skirt while others are sent to disarm the Free People of this country.

      • Don 2

        You’re right about one thing. There is no confusion among liberals, and states do have different ideas on what is a “multiple” clip(lib-speak). How many rounds allowed in a magazine is directly proportional to how many Communist Left the liberals have elected to a particular states government.

      • Mike Balog

        @Eddie47d: Your statement is Ridiculas on it’s face. Do you Know what an Assault Weapon is ? NOT the Media Definition. And Assult Rifle, by U.S. Govt. Definition; is a Semi Auto – Select Fire FULL Automatic Weapon with a fire rate of at least 1,000 rounds
        per sec. Reloadable with a 30 round magazine or more. Read the Law, Federal Laws
        written in 1935 and added to by the 1968 Gun Control Act BANS Fullly Automatic
        Firearms, commonly called “Machine Guns” from the Civilian Population. With the
        Exception of those who could pass a Rigid Background Check, being issued a Class III
        Weapons Permit and Paying a $ 200 fee Transfer Tax to the BATF. Other Exceptions
        are domestic Police Forces and All the U.S. Armed Forces. The Commonly
        manufactured and owned AR 15, MIA1, M 1 Garand, M 1 Carbine, AKM / AK 47 Style
        Semiautomatic Rifles are NOT Assault Rifles / Weapons of War.

        The U.S. Govt. in a Dept. of Justice Memo, to Other U.S. Law Enforcement Agencies, The U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Boarder Patrol, CIA, DIA, etc. has Specifically Stated that a
        Semiautomatic Rifle, The AR 15 is to be considered a Good Defensive Weapon of
        Choice, The AR 15 is a SEMIAUTOMATIC Single Round at a time fired Rifle, it is NOT a
        Select Fire / Fully Automatic Fire Rifle. AND it Cannot Be Converted to be one due to it’s
        design. Specific Select Fire / Full Auto Fire Parts are Not part of that Rifle. IF This
        Typical black AR 15 Rifle is Considered by the Federal Govt. as a Prefered “Good
        Defensive Weapon” for themselves, THEN For the Rest of U.S. Citizens, it is the
        Common Rifle of the Relm, and Acceptable for WE The People Also. The We The
        People are the SAME People Mentioned in the Rest of the U.S. Constitution. IF you
        Tamper and Tramp on the Rights of the 2nd Amendment, You are doing so on all the
        rest of the U..S. Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution.

        ALSO, I might Remind you, that the so called Simple Bolt Action Rifle was and still is
        considered the Standard Battle Rifle for Reference Around the World. Prior to 1937,
        There were ONLY Bolt Action Rifles around the World issued to average Infrintry
        Troops, even Airborne Troops. Heavy Maxium and Browning Belt Fed Machine Guns
        were required to have three man gun crews to man and transport them. Semiautomatic /
        Fullautomatic Rifles such as the Browning Automatic Rifle, commonly known as the
        BAR firing a .30-06 rifle cartridge was developed during WW 1 as a Squad Supporting
        Weapon for our Armed Forces. The Commonly Issued Rifle as a Weapon during WW 1
        and in the beginning of WW 2 was the commonly issued Springfield Rifle, in .30-06 cal.,
        the Enfield Rifle, in .30-06 cal.. In both wars, in Korean War and in Vietnam, the
        Springfield A3O3 and A304 were issued as Standard Snipper Rifles with a scope for the
        U.S. Armed Forces.

        In Germany, in WW 1 and WW 2 the most common Battle Rifle for the Germany Army
        was the Standard Mauser K98k series 6 Round stock fed magazine Bolt Action Rifle.
        Which was also refined as a sniper rifle with a scope. The U.S. Armed Forces had been
        issued the M 1 Garand Rifle, developed in 1937 by Mr. Garand, which is a semi -automatic only reloading rifle with an internal reloadable 8 round in block clip. That is the
        main battle rifle my father and his brothers carried along with the M 1 Carbine, [ 15 or 30
        round mag fed] rifle from D Day to V-J Day… Becasue we had Better Weapons in WW 2
        like the semiatomatic rifles we Won WW 2.

        The Commonly issued Battle Rifle Prior to WW 1 also was the bolt action rifle, based on
        the German / Swiss Designs of the Peter Mauser and Paul Mauser brothers design. Bolt
        action rifles were developed fairly early in history coming into being during the 19th
        Century. During the Spanish American War, the U.S. were Issued the .30-40 cal Krag-
        Jorgenson Rifle developed in Europe, and the Winshester Repeating rifle in .45-70 cal
        replaced the .45 – 70 cal. single shot reloading falling block rifle issued eariler during the
        Indian Wars issued as a common infintry and calverly rife, replaced by the Henry, Marlin
        and Winchester Arms Lever Action Rifles. I wrote this from memory since I am a retired
        LEO [ Police Officer ], gun collector / amateur historian since 1970. Hope this sheds light
        on the Differences between what is Really a Fullautomatifc / Select Fire Weapon of War,
        a Semiautomatic Rifle and a Bolt Action Rifle for all those not familiar of the terms and
        the History of the development of Firearms. Please note, Infamous Criminals such as Bonnie and Clyde Carried and used a BAR [Browning Automatic Rifle] and a Colt .45 in
        their Bank Robbering Crime Sprees. “Pretty Boy George” and “Machine Gun Kelly” also
        Carried the Colt .45, And the Fully Automatic Thompson Submachine Gun using .45 cal
        hand gun ammo.

        For those Born before 1950 and during 1960, you may recall when JFK was Murdered
        in Dallas, Texas,,, he was Shot supposedly by a Single Assaliant using an Italian Bolt
        Action 5 Shot Internal Magazine Fed Rifle. Not a Semiautomatic Rifle or Semiautomatic Pistol, which were easily obtained during that time as well. So, Those who are Now Informed of the Differences between types of Firearms should Rethink their Positions
        and Consider the Obvious , Cirminals Will Use Whatever they want to commit any Crime.
        Honest Citizens Should Not and Must Not Be Disarmed. We are NOT the Problem.
        I also took that Oath as an Officer and I Never Recanted on that Oath either.

      • eddie47d

        My exact wording was CONSIDERED an assault weapon. An AR-15 isn’t an assault weapon but it is CONSIDERED as one. Time to change the definition to include many weapons that don’t shoot those 1000 rounds per second. It’s long overdue.

      • Hedgehog

        Eddie I guess that your computer should be considered an assault type weapon as it fires multiple rounds. It’s not very accurate though, it continually shoots to the left. LOL

      • Jana

        NO no Hedghog,
        It’s Eddie’s computers fault that stupid stuff comes out of it, not Eddie’s fault. Just like it’s the gun’s fault that it kills someone not the shooter’s fault. It’s also the the car’s fault when it runs over someone and kills them, not the drunk that is driving it.

        • kimo3690

          DAMN STRAIGHT!!! What ever happened to “one taking responsibility for their own actions”?? I am so sick of the pointing fingers and blame in this country such as: McDonald’s cuz my coffee is too hot; or my kid is too fat for eating happy meals everyday; or the wounded criminal at the crime scene is awarded a settlement because the home owner shot him as he was running out of his house…… GOD HELP US!! lol

      • APN

        Eddie47D said “My exact wording was CONSIDERED an assault weapon. An AR-15 isn’t an assault weapon but it is CONSIDERED as one. Time to change the definition to include many weapons that don’t shoot those 1000 rounds per second. It’s long overdue.”

        …and it will do NOTHING to curb violence in America just like the hundreds and thousands of gun laws on the books now.

        Eddie, you can’t legislate morality, it has to be taught by good parents from the birth of a child. The problem has never been “Assault Weapons”, as I told you earlier, the problem is within the spirit and no man-made law can cure it!

        APN

        • kimo3690

          AMEN Brother WELL SAID!!! TY TY

          • Bob666

            Yo Salacious B. Crumb,

            Jaba must be a yan’kin cause you just keep a span’kin!

      • Jana

        Bob666,
        I don’t understand half of your comments. What language are you speaking???

        • Bob666

          Yo Jana,
          pehaps you could refer to a post and I can clairfy?

        • Bob666

          Yo Jana,
          I believe I understand the question now that I saw were the post was from.

          Kimo is a bit of a live wire and after being heckled by here and watching her heckle others, it dawned on me that she reminded me of a character in Star Wars;

          Salacious B. Crumb was a Kowakian monkey-lizard employed as a court jester for Hutt crime lord Jabba Desilijic Tiure. Known for his shrill laugh and sadistic sense of humor, Crumb started out as little more than vermin on Kwenn Space Station during the days of the Galactic Republic, eventually escaping onto a ship belonging to Jabba the Hutt.

          When Jabba found Crumb eating from his food bowl, he attempted to digest him, though the Kowakian monkey-lizard escaped, covering Jabba’s two henchmen with goo in the process. Jabba found this extremely amusing, and offered Crumb a role as his court jester;

          If Salacious managed to amuse Jabba at least once a day, he would be allowed to eat and drink as much as he wished. However, if he failed to do so, he would be killed. For over a dozen years he lived in Jabba’s Palace, playing many tricks and practical jokes on some of the palace’s regulars, and becoming one of the most disliked members of Jabba’s court.

          Personally, I believe that Describes Kimo to a “T”.

          hope this helps.

    • http://www.facebook.com/david.kuhlmann.18 David Kuhlmann

      So could a #2 pencil!

      • Warrior

        However there is nothing more dangerous than a “SCEAMING LIBERAL”! Talk about the ultimate “assault weapon”. LMAO.

  • Sir Robert

    How do you defend against a government that can kill you from a predator or guided missile. And you will never see it coming. The point that it’s needed to defend against a bad government is udated and moot.

    • Srsanbo

      Please do let the tribes in Afghanistan know how outmatched they are so we can bring our boys and girls home. To suggest we should just toss up our arms and say, “oh well, no fighting back now”…is ridiculous.

      • angelwannabe

        Agreed, I’d never draw first blood and if blood is drawn we may lose, but as for me and my house_ we’ll go down with the ship!

    • Don 2

      So, Sir Robert, do you think that the government has 150 million missile-equipped predator drones to hunt down every armed patriot in the country?

      • Sir Robert

        I think your estimate of 150 million might be right. The number of qualified soldiers is pretty small. The Marine Corps only has about 25,000 trained infantry the rest are all support.Most Americans I see the couldn’t make it up a flight of stairs, even the young ones. They couldn’t defend an outhouse let alone a home. A shotgun is all you need for home defense. Using a rifle in your home with your children and loved ones in the home is beyond retarted.

      • S.C.Murf

        Sir Robert, with my wife, children and grandchildren in the house is exactly why I have several weapons (assault rifles) locked and loaded. You have a safe day

        up the hill
        airborne

      • daleh

        To Sir Robert—The Marine Corps have 3 Divisions on active duty at present, the 1st, 2nd and the 3rd, plus the attached Airwings and other units that I don’t really know about , when i was in the 1st Marine Div years ago it was over 25k Marines I belive due the Reinforcments that it carried in the Korean War—

        My point is this , with 3 Marine Divisions at present I think you will find alot more than 25 k “Infantry Trained Marines, although the Corps has changed in many ways since my time in the Corps, I would imagine the Commandant of the Marine Corps would not let his Corps fall to such a skelton force–I have read at presnetb there are over 200,000 Marine and when they cut back to the normal count of Marines , it will be at least 174,000, as I believe by law that is what they are required to have –

        Where did you get your estimated number from ?? I am curious to know –

      • Sir Robert

        I was just making the point that even the USMC doesn’t have that many qualified infantry to the point that there are 150 million patriots. My point it there are a lot of marines but few are trained and ready for battle. My number of 25,000 came from when I was in, they started making everyone go through infrantry school when I got in because that number was so low. MY whole point is we are a fat out of shape society(even if you aren’t)that is hopelessly out gunned by our government. In my state if you say you have any connection to a militia you get denied a gun permit. We are screwed if all goes bad.

      • APN

        Sir Robert said: “Using a rifle in your home with your children and loved ones in the home is beyond retarted”

        What is retarded SIR Robert is your comments and obviously you know nothing about guns and ammo, just like Bidden.

        A rifle fires one round at a time at point of aim whereas a shotgun, alias “Scattergun” shoots a wide pattern of projectiles. In fact, a 12 gauge load of OO Buckshot has 12 pellets approximately the size of a nine millimeter handgun round and yes a shotgun will penetrate walls in close combat just like a rifle.

        Now, that equates to someone capping off 12 nine mil rounds instantaneously in a RANDOM scatter patten. Logic would dictate that it would be highly probably that someone may get hit unintentionally. i.e. Children, Wife, Husband, Dog, etc.

        Let me give you this scenario, the perp breaks into your home and grabs your wife. He has no idea that you are there and you arm yourself with your “Scattergun”. You peer around the corner and you can clearly see his head but you cannot shoot because you would blow your wife’s head off with his. Then, in your hesitation, he slits her throat right in front of you. Well, now you can BLAST away but your wife is still DEAD.

        Same scenario but you have a nine mil handgun loaded with 17 rounds or 30-06 rifle loaded with 10 rounds. Fact is, I will take both over your shotgun but the 30-06 rifle in mini-version is the BEST choice because it is more accurate(Long GUN with rifle sights) and can be fired from the hip in close quarters one shot at a time if necessary or rapidly fired until it goes click.

        A handgun or a rifle is better for home protection than a shotgun even more so as the distance to the perp increases. i.e.; more accurate and more controllable

        Bad advice you have given for those who would not know better.

        APN

      • Jana

        APN.
        Thank you.
        I don’t know a lot about guns, but I knew what he was saying was wrong.
        The first thing I was taught was to know where my kids are before I shoot. (My husband was out of town). Have them behind me, not beside me or in front, but behind me.

    • Johnny D

      Sir Robert Yes we need to keep our assault weapons to shoot down those drones and what are those black heliocopters. Yes we need to keep our weapons.

      • daleh

        Agan to Sir Robert– An additioin to my post in answer to your comment that the Marine Corps has only about 25,000 Infantry Trained Marines—I forgot to add that , no matter what MOS a U.S. Marine has , he is FIRST LAST and ALWAYS , a RIFLEMAN—–

    • S.C.Murf

      Screw the drones, take out the operator bearing or the one who told him to push the button (higher up the food chain)

      up the hill
      airborne

  • Don 2

    The AR-15 is the musket of our time.

    Free Men Own Guns ~ Slaves Don’t

    • Grandpa frog

      Well said! With your permission, I’d like to use it.

      • Don 2

        Go for it Grandpa frog. These did not originate with me.

        Better To Have A Gun And Not Need One – Than To Need A Gun And Not Have One.

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

        When seconds count the po-lice are only minutes away!

      • Don 2

        A Gun In The Hand Is Better Than A Cop On The Phone

      • Jana

        AMEN!!!

  • angelwannabe

    Ben’s right, whether the second amendment was written during times of flintlocks and muskets or now, it says “the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed!” There is NO A,B or C LIST of what we can or can’t have to defend ourselves.__It is a Natural Law given by Nature’s God__

    luke 22:36 & 38 36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’[b]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

    38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”

    “That’s enough!” he replied

    • nc

      anglewannabe, and the rest of that story is that after the swords were obtained The Romans continued to rule Jesus’s country for many many years to come! So what was the purpose of the swords? When one of his followers cut off the enemy’s ear with a sword He healed it immediately ! So why the swords? Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth! Where did I read that as a child?? Is it still in print?? Does it still apply??

      • angelwannabe

        nc__How great it would be, if the world thought that, “that the meek shall inherit the earth”__There would n’t be a problem would there?__God doesn’t want us to start anything, but he wants us to defend ourselves if we have to!__

      • Hedgehog

        nc, I read that too, problem is that in most of the versions I read they left out the part about the “meek” inheriting a plot of earth; six feet long, three feet wide and six feet deep.

      • Charlie

        Heathen,,, does Luke 22:36 still apply???

      • Jana

        nc,
        You stated”Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth! Where did I read that as a child?? Is it still in print?? Does it still apply??_________________________

        Is that the last time you bothered to read your Bible? When you were a child?

        Meek in the Greek is steko which means to be stationary, to persevere or to stand fast. Strong’s Concordance.

        Therefore it does not mean to run away or cower down. Sometimes in order to stand your ground you must be armed. Not always to kill, but certainly not to be bullied or run over. If we have to be prepared to send our attacker home to the Father, then so be it. God is our judge. He knows our heart, and he knows the heart of the attacker.

        • kimo3690

          Awwwwwwwwwwwww Jana TY!! Well said!!!

    • Bob666

      Wow,
      at $0.10/word, you oaid your rent today!

  • stan pullen

    Mr. Loechner’s statement, “5: I am a liberal and I do not believe cosmetic features make a gun more dangerous and that they should be banned. Therefore this is not a liberal theory since there is at least one liberal who disagrees with it,” does not ring true.
    Since NO conservatives believe cosmetic features are a reason to ban weapons, it has to be accredited to the liberals.

    It is also my understanding that GUN REGISTRATION in Germany was established in 1935 under the leadership of Hitler and this allowed the military to easily disarm the civilian population. Mr Loechner, please give your definition of “infringed”

  • dan

    the Minutemen were farmers that picked up their muskets to defend themselves and their countrymen…to stand off the British Army who were confiscating weapons
    ( ‘assault’ muskets ? )

    • dan

      sorry….didn’t mean to leave out the shop-keepers preachers and teachers,etc

  • Henry W. Whitt

    The 2nd. Amendment as written is simply this, We the people must be able to defend ourselves from a government that no longer does as the people say but as it wants. Regardless of which party is in power, All Americans should support the 2nd Amendment regardless of their feelings about firearms .

  • Jim B

    Over 24 counties in N.Y.S. have signed on to legislation to repeal Como’s coo on citizen’s rights to defend themselves from threats such as himself, another 26 are following with similar repeal legislation! That’s a lot of counties in his own state that he best not step foot in (us organized militia’s might mistake him for someone who threatens the free state of New York). Como’s a hack job, the head Tic in N.Y.S poli (meaning many) tic (meaning blood sucking creature) (source kept confidential to protect the innocent). Only a fool threatens the constitution and the liberty and freedoms of law abiding citizens. Only a fool believes that criminals (CRIMINALS) obey the laws of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Como’s gun coo is a threat to liberty and freedom, his threats is the reason the second amendment exist, has he and Obama lost their marbles? Stop being a fool Como your embarrassing the state!

  • tony newbill
    • tony newbill

      And they caused your Financial Oppression to create the Way FORWARD to Accomplish the Intent of Control of world Populations by Killing off a Independent Middle Classes ability to financially afford a quality of life making you DEPENDENT on a Government that wants to Reduce the size of world populations …. THINK ABOUT THAT as you Vote for those who will Represent your Best Interests !!!!!!
      If you want Freedom of Life and a Form of that kind of Liberty then you better be willing to Secure your Nation and that Means Isolating it from the Dominance of International Finance with these Bankers , PUT THEM out of Business in the USA and you might stand a chance of Securing the USA !!!!!!! We Need Our Own People in new banking Enterprises , these people ARE NOT OUR People because they Have Committed Treason against ALL OF US !!!!!!!!!!!

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=J4B5f2ezEB8

  • nc

    Ben, we know your arguments. We also know the problem is large numbers of people being killed with guns. How about a column from you on the way to fix that problem! You seem so ready each week to announce what is best for the people we know that the answer is at the tip of your tongue! You do see that we have a problem, don’t you? NO?? NO PROBLEM AT ALL????

    • angelwannabe

      nc, Where are your solutions?__You can’t fix stupidity or the mentally ill. If those who are hell bent on slaugther, don’t kill with a gun it’ll be something else. In the Oklahoma bombing they used fertilizer. If you think more regulation and further background checks are gonna stop someone from snapping, then move to the utopian land you seek. Gun registration is for one thing, thing and one thing only, so the Feds know where the guns are, that if and when they confiscate our guns, it makes it easier to know where to go!
      Gun controls are just that___CONTROL!

      • Grandpa frog

        I remember a study done comparing the homicide rates between Seattle (USA) and Vancouver (Canada). The article gloated that Vancouver (with restrictive gun laws) had a much lower gun homicide rate than Seattle. It was only if you read the whole article that it was revealed that the homicide rates were the same. I.E., if you can’t use guns, then knives, baseball bats, poison, etc. will be used.

      • eddie47d

        Angel makes it sound like if guns are controlled the bad guys will run to the feed stores and buy up fertilizers. I highly doubt that! Mental illness is an important solution but no one wants to fund treatment. That makes it a dead issue/solution unless you are willing to follow through with money.

      • angelwannabe

        Grandpa Frog, Clinton had a assault gun ban in what was it, 94, (correct me if I’m wrong on the date,) 10 years later it went down in a sunset clause and why?_ facts are, it DID NO GOOD! It made no difference in crime stats/

      • Don 2

        Eddie47d says, “Mental illness is an important solution, but no one wants to fund treatment. That makes it a dead issue/solution unless you are willing to follow through with the money.”

        However, money is not an issue when the Communist left wants to have government conduct universal background checks and maintain records, have government mandate universal gun registration and maintain records, have government officials confiscate guns, have government conduct background checks when purchasing ammunition, or send state police or sheriff deputies to inspect firearms in the home on an annual basis, such as was introduced in various states.

        How come the Communist Left like eddie have no problem with the expenses involved in taking Second Amendment rights away from law-abiding citizens, but they do have a problem with spending money to treat mental illness?

      • nc

        Anglewannabe, bombs are used several times a decade at most! More than 2 people being killed at one time in a shooting in a single year?? You give me the figure?

        • angelwannabe

          You libs cry and complain about guns & the blood shed they cause, but think nothing of your support of millions of abortions (Now you give me the numbers, I know them) payed for with our damned tax dollars, and you call it Pro-choice__The Pro choice in only in your favor, the tax payer has NO CHOICE when its stolen through taxes!__Not all of us who own guns are killers, if you want a gun free zone, then I’d suggest moving to England, Australia, pick one__But remember this, it seems the “Gun Free Zones here in America have a different meaning__Human Target practice, with no hope of return fire!!!

      • eddie47d

        Angel: It didn’t do any good because it was weak and wasn’t enforced. There were so many assault type weapons out there that were grandfathered in the choices were limitless.That’s was like putting a band aid on wet skin.

      • eddie47d

        Don2; Nice try! I never said that and I do want more funds for mental health so enough of your cheap comments.

      • Don 2

        eddie47d,

        I never said so either.

        Pressure getting to you today Commie?

      • eddie47d

        “they do have trouble not finding funds for mental health” Yes you said it!

    • Capitalist at Birth

      My solution is to kill them. What is yours? Unless it is to allow those of us who understand and support the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, to be disarmed you have none, do you. Conceal carry is the answer, and getting rid of gun free zones.

    • eddie47d

      I doubt if those were Ben’s own thoughts and no more than copy and paste. “no relationship between guns and violence”? They need to buy a clue or are they deliberately space cadets. The majority of gun deaths (crimes) in America occur in the home. Those who own guns don’t like admitting that because it hits to close to HOME! They like to bring up street gangs and home invaders when they are a minor element in causing the murder/death statistics. That way they can sensationalize gangster crime as the main need for owning semi-automatics when it is rare compared to domestic violence cases. The article also says there is an “onslaught of criminals which leaves them defenseless”. Murder by criminals is down so that is also more theatrics and excuses by the pro gunners. They are hardly defenseless and are riding on unknown fears rather than common sense.

    • Hedgehog

      nc, who is this “we” you are talking about? Are you speaking of the royal we, the editorial we, or do you have a rat in your pocket?

      • S.C.Murf

        Its a turd Hedgehog, he has a turd in his back pocket.

        up the hill
        airborne

      • nc

        hog, for the sake of an answer, I am going to assume you are referring to the WE in my post to BEN. The “WE” is everyone who has heard the pro and con arguments made about gun control and confiscation. The “we” is also everyone who has heard of the mass SHOOTINGS in this country. The “we” is also everyone who is concerned about the deaths of innocent school children. It is a problem that only “WE. the people” can fix! Liberals and Conservatives! Being a Liberal, I was asking the resident Conservative buffoon what his answer to a national problem is! He has a lot of other opinions, I was hoping he had an answer to this one< YOU HAVE MY PERMISSION TO EXCUSE YOURSELF FROM ANY "WE" I USED!

    • http://PersonalLibertyDigest Charles Cunningham

      Nc you want to know how to fix the problem. Parents need to step up and be parents. They need to be the parents of the 50′s and 60′s. I grew up in that time and am sorry to say that it is my generation that got this problem rolling. We respected our parents, but once we were out of their homes we rebelled. We did not raise our kids the way our parents did. We created the ACLU that has destroyed many of the “rights” that I enjoyed as a child but my children and grandchildren don’t. Parent and Grandparents need to spend time with their kids. They need to supervise what is played on electronic games and the computer. They need to have family time each day. The easiest is to sit down together at dinner (at a specific time) no excuses. One night a week needs to be family night and one night date night for mom and dad. Maybe that means one less activity or not working overtime for mom and dad. Our children will not turn out well if we are not there to teach them. The church doesn’t do it anymore, because they are too busy trying not to lose members because they stress what is Biblical. People today don’t want to hear that. Schools don’t do it either that has been banned. In a lot of cases they barely teach the children to survive in the world with the basic reading, writing and math.
      It shouldn’t take a columnist to point this all out. Look at your parents, grandparents and in many cases great-grandparents. See what is different about them and you. Work at being like them. Change yourself first. If you can’t change then how do you expect to change anyone else.

      • nc

        Charles, were you as critical of the ACLU when they were protecting the CIVIL RIGHTS of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Ollie North???They have also appeared in many cases to defend the CIVIL RIGHTS of other Conservatives.
        Check their record in cases argued before the US Supreme Court and other courts in this country concerning an interpretation of the Constitution! They are experts! Quite possibly the best in the USA. You may disagree with their position on some matters but that does not make them WRONG before the Supreme Court!

        The ACLU does not have the power to destroy your rights! They argue, they don’t rule! COURTS RULE!

    • Jim B

      NC, I believe the obvious answer was us with guns, us being law abiding citizens. I DO think that that is the point, obvious as it may be to some. Does our so called leader walk around without armed protection…. NO! Are they armed to protect themselves against law abiding citizens… NO! So why would they want to take that right away from us, the law abiding citizen, we just want what they want and are allowed to have. God gave us all brains, time we start using them!

      • eddie47d

        Apparently Jim you haven’t been paying attention to comments said on right wing blogs and so forth. Most of those who make extreme comments say they have legal weapons and are willing to use them against the President. So yes the President is vulnerable from assassination attempts from those people.

      • nc

        Jim B, I am as liberal as anyone here but I do not advocate confiscating the weapons of our citizens. But I do have children and grandchildren whose well being concerns me. I went to the movies and other public gatherings at their age and death by gun fire was not a worry! Why? Because there were no guns present! At least none that I ever saw confiscated! Mass public murders with guns concern me! Do they concern you? The fact that well over 95% of the mass murders result from guns concerns me? Does that concern you?
        As to the guns you have, what if any sacrifices would you be willing to make to change that scenario? None? If we can build a space craft and shoot it out of the universe I would bet my bippy we can better protect our children. The key word is sacrifice! Just because you have a right does not mean you have to exercise it every time it becomes an issue! You also have the right to waive it

      • Jim B

        Eddie, do you think that the government gun grab is not threatening? The government talks out of both sides of its poli-tic mouth. Standing above the laws that are force on the American people (e.g SS taxes, Obamacare, even Sequestration.. unscaved), will create more problems, and will fuel more decent from their idiocy.

  • http://omanuel.wordpress.com omanuel

    Ben,

    World leaders followed the advice of scientists, who mistakenly concluded after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed in Aug 1956: There is no God ! Mankind was therefore not endowed with unalienable rights to self-governance.

    The best available experimental data from the Nuclear and Space Age show that:

    Every atom in the Solar System is still connected to its Creator.

    http://tinyurl.com/ac2h396

    With kind regards,
    - Oliver K. Manuel
    PhD Nucloear Chemistry
    Postdoc Space Physics
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

    PS – I hope to find how to make the hyperlinks to research papers work later today.

    • Right Brain Thinker

      omanuel is here again, cluttering up another thread with wing nuttery that has NOTHING to do with the topic under discussion. Go away, omanuel.

      • Jana

        Right Brain nonThinkder,
        If you don’t like some of the posts on here why don’t YOU go away!!!

      • Charlie

        R B T,,,
        Omanuel just told you that your left brain is still connected to God,,,but,,,from lack of use it does not function any more… If money was brains , you don’t have enough to pay attention …

      • matforce

        RBT, I’m sure they like it much, much better when they can enjoy the sounds of their right wingnut echo chamber.

        Behold the intellectually lazy, hoodwinked, hothead “patriots,” who swallow, hook line and sinker (no fact check, snopes, or honest research for these countrymen!), the GOP propaganda machine’s use of a type of syntax of deception and trumped up charges that would have these “patriots” take up arms against America the Beautiful, once the land of opportunity, expected to uphold the highest standard of living of any nation since the mythical Atlantis, and do so much with so little (30 years of the lowest tax rates since before the Great Depression (Grover Norquist pledge to “starve the beast”).

        Now, after 30 years of consolidation of wealth at the top, like we haven’t seen in 100 years, and with money running out, the Plutocratic class trumps up these non-issues to distract these same gullible, hot-heads from the fact that the GOP licks the boots of the Plutocracy, perpetrators of the middle class dismantlement; brick by brick.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Well! My comment elicits three responses. Jana says nothing of importance, nor does Charlie (but he uses more words).

        Matforce makes an intelligent comment, especially, “Now, after 30 years of consolidation of wealth at the top like we haven’t seen in 100 years, and with money running out, the Plutocratic class trumps up these non-issues to distract these same gullible, hot-heads from the fact that the GOP licks the boots of the Plutocracy, perpetrators of the middle class dismantlement; brick by brick”.

        That’s one out of three or 33.3% intelligent comments, two out of three or 66.7% deluded

        (and omanuel is still a crackpot who wastes our time)

        • Frank Kahn

          So nuclear physics is a crackpot science? Must be to deep for you then. Not simple science like what you taught in high school?

      • Jana

        No Brainer,
        You are right, I said nothing of importance because I was copying what you said. You never say much of anything. That was the POINT!!

  • Alex

    Why do Fright Wingers deconstruct the Second Amendment SO OFTEN—parsing every word to suit whatever it is THEY think the slaveowners had in mind—yet NEVER address the VERY simple phrase “Well-Regulated Militia”?

    Those who are against background checks, waiting periods, capacity limits, etc clearly do NOT support the Second Amendment.

    The beautiful thing is this: the voting public is becoming increasingly young and female, two groups, among many others, who are leaving the Reich Wing GOP (and religion & Faux Noose!!) in droves! There is very little doubt that November of 2016 will see us elect our first woman president—the numbers don’t lie—and she will NOT be a Republican. The traditional shot-calling role of the White Christian male will continue to diminish in this country–Thank God! We have been TERRIBLE arbiters of justice, morals, and taste.

    The young people of the world in general and our wretched nation in particular, certainly aided by the access to information afforded by the internet, are more tolerant of variant culture and races, less accepting of traditional gender-specific roles, and more concerned with healing the environment than amassing wealth.

    We WILL see a brighter, Socialist future as Science trumps superstition and the failings of Capitalism become clear to an informed and disobedient populace.

    And we WILL see the bloody Second Amendment marched to the ditch and shot for its crimes against humanity. In time, the idea of people walking around with guns, taking them to church, to the bar, or to Yosemite, will become as strange a notion as slavery, cigaret smoking, or Noah’s Ark.

    Check the numbers: the voting populace will ONLY become increasingly LESS White, LESS male, LESS Christian. That means things are looking good….

    • Hedgehog

      Dear Alex, don’t look now, but your racism is showing (anti white), as is your chauvinism (anti male) and your religious intolerance (anti Christian).

      • eddie47d

        He sounds like you Hedgehog in your Conservative spin on everything but invokes the Liberal version. You are both alittle extreme in your views.

    • http://personalliberty 300 win. mag

      Alex, do you wake up with that much hate or do you have to work at it? Why are woman getting their chl’s at record numbers? I am just wondering how old you are?

    • Grandpa frog

      The term “well regulated militia” was very precisely defined by the writers of the Constitution. Your problem is that you don’t know your history. You simply want the 2nd Amendment to mean what you want it mean. But I doubt the facts and truth with set you free of your ignorance.

    • Frank Kahn

      Alex, if our young and women are really as stupid as you are and put themselves in the role you perceive, it will be very sad and tragic that they all die. We are not talking about talking here, we are talking WAR. I defend your right to be wrong, I defend your right to speak what you think, I will use deadly force against anyone, you included, that physically tries to deprive me of my God given rights.

      You, erroneously think that is extremism, and some kind of conservative white male superiority complex. Might you take a close honest look at what you just said? Might you see the absolute totalitarian control freak you show yourself to be? Can you see the insane, mindless, incomprehensibly wrong ideas you spout? The second amendment has caused what? Was I in a coma when the bill of rights jumped out of its case and slaughtered thousands of people? Was the second amendment exercising its first amendment rights and screaming “kill them kill them all”? Did the bill of rights use a scary looking assault weapon?

      God already has a specific plan for you, do you know it? Do you know what he says in the Bible about your thoughts?

      Do you honestly believe that killing babies is okay? Do you believe it is moral to accept homosexual perversion? And, you applaud the death of Christianity? I am sure you are not concerned about your soul then. If it is okay to go against God’s laws, then there is no law we cannot go against. Extreme? Is my statement more extreme than yours about denying the word of God?

      Just because someone wants to disobey THE LAW (Gods law), does not make it right. If I decide it should be acceptable to kill someone for calling me a name, should that be legal? If I say using the term white male is racist, should it be illegal? Where do YOU draw the line, where do you DECREE that it is RIGHT or WRONG?

      • kimo3690

        LOVIN IT FRANK!! Get Sum!!! Well Said as USUAL!!! TY

      • Right Brain Thinker

        kimo3690 marks himself as one of the mindless when he says,
        “LOVIN IT FRANK!! Get Sum!!! Well Said as USUAL!!! TY”
        Keep listening kimo (or are you one of those who encourages Frank because you really like to laugh at him and what he says?)

        Frank has, as usual, given us a flood of OPINION and some wonderful strutting and chest beating, as in:

        I will use deadly force
        God given rights
        erroneously think that is extremism
        insane, mindless, incomprehensibly wrong ideas you spout
        absolute totalitarian control freak you show yourself to be

        Since Frank has offered only OPINIONS and slogans, I will let him slide here, beyond pointing that out. Frank has come over to this thread because he has once again “abandoned the field” of discussion and admitted defeat on the “killer science” thread. I don’t want to deny him ALL fun. As long as he doesn’t start talking ignorance about things scientific, I will let him play.

        However, it DOES appear that Frank is asserting yet another area of expertise when he “preaches” to us, saying, “God already has a specific plan for you, do you know it? Do you know what he says in the Bible about your thoughts?”

        Since you asked, Frank. No, I don’t know God’s plan for me, and I don’t know what he says in the bible. How about talking to us about that? Since religion is all opinion anyway, you shouldn’t be able to do much harm there when you spout yours.

        • Frank Kahn

          Maybe there was a glitch in the posting system, I have not responded to you here, it was Alex.

          I do not know Gods plan for him, only God knows that.

          I did not abandon, or give up or lose on the other thread.

          You will continue to spew your thoughtless insanity no matter what is said.

          You still demean everyone, even a very well studied scientist.

          You are the one that only gives opinion not me.

          Faith is not the same as an opinion.

          You have the opinion that you are intelligent. Unfortunately, we seem to be lacking in anyone agreeing with your personal assessment of your own intellect.

          The only area of expertise you excel in is arrogance.

          I find it fascinating that you always put people down as right wing nut jobs when they know more science than yourself.

          Did you even bother to read the documents O. Manuel published? If you did, did you understand the concept of neutrino repulsion? Could you follow the reasoning about the heavy metal concentrations and how they are consistent with local creation as opposed to some SN occurrence in a distant part of the galaxy? Maybe, as in GW, you have your own personal opinion that does not match with his scientific evidence making it pure right wing nonsense.

          Still needing to push your opinion against facts? Were you also a bully in school as a student?

  • Bud

    Help shut the control freaks down. 2nd amendment Americans need to stick together to defeat the left on this very important issue. You can join the NRA with a lifetime membership for $300 until the end of February. The usual price is $1,000. Just call the NRA at 888-678-7894. If you have thought about joining the NRA this is a perfect day to do it.

    • Alex

      Wayne LaPierre and his NRA Flying Monkeys do not mind when the blood of our children courses the gutter—to the gun-addicted, that blood smeels like “Freedumb”.

      You know, if the gunnuts could figure out a way to liquify their guns they would get on the mainline and shoot them right into their veins, nodding off in their trailers as visions of hollow-points danced in their heads…

      • Alex

        ooops…. ‘smeels’ should read ‘smells’

      • Jana

        Alex,
        It wasn’t the gun’s fault that the children were killed, it was the idiot that was mentally ill and his mother who was aware of this fact who was in the process of doing something about it. Only she was dragging her feet and everyone paid for it.
        When a drunk gets in his car and drives, then kills someone in an accident, its not the car’s fault!
        Just like when you say something stupid which we see quite often we know its not your computer’s fault. It is the one typing on it.

    • eddie47d

      The NRA is cold and callous and Sandy Hook proved that. You might as well have had Leerch speaking for them instead of LaPierre. The NRA helps write state laws such as in Florida which allows just about anyone to own. They have enshrined the numerous loopholes across this country which even allow the mentally ill to easily purchase their weapon of choice. We should call the NRA the Big Easy which allows criminals to Easily find their mark!

      • Don 2

        Universal Background Checks = Universal Gun Registration = Universal Government Confiscation

        Watch the video: http://www.nra.org

        See what old Chuck Schumer(Communist – NY) is really up to!

      • http://www.facebook.com/joyce.clemons Joyce Clemons

        Amazing how individuals go on (and on, and on) without factual knowledge. Everything from the exterior appearance of semi-automatics and 22 rifles (cosmetics), the current legislative application and judicially determined limits of federal mandates on the states, the stated positions and functions of firearms citizen interest groups, the spuriously labeled “mental defectives”…it goes on and on with fallacies, hyperbole and emotionalism, It amazes me when a person who says they prize choice, self-determination, privacy and access on reproductive matters, can turn around and say that another person ought to forego choice, self-determination, privacy and access on self-defense matters. If issue advocates want common ground, the venue should be personal, individual responsibility and accountability. Which goes beyond the rudimentary for the law compliant and the scofflaw alike. Non-compliance ranges from civil disobedience as an advocacy tool, to foolish defiance, and all the way to felony penalty, atrocity and death. When people get all lathered up with emotion, they can feel self righteous all the way to the clinic, the ward, the pen or the grave. Then it is pathetically too late to say, “what did I do?”
        I mourn for innocents powerfully, privately without great public display, whether they are debrained by scalpels and suction, or by bullets. Butchery is evil. A bankrupt nation needs all hands to clean house. Not willing to feed a black market for a knee jerk whim. Peddle crazy somewhere else.

        • tony newbill
        • tony newbill

          Heres some more of that emotionalism …… So some how a 2 cent per dollar cut to Federal Spending is going to cause us this ??? Sounds to me the President could put some caps on Pay in the Government and make up that loss , I mean Washington DC these days is referred to as BOOM TOWN so why is it that these people who are working for We the People should be Richly Rewarded with Our Financial pain and suffering from the Debt they cannot seem to find a solution too other than causing us MORE Pain and suffering with More taxation as the cure to sustaining their Richly reward for being elected ????
          What was that old saying , ” Once the People figure out that they can enrich themselves with the Peoples Money Democracy is over ” ? This is done with Populous politics and I think thats what reelected our president is it not ???

          http://thehill.com/video/administration/284713-napolitano-cuts-will-make-us-more-vulnerable-to-terrorist-attack

      • eddie47d

        Conservatives get emotional over abortion and want to stop it and Liberals get emotional over gun deaths and want to stop it. Sounds like an equal appeal for common sense in lowering the death rate. All abortions won’t be stopped with draconian Conservative anti-abortion laws and all gun deaths won’t be stopped by writing laws that leave someone defenseless. For the sanctity of life common ground needs to be found.

      • JeffH

        eddie says “The NRA is cold and callous and Sandy Hook proved that.”

        Really? Just what was it the NRA did the NRA do that was “cold and callous”?

        Please, entertain some of us with your thoughts on that statement…no talking points or generalities…and be specific please.

        While widely recognized today as a major political force and as America’s foremost defender of Second Amendment rights, the NRA has, since its inception, been the premier firearms education organization in the world.

        During World War II, the association offered its ranges to the government, developed training materials, encouraged members to serve as plant and home guard members and developed training materials for industrial security. NRA members even reloaded ammunition for those guarding war plants. Incidentally, the NRA’s call to help arm Britain in 1940 resulted in the collection of more than 7,000 firearms for Britain’s defense against potential invasion by Germany (Britain had virtually disarmed itself with a series of gun control laws enacted between World War I and World War II).

        In 1949, the NRA, in conjunction with the state of New York, established the first hunter education program. Hunter Education courses are now taught by state fish and game departments across the country and Canada and have helped make hunting one of the safest sports in existence.

        The Youth Hunter Education Challenge (YHEC), a program that allows youngsters to build on the skills they learned in basic hunter education courses. YHECs are now held in 43 states and three Canadian provinces, involving an estimated 40,000 young hunters.

        Law enforcement training was next on the priority list for program development. Although a special police school had been reinstated at Camp Perry in 1956, NRA became the only national trainer of law enforcement officers with the introduction of its NRA Police Firearms Instructor certification program in 1960. Today, there are more than 10,000 NRA-certified police and security firearms instructors.

        In civilian training, the NRA continues to be the leader in firearms education. Over 55,000 Certified Instructors now train about 750,000 gun owners a year. Courses are available in basic rifle, pistol, shotgun, muzzleloading firearms, personal protection, and even ammunition reloading. Additionally, nearly 2,800 Certified Coaches are specially trained to work with young competitive shooters. Since the establishment of the lifesaving Eddie Eagle® Gun Safety Program in 1988, more than 21 million pre-kindergarten to sixth grade children have learned that if they see a firearm in an unsupervised situation, they should “STOP. DON’T TOUCH. LEAVE THE AREA. TELL AN ADULT.” Over the past seven years, Refuse To Be A Victim® seminars have helped more than 15,000 men and women develop their own personal safety plan using common sense strategies.

        • Nick Czudy

          Jeff. I thank you for listing all of the good things that the NRA has done over the last number of decades and that is admirable. They should keep doing these sorts of things.
          What I have seen in the last few years has been a total protection of the rights for the gun manufacturers to make as many guns as possible.
          What was a cold and callous response to the Sandy Hook tragedy was the answer to arm the teachers and have more guns. There are already 300 million plus guns in the USA for a population of about 345 million, which I assume include kids and babies. So that will make for multiple guns per household. It has not seemed to lower the rate of crime and murder. It has increased the amount of suicide, as it is much easier for someone to off themselves with a gun, then trying to do themselves in with a knife or hit themselves over the head with a hammer. Many of our teens have taken their lives from trivial trials and tribulations in [progressing to adulthood.

          With all of these good things that the NRA have done, why did they spearhead the law that prevented the CDC from collecting any gun use and crime information? I fail to see how this was helpful to Americans, to prevent them from knowing how many deaths have been occurring. I can only see it as a communist attempt to keep information from Americans so that they could continue their quest for more guns. Who is the communists here? Information is power. The lack of it is also power. They spearheaded also taking away power from the ATF. No wonder it has been difficult to prosecute the existing laws.
          That has been one of your and the NRA’s favorite talking points. So lets give the authority back to the CDC and the ATF to study and disseminate all of this important information to all Americans and not keep us in the dark.
          Lets have Wayne LaPierre represent all NRA members and not just the gun lobby.

      • Don 2

        Nick Czudy,

        How does one do themself in, in a manner that is easier than a gun, a knife, or a hammer? One simply grabs themself a bottle of wine, or a quart of whiskey, starts the car in a closed garage, opens the car windows, and good night Irene. No garage, no problem; a hose is connected to the tailpipe, and run through a cracked open window into the interior of the car. Easy, painless, and least messy.

        So all this crappola that you guys harp about not having a gun available will reduce suicides is just that, crappola.

        • kimo3690

          LOL Indeed MY Friend WELL SAID!!

        • Nick Czudy

          Don,
          There is currently a court case in the news that a woman stabbed her boy friend many times and killed him. I am sure you know what I am talking about.
          She talked about taking her own life and said that when she cut her wrist it hurt too much and she changed her mind. The same thing happens when someone goes into a garage and tried carbon monoxide death. they get sick and give up and rum out to get some fresh air.
          The thing with a gun is that when they make that irrational decision to kill themselves with a gun, then they only have to pull the trigger and any remorse or change of mind is no longer available to them. It is over.
          These statistics are documented and I saw them in the last few weeks on some of the news channels.
          So it is definitely easier to off yourself with a gun than most other ways to kill yourself.
          regards. nick Cz

        • Bob666

          Yo Don,
          What if he does not own a car or a grage to put it in? having a motorcycle and an open carport would just suck for doing your self in.

          And those freaken tree huggers with their plug-in hybrids just take all the fun out of doing yourself in!

          • Bruce

            he tried to kill himself by running his electric car in a closed garage….lost another tree hugger lol

      • Jana

        Nick C,
        But she still stabbed him many many times and she still murdered him. He is dead.

        • Nick Czudy

          Jana
          That is correct. He is certainly dead.

          The point that I was making was that she said that she tried to commit suicide. When she took a knife and cut into her wrist, it hurt too much and she changed her mind.
          If she decided to use a gun, her body would have been lying beside her boyfriends and there would not have been a long court case. One has a hard time to change their mind after pulling a triggeron a gun. :)

      • Jana

        Bob666,
        If he only has a motorcycle all he has to do is get on it sans the helmet and start speeding and run it into a tree. There are always ways to do yourself in if you are serious.
        The girl he was talking about wasn’t serious, she was just seeking sympathy.

      • JeffH

        Nick, the CDC? Wow…In 1995, Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president, told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: “The problem that I see with what the CDC is doing is that they are not doing medicine, they’re doing politics. And they shouldn’t be doing politics.”

        He added, “There is no medical evidence that if you go and buy a gun, you’re going to get hurt. In fact, you can make a pretty good case if you go out and buy a gun, you may be able to save your life.”

        Dr. Miguel Faria Jr., a former professor of neurosurgery and editor of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia. The CDC, he said, started from the premise “that guns were bad, had no benefits, that guns and bullets were pathogens that needed to be eradicated or at least severely restricted from the civilian population. It was mostly political junk science.”

        Bob Barr, a former congressman from Georgia said “To me, firearms and guns is nothing CDC should be involved in”

        Gun advocates say they are not opposed to research into gun-related violence, so long as it is objective. They say research sponsored by the CDC was one-sided, because it ignored evidence that having a gun can protect people and prevent harm.

        ~300 MILLION AMERICANS DID NOT ASSAULT ANYONE USING ANY FIREARM.

        ~300 MILLION Americans DIDN’T SHOOT anyone AT ALL. Not even by accident.

        Join us in telling them to STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT

        STOP IT

        STOP IT NOW

        • kimo3690

          GET SUM JeffH!!! Well said!!! TY

        • Nick Czudy

          JeffH, haha the NRA is not using its propaganda for political purposes.

          What the CDC was doing was to track and study gun deaths and injuries. Their purpose was not to justify uses of guns or to make conclusions of how to interpret the results of the studies. But the NRA paid, no let me say bribed, many politicians to ban, even the study of gun crime, so that it would not get in the way of furthering more gun sales.
          The politicians can make the decisions.
          It was also convenient that congress also took all of the power away from the ATF to regulate the gun laws. Then the hypocrites complained that there are enough laws already, just that they are not being enforced. Dah will no wonder. They had their ways in the past. it is time that this type of info and enforcement needs to be gathered and then the politicians can make the right decisions.

      • JeffH

        Nick, I get it that you believe the propaganda and despise the NRA and I get it that you trust government agencies like the CDC to do non-political studies and that you even trust the ATF to do unbiased work.

        Well, I don’t and if you pay any attention at all to what goes on, past and present, under either political parties in power you would know that we the people do not get fair and unbiased opinions, just opinions based on agendas.

        A bribe? That is a joke, something I would exoect someone like you to say…it’s called politics and if you can’t play with the big boys you might as well not play at all.

        Now tell me again about Operation Fast & Furious, you must remember that…the one where the AG/DOJ and the BATFE forced gun shops to comply with them and let guns go into Mexico…and caused the death of Brian Terry?

        I fully support the work efforts of the NRA because without them, there would be a total ban on guns and ammunition and the 2nd Amendment would become moot and there would be more violent crimes because the criminals would still have guns an would not hesitate to assault and violate law abiding citizens and there property. To think otherwise is pure ignorance.

        The government is not your friend nor are the Democrats or the Republicans. Don’t allow them to play you like a fool because that is what they are doing.

        • Nick Czudy

          Hi Jeff. You said…”I fully support the work efforts of the NRA because without them, there would be a total ban on guns and ammunition and the 2nd Amendment would become moot and there would be more violent crimes because the criminals would still have guns an would not hesitate to assault and violate law abiding citizens and there property. To think otherwise is pure ignorance.”
          This is the big lie that the NRA uses always to put fear into the heads of fervent gun owners when that will never happen. There can be stiffer laws that might make it more difficult for criminals to buy guns that will not make all guns illegal.
          it is in the NRA’s interest to keep trying to fear monger you all and you are eating it up.
          Last night the latest poll showed that 61% of Americans want some kind of additional gun controls. Only 4% wanted fewer laws. I think that the 4% is probably the few in the 4 million NRA members that buy into LaPieres’s “they are going to come for our guns” propaganda. regards Nick Cz

          • R.F.

            Just as a comparison up here in Canada we have no Second Amendment. Farmers and hunters have guns which I suppose they register somewhere. Fact is city folks like me don’t even know what the rules are if any. We do have criminals who use guns from time to time during robberies and there are shootings (usually drug related) from time to time with guns brought over the border from the U.S. but for the most part we don’t worry much about guns or no guns and we remain a pretty wonderful democratic society. I can tell you there is not a single spot in my city where I would be afraid to walk even at night. Frankly Canadians watch with bewilderment as we learn of the constant string of mass murders that goes on in the U.S. And the fact some suggest the solution is even GREATER numbers of guns and not even a background check on purchasers really makes our jaws drop. A friend of mine just returned from Austin, Texas and said that in Austin she saw folks walking around with guns holstered at the hips on city streets! Like the old west I guess. Or maybe this is some kind of macho type thing. But for sure we have a different culture than you folks!!!

          • Nick Czudy

            R.F., You are absolutely right. It is the gun culture that makes the USA the crime and gun capital of the world. It has something to do with the civil war and the south losing. They are always on the edge of starting a war all over again. It is a shame that they cannot live and let live and go on in life. This tension is dangerous and then one day, something snaps and they will go out and kill innocent people.
            It would be a better place if there were no guns at all.

      • Don 2

        Nick,

        I have to disagree with your assertion that one gets so sick from the fumes that they run out to get fresh air.

        The first real life knowledge of this is a 17-year old kid that I know who along with his girlfriend, almost accidently bit the dust while parking in a car with a leaky exhaust system. Fortunately, they were close to it, but did not fall asleep, but they did both end up in the E.R. with oxygen being administered. Neither one had been bothered by the exhaust fumes until after the girl got home, and passed out from the lack of oxygen, and her parents called the boys residence to say that she was being taken to the E.R. The side effects on the boy were giddiness and eventually a major headache. Neither had been drinking alcoholic beverages that night.

        The second real life case involved a couple camping in a tent, who brought their little charcoal burner inside the tent, and out of the rain. When they were found the next morning, he was dead, and she was close to it, but she did survive. She was lying in some of her own vomit, partially outside of the tent, but the fumes did not make her get up and run out of the tent. The dead guy was a known career burglar, so as far as we were concerned, no loss to society.

        Like I said before…..a big bottle of wine…..changes everything.

        Snd we didn’t even cover stepping in front of a truck going 55 m.p.h., or jumping off of a bridge or building, or any number of other quick ways to end it w/o involving a gun. By the way, I do know a guy who shot himself in the head with a .22 cal. in a suicide attempt. Guess what? He survived, albeit somewhat more screwed up than before. So, a gun doesn’t necessarily guarantee the intended results.

        • Nick Czudy

          Don, you are absolutley right about carbon monoxide being an odorless and colorless deadly gas. But there is a lot of nasty toxic chemicals in car exhaust and if you just put a hose into your car from your exhaust, you would not only have the odorless carbon monoxide, you would have the nasty fumes as well. It will make you cough and convulse.

          You are right about the space heaters and such as they are silent and also give off a lot of carbon monoxide.
          Extremely dangerous are the space heaters that burn propane. The instructions always instruct one to have an open window.
          Yes jumping outside of a tall building or bridge is also fast and fatal. But if you are feeling suicidal, if you were able to go to the cupboard and get the gun, or have to drive over to a tall building and gain access to the roof or a balcony, I think that it would be more expedient and easy to grab the gun.
          I bet you there are many more ways to do yourself in. From what I have read, the outright winner is suicides by guns. That seems to be the biggest danger from keeping a gun in a house. Even if it was under lock and key, it would be probable that a child or a teenager, if distraught, would know where dad keeps the key or knows the combination.
          regards
          Nick Cz

      • eddie47d

        Plain and simple the NRA is not your grandfathers NRA. They have become wicked and dangerous!

      • JeffH

        eddie, any Tom, Dick or Harry can say something stupid about the NRA or anything else…it’s the evidence you present that lends credibility to what you say…you can’t and won’t present any solid evidence…thus the reason why you have no cedibility.

        POLLY WANT A CRACKER? baaarrraaaccckkkkk!

      • JeffH

        Nick, your answers have become comical…clearly you’ve bought into the anti-gun progressive’s national propaganda campaign to demonize the NRA any way they can.

        I live in California and I have been fighting the anti-gun and gun confiscation legislators for over 30 years. The history of the pro-gun grabbers in government are well documented.

        The law is the law, the Constitution is the Constitution. If ONE local mayor or police chief can decide what the Second Amendment means, it opens the door to tyranny where ANY mayor or police chief can say what the Second Amendment means.

        One recent example is the unconsitutional confiscation that took place in New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina. New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, Police Superintendent P. Eddie Compass unleashed a wave of confiscations with these chilling words:
        “No one will be able to be armed. We will take all weapons. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns.”
        Thousands of firearms were then confiscated from law-abiding gun owners. The police gave no paperwork or receipts for those guns. They just stormed in and seized them.

        You have seen this brand of abuse of freedom in the history books in the pages about days of gun confiscations leading to the terror of Stalin, Mao and Hitler. But you have never in a million years think it could happen in America.
        Well, it can and it did. And it will happen again unless we take action today.

        These are just a few recent examples of where Gun confiscation legislation has been proposed in the states: Missouri, California, Missouri, NY, NJ, Washington, Illinois, Michigan.

        When the progressives say that it can’t happen here, you now know for sure that they are lying. If the people are disarmed, the Constitution is only as good as the liars that disarmed them.

        Criminals prefer unarmed victims! Government tyrants prefer unarmed citizens.

        ~300 MILLION AMERICANS DID NOT ASSAULT ANYONE USING ANY FIREARM.

        ~300 MILLION Americans DIDN’T SHOOT anyone AT ALL. Not even by accident.

        Join us in telling them to STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT

        STOP IT

        STOP IT NOW

        • Nick Czudy

          Jeff. You said…”Nick, your answers have become comical…clearly you’ve bought into the anti-gun progressive’s national propaganda campaign to demonize the NRA any way they can.”
          You maybe think that the government is lying and has an evil plan to take all guns, the NRA has an equally evil plan to prevent any restrictions on any gun or ammo sales so that the gun manufacturers will have increased sales and more money into the pockets of the NRA.
          They also had an evil plan to prevent any gun statistics from being gathered, to be able to cause the citizens of to think about gun regulations. the Colbert Report had a very funny skit on that fact 2 days ago. From what I see, is that the NRA does not represent its 5 million members as much as it is a shill for the gun manufacturers.

          As far as your use of the millions that were killed from Mao and Stalin, you give the cause of the population not having guns.
          Be clear the ,millions of deaths occurred from starvation and not guns or lack of guns.
          The peasants and farmers never had guns , they would not have spent any money to buy them, and they were not available to them and even if they had them, they would not and could not stand up against a squad of soldiers that came for their grain and food. It was the evil plan of Stalin and Mao to take this food and trade it for Industrial machinery to get industrialized. Too bad if there was not enough food for the people to eat. It did not fit his financial plans to grow the country. They had total control of all media and news and this kept the people in ignorance. This was a huge travesty, but to try and make this a cause for having guns is a false irrelevant issue. China and Russia was not the USA that grew up with guns in every house. very few of almost none of the peasants or farmers had guns.

          America is unique in the world as a gun culture. I understand that it is an important part of our culture. That is understood by all politicians on both sides. That does not mean that we cannot make some relevant changes to improve some obvious problems.
          It is also abundantly obvious that we cannot just take Wayne LaPierre’s opinion as speaking for the majority of Americans. He is like a horse with blinders on and is only concerned with total and unrestricted growth of the gun industry.

      • JeffH

        Nick, it has become abundantly clear you don’t have any idea of what you speak other than you are anti-gun and anti-NRA, nor do you even have the remotest clue about America’s crony political system and how it works against the Constitution, freedom and liberty. You being a progressive explains it all.

        Your trust in politicians to “do the right thing” and “make the right call” is totally laughable…yeah, right and pigs can fly too!

        sheeple – definition
        1. People unable to think for themselves. Followers. Lemmings. Those with no cognitive ablilities of their own.

        2. A individual that forfits their right to choose in favor of inclusion in groupthink and what is viewed as popular or elete group. Allowing the influences of different forms of media and group members to hold great sway in the formation of attitudes, behavoir and opinion.
        To accept the group mentaility and opinion as fact without examination.
        Not only to be told what to do, but accepting the paradigm of thought as absolute thereby removing the weight of personal responsibility in the making of decisions.

        3. The hoi polloi. Those who follow triends blindly. Portmanteau of “sheep” and “people”, derived as sheep follow their flock and shepherd seemingly mindlessly.

        I’m sorry for you as you seem to be a nice guy.

        • Nick Czudy

          Hi Jeff.
          I am not anti-gun. I am not pro gun. I am against the NRA. They have not done anything positive in the last two years, since I have been following their activities. Keep your guns, just do not wave it in my face. Keep it in your pants.

          Since you are Republican and right wing, I do not blame you for not trusting politicians.Since you are only used to your GOP compatriots , you form your opinion from them.
          They follow the stereotype of lying, cheating, kissing babies and and then stealing their candy. They seem to only do things for political reasons and not for the benefit of the country. I am so happy that they have did not get voted in to the white house. We just need to kick them out of congress and the country will be OK.

          From what I have seen, Barack Hussein Obama as you like to call him, has been working tirelessly to get us out of this recession and get the country going. I have seen that the GOP do not keep promises. Look at MacConnell with breaking his promise to not filibuster. Look at the loons in congress that seem to keep self inflicting pain on all of us and preventing us from getting out of the recession.
          If the tea party and all of you are not interested in governing our country, they get out of the way and let someone else do it that cares. This latest sequester fiasco is another misguided attempt to subvert our economy.
          Isn’t this come under the category of traitorous activity and shouldn’t people that purposely undermine the good of the country need to be prosecuted?

      • AmericanGirl

        You are gonna need it……..
        http://joeforamerica.com/win-a-free-ar-15/

  • Grandpa frog

    Magazine (clips) restriction? What happened to Gregory, and his illegal clip on TV?

    The liberals have no real intention to exercise this enforcement. Simply a way leading to further restrictions. A 10 round clip today, a 7 round clip/magazine tomorrow, then a 5 round magazine, and so on.

    Assault rifles today, then assault pistols tomorrow. Then more scary attachments like scopes, etc..

    Will the liberals be working on the interpretation of the 1st Amendment, with a new definition of “abridging the freedom of speech” (Nancy Pelosi). “Separation of church and state” has already replaced “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion”.

    Grandpa frog

  • Don 2

    Universal Background Checks = Universal Gun Registration = Government Confiscation

    Watch the video: http://www.nra.org

    Benefits of Gun Control:
    Concentration Camps
    Killing Fields
    Gulags

    • http://omanuel.wordpress.com omanuel

      Regretfully, Don 2, I agree with you.

      America now faces the “1984″ that George Orwell described in 1946, when he was dying of tuberculosis but ignored his own health and moved from London to the forsaken Scottish island of Jura to warn the public of the approaching tyranny that he thought we would recognize in 1984.

      Most scientists did not recognize world tyranny until Climategate e-mails and documents were released in late November 2009.

      http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-2204

  • richard brooks

    over 50% of the american public can not legally own a gun. the nra, the gop and the vast majority of gun owners support those restrictions. the 2nd does not have any exemptions or restrictions.

    if you support any restrictions, then you have effectively supported all restrictions. even the ones that will include you.

    • ibcamn

      The thing i’m wondering about is,vets with PTSD!what happens to them with guns they may already own?if all the liberals get their way,those vets will lose their weapons,and if they try to take them away,most will see it as almost taking a limb!!!…i know i would!!!

      • http://www.facebook.com/joyce.clemons Joyce Clemons

        That is a mess, that Brady/VA reporting thing. I have info if you want to message m on fb

      • Karolyn

        Is it a good idea for somebody with ptsd to own a gun? I don’t think so.

      • eddie47d

        You are correct Karolyn for suicides are high among returning Vets and guns are the choice of M.O. I don’t think Liberals want returing vets to be killing themselves and that is a disturbing problem.

        • tony newbill

          Eddie47d This Liberal thinks Vets Killing themselves is a good thing !!!!!!!! And He thinks the world population needs to be reduced too so the extremists live large in the elitist ranks of Our societies ad this kind of thinking is exactly what the founding fathers meant when they said citizens need to be able to defend themselves from Ideology even when it gets in positions of authority or has a Influential effect on the Governments ability to uphold citizens rights under the US Constitution !!!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnLdgAfX9tw

      • http://www.facebook.com/joyce.clemons Joyce Clemons

        Case by case is how due process is supposed to work,, not wholesale cattle car. (Unless you’d like that changed, just repeal that Bill of Rights pesky item) The Brady “mental defective” clause (isn’t that hideous..like a dark ages branding iron) is running the show at the VA, and the VA subsection for the eval and report process also thinks it sucks, but they are stuck with it. If specialized mental health treatment is meant to be rehabilitative, tattooing ‘defective’ on a hero’s ass is counterproductive to the process. If someone is given crap for ordinary due process and told that it is ice cream, that is against everything that being American means. So much for the Purple Heart. There are people in Congress looking for safe solutions that solve the matter. There are other people in Congress that put us all ( I mean ALL, as in 300,000,000 )on the cattle car. This reality can be applied to liberty concerns of any person, no matter what crumbles their cookie. If they don’t take any of us seriously inside the Beltway, but just as Useful idiots every 4th November, there is a remedy. You can read all about it at the National Archive. Bring a magnifier.

      • Jana

        You are so right. Not everyone that has PTSD is a potential murderer. Sometimes they have just seen too much and need some time to unwind and reintegrate back into civilian life as well as their families’ lives..
        Many times one of the problems with those suffering PTSD happens to be the stupid Liberals who make stupid remarks about how the war was so unnecessary and based on lies and their time over in whatever country was a waste. How many times have we heard of people booing some of our soldiers coming home from war. TOTALLY INEXCUSABLE!
        Thankfully we had a lot of people lining up at the airports clapping and shouting hurrah’s for our returning soldiers.

  • http://midcontent ridge runner

    Read OSI’s mental evaluations on Hilter and used these same tests on other dictators and ego manics, and compare them to Obama, and it is scarey. Hilter used rules and laws to get his way with Germany. Both had problems with their father abanding him,their mothers were fanatical task masters, both had trouble with sexual identy issues, if his wish isn’t done they act like 2 year olds, used children as non stop props, gun registrations and shorty after wards gun confiscation. Hilter had people even children spying on their family or anyone else who said a nasty opion of the leader, Obama has been recorded as he will create a hand picked panel, to have the right to arrest and jail them as long as the panel demeans necessary. History will prove these facts, Another simialarty is the mandate regulations the come from agency pukes..

  • Hedgehog

    To all and Sundry: FACT- MUSKETS AND FLINTLOCKS WERE NOT THE ONLY “ARMS” KNOWN AT THE TIME OF THE REVOLUTION!!! Just because the progressive/liberals claim it is true does not make it so! At the time of the revolution, RIFLED firearms were in use, even in back country America, which knocks muskets on the head as they are smooth bore! FLINTLOCKS were the prevailing gun action of the time, but matchlocks, and wheel locks were also in use, as were repeating flintlocks.So much for the flintlocks only argument! Sing or listen to your own national anthem for heavens sake! “The rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air, gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.” Obviously the founding fathers and everyone else knew about bombs and rockets. Furthermore, in the argot of the time “arms or sidearms” included; swords, daggers, quarter staffs, axes, clubs, spears and don’t forget bows and arrows! Moving on, Cannon and various other forms of artillery were well known and used not only by the various governments, but also by private citizens! All educated persons of the time knew of Leonardo da Vinci, (drawings of flying machines, parachutes, etc.) and Ben Franklin at least had personal knowledge of kites and electricity! I think I’ll stop this now, I’m not writing an essay. Suffice it to say that a cursory reading of the histories of the times prove that the progressive/liberal assertions of FACT regarding the ARMS of the time are totally wrong!

    • Chester

      Well, Hedgehog, you are partially right, The rifled long guns weren’t in common usage during the revolutionary war, as not a lot of gunsmiths were equipped to rifle the barrel. The bombs referred to in “The Star Spangled Banner” were hollow cast iron balls filled with gunpowder then stoppered with a cork with a fuse in it. You made an educated guess when you cut that fuse as to just how far it would fly before it exploded, and hoped you didn’t have a fast fuse. The rockets were probably the lowest tech items in use, other than swords, bayonets, and other assorted cutlery, as they were essentially the same thing as our modern-day bottle rockets. They were a good bit larger, averaging more like ten to fifteen pounds than the half ounce to four ounces or so we use now. That item has been around since before Europe was more than semi-civilized, having been invented and used in China long before Marco Polo made his trip.

  • http://midcontent ridge runner

    Is this the Huffington cheering section for communists and marxistss?

  • http://wildeyguns.com The Christian American

    Constantly I read good and reasonable arguments as if the writers were hoping they could sway the minds of republicrats, facists, communists, godless socialist and their ilk into right thinking. Simply put, that’s impossible because they think their arguments are the right ones. A line has been drawn between good and evil. Satan is never going to convince God to his thinking. True there are a lot of people on the fence but they fall in this category: “In the beginning of change, the patriot is a scarce and brave man, hated and scorned. When is cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for the it cost nothing to be a patriot. On each side of the fence there’s maybe one or two percent that could be called patriots to the two opposing ideologies. The father of communism Karl Marx was no fool. He taught you had to identify your enemy with things and people the people you are trying to sway find repugant or worse. In other words there’s nothing nice you can say about the residents of that District of Criminals. They’re not misguided. They’re dedicated evil people. They’re liars and looters. They prove that as they are sworn into office. They define promises the way Stalin did: Promises are like pie crust, made to be broken. The Indians defined them as speakers with forked tongues. Their not making “law”. They’re jamming edicts and decrees down our throats, and we’re taking it. Law would have pass the Constitution muster to be law, and I don’t mean the opinion of nine politicians wearing robes to work. We can read. We can define. Turn to Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary for the American definitions of words. Lenin said: People think in words and how how they define words is WHO THEY ARE. Let us invent words and change the definition of words so we can mold the people into what we want. That’s the thinking we’re getting with the dumbing down of America. Look at some of the modern bibles. There’s not a place you can turn without finding evil and evil intentions.

  • TC

    The end game for anyone on the left, liberals and Extremist radicals alike is making the world safe for Tyranny by disarming American citizens and getting rid of that pesky 2nd Amendment. “Gun Control” is in reality the means to people control. The left is angry that they haven’t quite found the “right” crisis for everyone to turn in their guns. Don’t think they aren’t working on manufacturering one either, their evil minds are always working on how to end America as we know it, or knew it.

    • eddie47d

      TC the right wing talking head (extremist) trying to pull himself out of his clown car. I suppose one extreme comment deserves another! We know that Conservatives can no longer own slaves. They can no longer slaughter Indians. They can no longer deny the right to vote to women. Its like the last election where you are still trying to nurse you wounds and seek revenge on every issue. You find fault with every black walking the face of the earth. You still beg women to stay at home and be your obedient sock puppets. The only good Mexican American is a …well you know how that goes! You think controlling weapons of notable death is pure evil yet take no responsibility for that carnage. Your full of excuses to justify your bad behavior and call it good! The ANGRY right is predictable in wishing for that old authority and wanting to be king of the hill in controlling others.

      • JeffH

        eddie(sack of hammers), how do you justify your unpatriotic self?

        Sack of hammer’s answer: “Read the rational unpatriotic comments I make.” “I’m only interested in what I believe in, not what the Bill of Rights, The Constitution or the Supreme Laws actually mean and certainly not justice and liberty for all”.
        __________________________________________________

        American Caesarism – Gun Control
        “The state is the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it lies, too; and this lie creeps from its mouth: ‘I, the state, am the people.’… Everything about it is false; it bites with stolen teeth.” These observations by Nietzsche defy the romantic ideals laid forth by Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address: government of the people, by the people, for the people. Nobody ever said philosophy was easy.
        - Frederick Nietzsche, 19th century German philosopher

        While a safe and civilized society is not possible absent a properly empowered government, there is one lone fact which distinguishes government from all other human enterprises. Government is granted, by consent of the governed, the authority to utilize violence against citizens who break the law.

        This singularity is shared by all forms of government; whether Democratic, Totalitarian, Feudal (rule by a noble class) or Theocratic (governed out of religious text.) Fail to pay taxes or send the children to school, and after the letters and telephone calls – eventually the authorities are going to kick the door down with guns drawn. The law is not voluntary, and it is the gun which puts the “force” in “enforcement.” Government, while wholly indispensable, is also inherently dangerous.

        So what is American Caesarism? It is when the political class:
        •- Treats peaceable citizens as suspects of crime (Patriot Act, TSA, NDAA, etc.)
        •- Plunders the citizens’ wealth by devaluing their savings via expansion of the money supply (inflation.) Thinkers ranging from Jefferson to Lenin wrote about this form of stealth robbery. Lenin was in favor of it. This is stealing, and the net results are no different than the forceable taking of ones valuables. Quantitative Easing makes the middle class poorer – especially seniors living off their savings.
        •- Repeatedly wages undeclared wars outside of our own borders, on other peoples’ lands (their property), which causes violent “blow back” (a CIA term.) In his farewell address, Dwight Eisenhower warned of the dangerous influences of the military-industrial complex. Aggressive wars make Americans materially poorer and less safe, while enriching politicians and their favored donors.
        •- Makes a mockery of free markets by passing and signing unreadable, incomprehensible bills which were actually written by industry lobbyists. Housing, education, and health care are now unaffordable because Congress literally lets the banking and health care industries write their own legislation.
        •- Allows an entrenched Robber Baron class, which is not “one percent” but actually a tenth of that, to fund both “sides” of national elections.
        •- Deliberately creates a Moocher class, which is nowhere near 47 percent, in order to secure party votes.
        •- Allowed the national debt to continually grow at a faster rate than GDP, and then claiming that net output is growing. (See Karl Denninger’s book Leverage, and his website http://www.market-ticker.org.) The U.S. economy has not grown based on the reinvestment of real surplus capital (savings) since before 1980. It is impossible for sustainable wealth creation to occur based on the emission of unbacked credit. What happened in 2008 was an economic prequake.
        •- That which cannot go on forever, won’t. History tells us that an entrenched political class will not just give up their power willingly. It is entirely possible they will turn on the citizenry, just as they did in modern democratic states like Spain, France, and Germany.
        http://www.ammoland.com/2013/02/american-caesarism-gun-control/#ixzz2M1z3PdQL

      • eddie47d

        Jeff H; Are you desperately trying to lay a quote on me when I wasn’t even near your “evidence”. Did you get your cheap thrill? [comment has been edited]

      • Frank Kahn

        Eddie? It is hopeless to point out that you are talking about yourself here? Is it also hopeless to point out your raging racism? Do I need to, again, explain how bigoted your anti-gun opinion is? Are you capable of seeing that your accusations about conservatives is equally true for liberals?

        You spew:

        “We know that Conservatives can no longer own slaves. ”

        NEITHER CAN LIBERALS, SO WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

        “They can no longer slaughter Indians. ”

        DAMN, AND HERE WE WAS ALL A FIXIN TO HAVE A RIGHT NICE INDIAN MASSACRE NEXT WEEKEND.

        “They can no longer deny the right to vote to women. ”

        OKAY, NOW I AM REALLY UPSET, YOU MEAN WOMEN CAN VOTE CAUSE THEY IS SMART LIKE US MEN?

        “Its like the last election where you are still trying to nurse you wounds and seek revenge on every issue.

        HUH, WHAT IS YA TALKIN ABOUT HERE?

        “You find fault with every black walking the face of the earth. ”

        CAN YA EXPLAIN THE WORD EVERY?

        “You still beg women to stay at home and be your obedient sock puppets. ”

        WHAT DOES A SOCK PUPPET DO? DO YOU STICK YOUR HAND IN IT AND MAKE IT TALK?

        “The only good Mexican American is a …well you know how that goes!

        USUALLY JUST MEXICAN, BUT NEVER HEARD THAT SENTIMENT USED ON THEM.

        “You think controlling weapons of notable death is pure evil yet take no responsibility for that carnage.

        AH, NOW WE GET TO THE POINT OF YOUR TIRADE. “NOTABLE DEATH”, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? ANY WEAPON THAT KILLS SOMEONE IS A WEAPON OF DEATH, SO NOTED. CONTROLLING THOSE WEAPONS (GUNS) IS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH MAKES IT ILLEGAL (NOT EVIL). TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR SOMEONE ELSE KILLING? NOPE, AINT GONNA HAPPEN.

        “Your full of excuses to justify your bad behavior and call it good! ”

        SPECIFY WHAT BAD BEHAVIOR YOU ARE ALLUDING TO? THE, NON-INFRINGED, RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS? MIGHT THIS BE A PERSONAL OPINION FROM YOU?

        “The ANGRY right is predictable in wishing for that old authority and wanting to be king of the hill in controlling others.”

        SO, THE DESIRE TO KEEP THE RIGHT TO NOT BE CONTROLLED BY OTHERS, IS SOMEHOW CONTROLLING OTHERS?

        • kimo3690

          FOOKEN BRILLIANT!!! Just the right about of “levity”!! Well DONE Sir LOL

      • APN

        Frank, thanks for the interpretation of eddie47d’s dribble.

        Excellent!

        APN

      • Jana

        hahahaha you made my day :)

      • eddie47d

        APN is the one being cleaver in interpretation and tripping over his own words. Now there is a Conservative sock puppet! LOL!

      • JeffH

        eddie says “Jeff H; Are you desperately trying to lay a quote on me when I wasn’t even near your “evidence”.”

        “desperately trying”? LMAO! :)

        No eddie, I used the “sack of hammers” quote…you oviously must identify with a “sack of hammers” to feel the quote was attributed to you…if the shoe fits.

  • angelwannabe

    “eddie you said>___”The right is protecting the Second? No the right is continually extending the Second to mean just about anything they want. No matter what weapons are included or how they are obtained. They have encouraged so many loopholes that almost every gun law is meaningless. (That is why they don’t work). Some of you Second Amendment folks are a criminals dream. What is easy for you to obtain just makes it easier for them to obtain. You can buy fully Automatic weapons through trusts (39,000 were purchased by individuals in 2012). These weapons are generally considered banned yet they are not. So enough of this tomfoolery in proclaiming there are enough laws and that loopholes don’t exist.”

    The second amendment is pretty clear cut, what part of “shalt not be infringed” don’t you understand? Back in the day they had muskets, so did the people, why shouldn’t we be allowed to own what the military owns, if we’ve a mind to? Who are you or anyone else to “decide” whats best for us, or take from us, that which was God given?___ESPECIALLY when the right to bear arms WAS NOT given by the Government in the first place?__

    Idiots own pencils don’t they? Drunk drivers drive and own cars, don’t they?__Fat people own knives, forks and spoons, don’t they?__Its the responsibility of the owner AND WHAT manner they’re used. Bad decisions lead to bad consequences, plain and simple!__Bad things happen eddie, gun control or confiscation is for one reason, again__CONTROL!

    • ibcamn

      The liberals want to rewrite or toss the constitution!they will try to read into it as they see fit!that is why it is cut and dry,the way it is”infringe”is there for a reason!yes you are right!tell everyone you know,know your rights!

      • angelwannabe

        ibcamn__sure enough, It is clear cut, the founders made the 2nd amendment that way for ONLY the benefit of the people__

    • eddie47d

      I hate to burst your bubble Angel but our Founding Fathers were the GOVERNMENT. They were brilliant yet were the ones in CONTROL. They the GOVERNMENT wrote the Second. The Second Amendment was also created to CONTROL tyranny and rebellion from citizens against the GOVERNMENT. So citizens would come and defend our Founding Fathers To keep the new Republic from being overthrown by angry losers who aren’t getting their way.

      • angelwannabe

        C’mon eddie, get with the program, our rights came from the creator, the Founders knew it and re-enforced them into the Constitution and Bill of rights__Government is to uphold, and protect those rights for the the American people to live under and per use, if offended. A frame work of Government has to be there in a limited form, not in the form of oppressive, tyrannical and out of control we see today!!

      • angelwannabe

        eddie re-reading your comment, the second amendment was given to the people to do the same thing, that was done in the revolution, to stop a tyrannical Brittish government and if needs be, to do it again!!!___ You liberals interpretation is so transparent as to what the your agenda is.

      • eddie47d

        I would say your transparency is lacking and to use the excuse that God gives you the right to kill another human being is ludicrous. HE seldom gives those kinds of blessings. I personally believe God is sick of being used to escalate war,violence and guns. You Conservatives use him all the time to justify your actions. Some see tyranny coming from the Conservative elements in this country in denying rights to people. Check out the right wing groups out there fermenting revolution and who are tyrannical. The enemy could be nearer than you think in the workings of the Minutemen members and so forth.

      • http://patrioticvets.com/america/ jb

        I hate to burst YOUR little brain … you said.. from being overthrown by
        angry losers who aren’t getting their way. That is you and people like you. you are not
        liberal,you are nonAmerican,period. The 2nd protects the people FROM the gov that might become a dictatorship,the militia is not a gov body,it is the citizens.

        ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms’ actually means that it is a right of our Government to keep and bear arms because they associate the militia with the government. Yet, under this standard, the Bill of Rights would protect only the right of a government to speak, or the right of a government to criticize itself, if you were taking that same argument and transposing it over the first amendment. In fact, the Bill of Rights protects the rights of people from being infringed upon by Government–not the other way around. from:
        http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=88

      • eddie47d

        Nice of you to have an opinion JB and it is just as important as mine. If I call you a nonAmerican does that make it so? Have a good day smart alick!

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

    Department Of Homeland Security Makes Targets Of Americans…(please watch)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olhi2jzeGPQ

    • kimo3690

      SPOOKY huh?! However, “code words”; “without hesitation training”; gun confiscation…… ya gotta be a in a coma to not grasp what is goin on…….. GOD BLESS AMERICA!!

  • ibcamn

    Very few people own “assault rifles”,it requires a special permit(and state residents),on the other hand,a lot of people own semi automatic rifles.so the media keeps using this term,along with this site,so why don’t we stop using this term to talk about it?or at least say”assault styled rifles”?very few times do you see the word semi-auto or semi-automatic!that’s the proper term for what we are talking about!we need to stop feeding them what they want to hear!

    I have black powder pistols and rifles!44 cal,45 cal. pistols,and 50 cal,and 54 cal. rifles.I own several other semi auto rifles and several other semi auto pistols and one late model revolver.I have a wide assortment of magazines and ammo.let me tell you now the way this is gonna happen,register now,they will take later and in that time is when (some other law will change due to the registry)they come for the guns they want,they will find some other way to take everything else you got!my black powder may fall under some messed up obscure law that they will use to take that also!then of course the other weapons due to you breaking that law ,so there fore you can’t have this and you can’t have that and you get arrested and go away for a long time for being a law abiding citizen!that’s the way it will go down!i will lose my kids and my freedom for following the rules!

    And before the haters go off,the reason for all this is this,i just purchased 4lb’s of black powder,the local PD followed me the sec i pulled out of the gun shop for about a mile.they pulled me over for a bad turn signal!(it actually was out)he saw the box in the front seat and asked,i didn’t want to tell him(it’s legal transport)so i didn’t, at first.he must have been thinking about it,a lot,when he came back and would not return my papers without again questioning me about the box and where i was and was going,i just kept on about my papers and he kept his train of thought,so i asked him what he would do if i told him i was going target shooting today?!Instead of asking what type of gun i was using,he asked me if that was a threat!!(clearly not a 2nd amendment supporter)I see now i shouldn’t had said that,but i didn’t expect that response!I told him it was supplies for my rifle..now again i should have known this officer was clearly not going to be on my side,but what came up next was shear stupidity on the officers part!

    It had been almost 20 min of sitting on a signal violation.now there are 3 squad cars and officers all over the place and only getting worse!they already ran my license and checked me out,but you can hear them doing it again!?why?then the cop who pulled me over turns to the other cops(who know nothing of our conversation)and says”THERE IS A SUSPICIOUS PACKAGE ON THE SEAT!”-shall i continue or have you figured this one out by now!??!needless to say the cops all over reacted and even got the first cop into”WERE ALL GONNA DIE”mode!it’s all straightened out now but,i have no back window in my truck now!!that’s why i wasn’t on yesterday!(i commented once before i left!)i should have stayed home.but that’s what i’m getting at,the wording people use has a big impact on what happens to people and to the people around you!the word “ASSAULT”means a lot to some and little to others!think before you say something to people!

    • http://www.facebook.com/joyce.clemons Joyce Clemons

      If you want the JO PD to chill, tell them that you are a re-enactor of American History (like civil War or French and Indian. And download some picture of your last Fort skirmish battle reenactment (download them from the internet.) and grin all silly and say, isn’t that cool…then invite him to the local outdoor range and ask him if he’d like to blow some lead from a Daniel Boone flintlock. lol

  • Shane

    Germany started their war on armed Citizens in the early 1920′s. Just as our Government is doing today ….they took baby steps and passed what seemed like resonable laws over a period of time until they had registered…..then confiscated all guns! Please do some research…..you can read and follow the whole process of disarming German Citizen over a long period of time. Deception is the key!

    • tony newbill

      Shane is right and with this international focus of concern by the elites who makeup the technocratic buracracy that advises our Government what they are prescribing as control for this threat they see as Killing the Eath , THEIR Earth , is why we must stay Armed !!!!!

      http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44990504/ns/us_news-life/#.URd_8PLzyTY

    • rasa

      Shane, If only the rest of us could be as sharp as you, we wouldn’t be eating genetically motified foods with the blessing of the supreem court. The way we are going, soon rat poison well be far healthier than the meats and vegetables we’ll buy in the supermarket!

    • Laurin D.

      http://www.pakalertpress.com/2010/07/19/house-of-rothschild-no-one-can-understand-what-has-happened-to-the-planet-without-reading-this/
      Shane if you really want to know how and where the deception began please take the time to read this. A good many of our elected officials are extremly aware of and abiding with this ultimate agenda. I have read portions of this throughout my life but have never seen it presented in a timeline such as this before. It is perhaps the most important presentation that any person searching for the truth of this world stage can read. This is not a “conspiracy theory” but is the truth.

  • Terry Bateman

    “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall mot be infringed”
    “The people” means all people, felons and non-felons. “keep and bear arms” means
    all have the right to keep loaded guns in their homes and cars and to carry guns
    wherever they go, concealed and not concealed. “The right of the people” means no
    permits or background checks necessary.

    • rasa

      Thats right Terry I agree with you and I also know people that uphold the second ammendment and carry their weapons everywhere they go and are ready to die for it if anyone regardless of uniform tries to disarm them.

      • rasa

        P S. thank God we still have some real men left.

      • Jana

        rasa,
        Me too!
        We have enough cowards among us.
        It also takes fortitude with the writers of Personal Liberty to write these posts that are so enlightening and provocative, as they sure have enough lefties on here that attack them daily. This shows that there is more than one type of warrior out there.
        Praise God for strong men and women who are not afraid to make a stand.
        The left is so used to walking all over the Conservatives that they are now shocked that we have the audacity to balk and fight back.
        Well they better get used to it.

    • eddie47d

      You mean real men like Christopher Dorner who obtained his silencer and short barrelled rifle through a legal gun trust (Nevada) where no background checks are required. All he paid for the services is $10. Another real man skirting the law to achieve his end means.

      • TML

        He was an Officer; it wouldn’t have mattered what the legal means was, he would have acquired them. Pretty much makes your point moot, especially since you are taking that information directly from the very questionable ‘manifesto’.

      • eddie47d

        TML;? What “manifesto”? I strictly used a name that was recognizable. There were 39,000 who purchased weapons the same way so it’s hardly isolated!.

      • TML

        eddie47d says, “TML;? What “manifesto”?”

        This questionable manifesto, where you got that information…

        “… are you aware that I obtained class III weapons (suppressors) without a background check thru NICS or DROS completely LEGALLY several times? I was able to use a trust account that I created on quicken will maker and a $10 notary charge at a mailbox etc. to obtain them legally. Granted, I am not a felon, nor have a DV misdemeanor conviction or active TRO against me on a NCIC file. I can buy any firearm I want, but should I be able to purchase these class III weapons (SBR’s, and suppressors) without a background check and just a $10 notary signature on a quicken will maker program? The answer is NO. I’m not even a resident of the state i purchased them in. Lock n Load just wanted money so they allow you to purchase class III weapons with just a notarized trust, military ID. Shame on you, Lock n Load.” http://ktla.com/2013/02/12/read-christopher-dorners-so-called-manifesto/#axzz2M6ronta6

        eddie47d says, “I strictly used a name that was recognizable. There were 39,000 who purchased weapons the same way so it’s hardly isolated!.”

        I would like to know where you got that number of 39,000. Source?

      • eddie47d

        Headline news 2/26 in Denver Post by Jennifer Brown. She also said that some folks pay $100-1,000 to aquire those weapons that way.

    • Laurin D.

      Terry you are absolutly correct in your statement that regardless of how the government views you, felon or not, unalienable rights apply regardless. The founders used un rather than in to further strengthen that term and to provide for those rights to not be disavowed. With the government push to make as many people felons as possible very many of us who are not by nature criminal now are. I for one will never give up my unalienable rights.

      • APN

        Well said Laurin and neither will I!

        APN

    • Nick Czudy

      Terry. everyone here harps on the part that says :”The right to bear arms shall not be infringed” What about the “Well regulated militia ” part? Is that saying that there should be an army or police in each state and that they should be well regulated and armed?
      All of your rants are that you need to have guns to counteract these same regulated militias. How hypocritical you all are. If the militia are well regulated, then it is not necessary for each citizen to have guns to counter affect them. All of our police are very well regulated. Since they are all human, there will be some that go against the regulations and that will never be 100%. Lets let the “well regulated militia” be the ones with all of the guns. It is far too easy now for people with criminal intentions to arm to the teeth. Obama’s and Rep Finestien’s proposed laws will do this without taking away all of your guns.
      What is the opposite to what you call the “Gun Grabbers” Would it be the Gun Worshipers”? well you Gun worshipers always state the same tired point that adoption of these new laws will be a step in taking away all guns. I am sick of hearing that tired line. That is not in this laws and that is not a valid excuse for doing nothing. Absolutely nothing that I have heard over the last few years has intimated in even the tiniest way that they intend to take away all guns. In fact it has been to the contrary. Sp stop using this nonsensical excuse.
      To Jeff H. your description of Stalin, Hitler and Mao is a far cry from what can happen here in the USA. There are huge differences between what happened there and the situation here. My mother lived through Stalin’s starving of the 40 million Ukrainians. You are not deserving of using that situation to serve your cause. Again, these are just fringe fears that seem to permeate the far right. It is one of the fear mongering that has permeated your minds.
      I know that the common theme to keep all of the right wing zealots together and consoling each other is absolute crap in the form of lies to demonize the left ruling party. There is not hidden desire to subjugate all Americans to some form of Marxism and Communism. They are all more educated that your members and know how the pitfalls do not work and they have never even once espoused any desire to form a communistic society. You seem to falsely equate that a social society that looks after it downtrodden, elderly and sick is a terrible communistic trait. Most of the 47% takers are members of your following. You complain the most about it while holding your hands out in need of it.
      You need to demonize the left for acting in a democratic fashion and caring for all Americans. I have not seen those traits from your side.
      Having everyone checked out before giving them guns is not that big of a deal. You need to be registered and checked out to get a drivers license and drive a car. Each of these items that can affect the safety of all Americans is regulated and registered. It is no different if they do the same thing with guns. A gun owner could have a photo ID, which is a big Republican crying point and if he gets stopped and checked by our “Well regulated Militia” they can show the ID and be on their way. The criminal that has not been checked out and does not have this ID will have a tougher time and maybe their weapons will be confiscated and maybe someone’s life will be spared. Straw purchasers that want to buy guns for criminals will also have a harder time. In time this will lower the amount of guns in criminals hands and not affect the “Law Biding patriots”
      After all in the last election, the Republican run states all tried to get all voters to have to get photo ID, just to vote. there is not danger to life there, yet they are insisting that innocent ordinary citizens go through loops to get photo ID. I know that this was done to obstruct certain segments of society to not vote. But lets call a spade a spade and not be hypocritical on calling for innocent Americans to have to register and have photo ID and gun owners do not need to do this. Lets not be hypocritical. registering guns and gun owners is not that big of a deal and is not an assault on your patriotic rights.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        So much verbiage to say nothing of substance.

      • http://aol CommonSense4America

        Just what part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand?

        • Nick Czudy

          Common Sense…. “shall not be infringed”. Do you own a gun? If yes, your rights have not been infringed.. Do you want your neighbor to have a bazooka and use it when he thinks that you are making too much noise? Or vice versa?
          I think under your current definition, that you have been not been infringed, to be able to have a tank, nuke or other heavy weapon, I think in the current debate that is going on, the suggestion to limit assault weapons will not infringe on your right to buy as many guns as you like. Just do not buy the assault guns. You will be able to defend yourself just fine.

          In the days of the constitution, there was not the organized police, army and national guard to be able to protect the country. So the idea that every man will be called upon to grab his gun and join a militia was understandable. Now we have well organized militia and the average man, is never called upon to grab his gun and join an impromptu militia.

          If a local bank is being robbed, the police will not need to call upon you the people to grab their gun and help out. They have been appointed by “we the people” to do it for us and we pay for them in the form of taxes to protect us. Of North Korea, imvades our country as in “Red Dawn” the US military complex will do the brunt of the defending and will not call upon you with your guns to form a militia. I think with the world’s largest military, that spends more money, on a well formed militia, then the next 10 largest military countries combined will not need you to join in to the militia to defend your country.
          So the need to have more powerful guns and weapons for the small possibility that the USA will be overrun, or a nasty leader will try and kill millions of Americans as in Mao or Stalin is very unlikely. Just look at the flack that Obama has taken for killing one American traitor in Yemen that has openly threatened the USA as a terrorist. This is what a Republic is. There cannot be that type of slaughter that has occurred in history when mad men and dictators ruled the world. the USA will never regress to a dictatorship.

          In the case of police not coming in time for an assault upon your house and family, you can own many guns to defend yourself until they arrive and take over.
          Just remember that when a mailman or UPS driver come onto your porch and knock on your front door to deliver a parcel, that does not give you the right to kill them. that is a poor excuse.

      • Jana

        Nick C,
        I am sorry you are so tired of hearing what you call a tired old line. TOUGH get over it. I am tired of hearing you liberals tell us to let the police handle it like you just did in your long winded diatribe.
        What part of the police are not always available when a crisis happens do you not comprehend? What part of it takes at least 10 minutes for the police to get to your home, longer in most places, especially if you live out in the country so protection is up to yourself, do you not understand?
        You really don’t come across as too bright here.
        ________________
        You stated,”
        To Jeff H. your description of Stalin, Hitler and Mao is a far cry from what can happen here in the USA. There are huge differences between what happened there and the situation here. My mother lived through Stalin’s starving of the 40 million Ukrainians. You are not deserving of using that situation to serve your cause. ______________

        Then your mother didn’t teach you anything did she? Or was she one of those that just sat back and HOPED everything would be ok?
        You have the audacity to tell anyone what they can or cannot use as a situation to serve a cause? NO YOU DON’T!
        I guess your mother did teach you something after all, and that is to be a pacifist, for that is what you are.
        We don’t need pacifists for they are worse than cowards.

      • TML

        Nick Czudy says “What about the “Well regulated militia” part? Is that saying that there should be an army or police in each state and that they should be well regulated and armed?”

        No, the Constitution enumerated the power to create an Army and Navy in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12-13, so that would be different than the militia. In fact, it doesn’t even give the Federal Government the authority to “create” a militia, but rather, to call forth the militia which by the wording, obviously already existed.

        District of Columbia v. Heller
        “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.”

        “The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because 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 infringed.”…”

        ““the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.””

        “Militia” are the individual citizens unconnected with police or military. “Well regulated” simply means well-trained and/or well-armed. It does not mean “gun regulations” as the term is commonly used today.

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

        Dear Nick Czudy,

        You write: “Is that saying that there should be an army or police in each state and that they should be well regulated and armed?” I explained the 2nd Amendment in terms that even simplest of progressive, collectivist minds could understand here: http://personalliberty.com/2012/12/27/the-2nd-amendment-is-clear-the-founders-meant-it/ If after reading this you are still unable to grasp the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, I suggest you print the article out, take it to an artist and ask him or her to draw a picture for you.

        Best wishes,
        Bob

        • Nick Czudy

          Bob. You said..”“Who are the militia?. You suggest that the people are the militia.
          A well regulated militia connotates an organization, with a leader and rules. It does not in any way apply to a bunch of people with different ideas and misinformed emotions that can act improperly.
          So I see that the 2nd is saying that we the people will organize a well regulated militia, that will represent us in the daily operation of the nation State( yes that means the every state will have their own militia). That can read as Police or national guard, or state police. Since these militias have been instigated by “we the people”, then they are “we the people” and their rights to bear arms shall not be impeded. I take it that there may be possible corruption in our forces, but there are rules for that and when brought forward, they will be dealt with. So they are our surrogates in this 2nd amendment.

          I would rather have a regulated ,militia, than many individuals with their own diverse opinions taking the law into their own hands. Look at how many of the participants in this blog have talked about using their guns and antagonizing others, that have a alternate opinion. Our nation would come to a stand still.
          The gun worshipers would like to translate this to let them all have the guns that they want. I feel that we can restrict some of the more dangerous guns to make them less accessible and therefore, they will be more difficult for the criminals to obtain. This is not an infringement of our rights to have guns. As big Joe said recently, get a bunch of shotguns. IT is not all or none. The fear monger’s in thus debate always bring up total ban on all guns and that has never been discussed. So stop using that as a defense.

          Bob I read your interpretation of the 2nd, and I do not agree with it. You have presented it to meet your agenda. It is not my agenda. You have given many quotes and that is admirable. But if individuals cannot now have bazookas, tanks, flame throwers etc, then we can easily add a few more categories to that list, that have been the cause of a lot of grief to many Americans. Do their rights count as well? You did not succeed to draw a picture in my mind. But I will never convince you, I am sure. We have had a well regulated militia for many decades now. Let’s let them do the regulating. They are also “we the people”. So are our government selected officials. They are also “We the people” So their rights to carry arms on our behalf, shall not be infringed. I would not feel free and happy in this country, if I had to worry about every person that I did not agree with to impinge on my freedom and safety, because they have a different opinion that I do and they are packing. If all law abiding gun carrier’s were moral, rational and educated, then I would not be worried. But just look at all of the hate and name calling that is occurring on this site, and a lot of it based in misconceptions and lies. I do not want to have to confront those people on a daily basis.

      • JeffH

        Nick say “To Jeff H. your description of Stalin, Hitler and Mao is a far cry from what can happen here in the USA.”

        Is it? You know this how? History says otherwise!

        Yeah, I doubt, and I never hinted, that we’d be tossed in a pit and murdered or sent to gas chambers to be murdered by the thousands…but we could be herded up en mass and sent off to government camps, controlled like slaves and stripped of our dignity and Constitutional protection.

        Are you a free man or just another sheep waiting to do what you are told to do without question. I choose to remain a free man.

        As for your questioning the 2nd Amendment and the “milia”…that’s settled law.

        “The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, … all men capable of bearing arms;…”
        — “Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic”, 1788 (either Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith).

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

        If we are ready to violate the Constitution, will the people submit to our unauthorized acts? Sir, they ought not to submit; they would deserve the chains that our measures are forging for them, if they did not resist.
        — Edward Livingston

        Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.
        — Mao Zedong, Nov. 6, 1938, Selected Works, Vol. 2

      • eddie47d

        Nadzieja says so little verbiage with no rebuttal. How about the fact we are nothing like Stalin’s regime in any form or fashion. There are those who make that claim but it simply doesn’t exist. Yet some of you are desperate in making it so by spreading unwarranted fear. This crying wolf 24/7 is what is pathetic.

      • Don 2

        The United State Militia Code:

        (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

        (b) The classes of the militia are -

        (1) The organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

        (2) The unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard of the Naval Militia.

        The National Guard did not exist in the 1700s, the term “militia” does not mean “National Guard” even today. The code clearly states that two classes comprise the militia: the National Guard and Naval Militia, and everyone else.

        Everyone else. Individuals. The people.

        The founders well understood that the militia is the people, for it was not only the right but the obligation of all citizens to protect and preserve their liberty and to defend themselves from the tyranny of the government.

        • kimo3690

          BRAVO Don2…… Concise; Factual; and to the POINT TY

        • Nick Czudy

          Don, thanks for your info.
          It is interesting to know. Does this definition still apply? If it does, don’t you think that it is time to update it? I think that there are many Americans over 17 and under 45 that will not want to grab their guns and go out and start fighting a war. We have professional military now to do that for us. They did not have this at the time of the drafting of the constitution. At the time of the drafting of the constitution that were due to the conditions and technology at that time. the good thing was that the Constitution also gave rules on how to change or update this document. If this definition is still applicable, then it is time that we update these archaic laws and bring them up to date to today’s situations.
          I acknowledge that with today’s congress, it would never be possible. But theoretically this is still possible.

          • Frank Kahn

            You totally missed the point, it is a definition of the militia, the standing army has nothing to do with it. By definition, all able bodied men from 17 to 45 years of age make up the militia and are needed to have arms ready for the defense of the free state. It does not need “updating” or changed or eliminated, it is what is required to maintain a free state. Your opinion is not prudent unless you can convince 2/3 of the entire U.S. to agree with you.

          • Nick Czudy

            Frank. A well regulated militia being all able bodied men, might not be an accepted concept. Why did we have a draft for the Vietnam war. It everyone was automatically in the militia, then there would not have been a need to have a draft. Also there is the national guard, that are distinct from other citizens. I think that concept is a little outdated now. In 1865, the whole country could well have been a well regulated militia. I would question that concept today. One hundred and seventy five years have passed. We cannot live in the past. I will acknowledge that the USA does have an extremely well regulated militia. Seals, Navy, Army, Airforce. these are extremely well regulated. There is a big distinction between them and a mere civilian.

      • Jana

        Nick,
        And yet we have an all volunteer Army and they have picked up their guns so to speak and gone to war to fight for their country. Praise God for our brave young men and women who are not afraid to make a stand.

      • AmericanGirl

        Nick, YOU are gonna need it….
        http://joeforamerica.com/win-a-free-ar-15/

        • Nick Czudy

          Hey American girl. Thanks for the kind offer. I think that there will be many other more worthy people that might want to win this. I have no use for it. I love to have target practice, but canot afford to go to a range. You go ahead and win it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/darwan.winkler.3 Deerinwater

    Well I certainly don’t like the language being used in crafting such a bill that restricts 2nd amendment rights.

    While at the same time, some idiot using a gun to kill unarmed babies and young female teachers demands a strong response.

    It’s not the gun violence that has us all so upset today, ~ It is the “unprovoked” gun violence. The killing of innocence by the class room, by the school house, by the bus load.

    If you was King for the day, ~ would you have a response to matter? ~ And if so, what would be the the nature of your response?

    ~ If I was King for a day, ~ There would be no gun ownership to a homeowner that housed a documented nut case unless special previsions have been made to secure both weapons and ammunition.

    Documented criminals, nuts, fruit cakes and weirdo’s of all caliber and persuasion “shall be” unarmed at all times. The guardians or authority responsible for such a persons maintenance and welfare shall be held liable and found in violation of said law and subject to stiff penalty.

    Penalty ranging from $5000.00 dollars in fine to impalement. So when you take on the responsibility of a documented “NUT” ~ be prepared for the job. Your life is just beginning to get complicated.

    If we want 2nd Amendment Right to stand as they presently are ~ an effort to separate weapons from criminals, fruit cakes and the demented should be made.

    Gun ownership should be made a personal responsibility, responsibility that required personal prudence and basic documentation.

    or ~ Allow gun ownership to go underground, with no rules , no responsibility and no limitations.

    In either case ~ this will solve the gun ownership question ~ while making only a small dent in solving the problem of “unprovoked” gun violence.

    American are angry over this, ~ and with anger come insanity, over reacting and bad decisions from which ever camp you might find yourself in.

    • tony newbill

      DeerinWater so how well did the Feds do with the war on Drugs over the years ???
      Did they stop the black market on those drugs getting into Our Babies and screwing up Life and Liberty of them and their families ???
      The same will be the case with the Black market on Guns and those who see this as a Opportunity to arm themselves and Steal YOURs and your families LIFE and LIBERTY !!!!!!!

      • eddie47d

        The black market on guns is alive and well in America and has been for some time. A couple hundred years. Some says it is because of too many laws and some say its because of too many incoherent laws spread throughout the land. Some say there are not enough laws. With drugs some want a free for all and personal usage no matter how it affects society. Some gun owners want that same free for all no matter how it affects society. We pay dearly for drug addiction and we pay dearly for gun violence. So whether they are legal or not there still has to be rules (control) since they both affect society as a whole.

        • tony newbill

          Eddie we do not want this kind of Control on the Guns when the Drugged up Criminals that need to steal your stuff for money to feed their drug habit come breaking into your HOME !!!!!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWucDHAphQ8

      • eddie47d

        Your always making that assumption that all guns will be taken away and everyone is left defenseless TONY. Not true so its difficult to respond to that ridiculous nonsense.

        • tony newbill

          And there you have it folks the Classic Liberal Putting the Spin on debating the Subject matter by just calling their debating partner’s opinion Ridiculous nonsense without even talking about the terms of the opinion , and if there are those out there that are not paying attention while at the same time hearing a Boat load of bias that prays off the emotionalism that Joyce Clemons talked about thats how these Liberals win the Message WAR !!!!!!

      • JeffH

        Sack of hammers says to Tony “Your always making that assumption that all guns will be taken away and everyone is left defenseless TONY. Not true so its difficult to respond to that ridiculous nonsense.”

        [personal attack has been removed]

        You’ve assumed that gun control is based on “good intentions” completely ignoring the histrorical results of gun control. You’re assuming that in America that history of gun control will not and can’t be repeated.

        [personal attack has been removed]

        It’s not about gun control, it’s all about people control and you’re haven’t the intestinal fortitude to recognize the cunning and deceitfulness of the anti-gun lobby.

      • eddie47d

        Enough of the false bravado Jeff H. There is nothing reasonable about your approach. Pro safety measures will work if they aren’t sabotaged by gun owners like yourself who insist on tearing them down. Naturally they won’t work if your goal is to make sure they never can be proven. That’s like telling a druggie they can’t have drugs but we’ll give you plenty of needles.

      • JeffH

        False bravado? LMAO at yet another ignorant statement by “eddie”.

        eddie, FYI, it’s real, dammed real…molṑn labé!

      • eddie47d

        LOL!!!!

      • Vicki

        Eddie47d writes:
        “We pay dearly for drug addiction and we pay dearly for gun violence. So whether they are legal or not there still has to be rules (control) since they both affect society as a whole.”

        We HAVE laws against misuse of drugs AND guns. We OBJECT to laws controlling and/or limiting our possession of private property obtained without force or fraud.

        ~300 MILLION Americans DIDN’T SHOOT ANYONE

        STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT for the acts of a few

        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW

    • Jana

      Deerinwater,
      You have hit the nail on the head on this one and you have some very good ideas that should be implemented.
      Sadly our government has decided to turn a blind eye to the as you call them “nut cases”. We have always had the mentally ill among us, but we have not always had these so called wonder drugs to control the mentally ill. We are now hearing about the side effects of these so called wonder drugs. They cause more harm than they do good in too many cases. However do we hear about anyone in the government taking on these issues? NO we don’t. They want to be sure and not let any good crisis go to waste. So they attack the law abiding citizens who own guns.

    • Ron The Marine

      WHERE IS YOUR ANGER OVER THE UNRESTRAINED MURDER OF OUR UNBORN? I FOR ONE AM SICK AND TIRED OF HEARING YOU LIBS WHINE AND GROWN OVER CRIMINALS KILLING DEFENSELESS CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES ON A DAILY BASIS! MURDERS HAVE BEEN WITH US SINCE CAIN KILLED HIS BROTHER ABLE! IT WILL NOT END UNTIL THE SHOUT OF THE ARCH ANGLE ANNOUNCES THE THE SECOND COMING OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST! SO STAY IN LOCK STEP WITH THAT CLUELESS IDIOT IN THE WHITE HOUSE! OUR ECONOMY IS TANKING AND AMERICANS ARE HURTING AND WHAT DOES obumer PUSH ON THE FRONT BURNER? RE-STRAINING THE GOD GIVEN CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF LAW ABIDING CITIZENS (WHICH WAS PRAYED OVER BY CHRISTIANS FOR ALONG TIME BEFORE BEING WRITTEN DOWN ON MANS PAPER)? WHO DIED AND LEFT THIS IDIOT OUR FATHER? he is a fraud and deceiver and he works for his father satan!

      Semper Fi

      • Vicki

        Ron The Marine says:
        “WHERE IS YOUR ANGER OVER THE UNRESTRAINED MURDER OF OUR UNBORN?”

        That would be a good question for Robert Smith if he is around.

    • TML

      No reason to contemplate what you would do if you were king, in a Constitutional Republic.

      Define “criminal”, “fruit cake”, “nuts”, and “weirdo”. And then explain how each of them would be documented. I’ve heard liberals claim that anyone who wants a gun is mentally ill, so it can’t be some ambiguous definition especially as it pertains to the rights of an individual.

      • Vigilant

        “Define “criminal”, “fruit cake”, “nuts”, and “weirdo”. And then explain how each of them would be documented. I’ve heard liberals claim that anyone who wants a gun is mentally ill, so it can’t be some ambiguous definition especially as it pertains to the rights of an individual.”

        TML, we all know that the GUBMENT would be making that decision. Since DHS already labels as a potential “extremist” anyone who believes in the Constitution and limited federal government, as well as all veterans, I think we can all see where this would end up.

      • APN

        Vig said:” Define “criminal”, “fruit cake”, “nuts”, and “weirdo”.

        Answer: Eddie47D

        APN (:->>>

    • kimo3690

      Deerinwater says: “While at the same time, some idiot using a gun to kill unarmed babies and young female teachers demands a strong response.” I was wondering if you saw the new “target” practice images they now have available for LE and Homeland Security training???

      As we know Obama’s question to military men/women was “Could you fire on American citizens?” Well to assist in the “Without Hesitation” training these images are: a pregnant woman with a gun; an old man with a gun; a six yr old child with a gun; a grandmother in a robe with a gun… etc.

      Quite shocking, but fits so well with the “numbin down” of individuals when the time comes…….. Do your research…. and MOLON LABE!!

      • Jana

        Sure smacks of dastardly intentions.

    • Vicki

      Deerinwater says:
      “While at the same time, some idiot using a gun to kill unarmed babies and young female teachers demands a strong response. ”

      We’d like to. But those areas are GUN-FREE Zones.

      • APN

        Exactly Vicki! Let’s put up signs all around our schools notifying the evil-doers that the SHEEP are ready and willing! Just come on in and start shoot’en! Heck, let’s just post a sign that says “SHEEP ZONE” open season, no bag limits.

        BUT, the evil-doers better be careful because I understand the “Progressive Leaders” are training our female teachers to repel an attacker either by urinating on them, throwing up on them, stabbing them with a pair of scissors or just by playing dead!!

        Logic and commonsense seems to elude the “progressive” mentality. It’s CHILDLIKE.

        APN

        • R. Fine

          Just today an armed and trained police officer got into a fight with a prisoner in a courtroom and ended up getting shot. I’m sure giving a gun to a young kindergarden teacher would really be more effective against a well armed intruder bent on shooting kids. Why not just try to keep such weapons out of the hands of fruit cakes. Is that really so terrible an idea?

      • APN

        R Fine said: Why not just try to keep such weapons out of the hands of fruit cakes. Is that really so terrible an idea?

        It depends on what fruitcake in Washington is writing the definition.

        APN

      • Jana

        R Fine,
        I would still rather die trying to defend myself than just be an open target. Of course it would be better to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and the criminals, but meanwhile, I SAID MEANWHILE wouldn’t it still be a good idea to be able to defend yourself?
        Besides, a teacher could be sitting down and as the intruder came in through the door she could shoot. She wouldn’t have to have hand to hand combat with him like I am sure happened in the case scenario you just gave.

        • R. Fine

          Hey, you could be right. I can just see it now – kindergarden teachers across the land sitting behind their desks with guns in their laps ready to blast away at the first person who comes in the door. I think you have found the solution to gun violence.

      • APN

        The solution to gun violence R Fine begins in the home with two parents responsibly raising their children by teaching them right from wrong. Stop blaming the inanimate object R-Fine and get a grasp of what the REAL problem is.

        You cannot legislate morality, it must be TAUGHT, and you are smarter that this, so get your head out of your arse.

        APN

        • Bob666

          Yo APN,

          ‘You cannot legislate morality, it must be TAUGHT, and you are smarter that this, so get your head out of your arse’.

          The problem is not how you raised your kid or how i raised my kids, they probably turned (or will turn) out OK.

          But guns and children have one thing in common and that our society id full of people that should not have guns or children and have a bunch of both!

          There in lies the problem!

        • R. Fine

          Perhaps it is you who should open his eyes to how the world really is. Not every child is raised properly by two parents who can teach right from wrong. There are plenty of very sad cases out there who are either criminal or insane. Until the perfect world you make note of exists most of the rest of us would like to prevent heavy weaponry from getting in to the hands of the nut cases. We would like your help in that endeavor.

      • Vicki

        R. Fine says:
        “Just today an armed and trained police officer got into a fight with a prisoner in a courtroom and ended up getting shot.”

        Yep. need to outlaw guns in the courtroom.

        - R. Fine: “I’m sure giving a gun to a young kindergarten teacher would really be more effective against a well armed intruder bent on shooting kids.”

        Then what was tried in Sandy Hook? Obviously. That is why we want GunFree Zones eliminated.

        - R. Fine: “Why not just try to keep such weapons out of the hands of fruit cakes. Is that really so terrible an idea?”

        Since the task is impossible yes it is a terrible idea. How about this doable idea instead. Let the people who are NOT fruitcakes carry guns (if they want to). Then if a fruitcake does get a gun and go out to cause trouble, the rest of us can deal with the fruitcake in seconds instead of waiting minutes for men with guns (the irony is not lost) to show up.

        • R. Fine

          And why not put measures in place to try and prevent fruit cakes from getting heavy weaponry? Background checks would help in that regard. But, sad to give my opinion, there are also certain types of assault weapons which simply should be be on the open market. Of course the alternative to the above – and other measures – is simply to wait a bit until the next mass murder takes place. who knows, it might even happen in your very own community – maybe even on your block or the school near where you live.

      • Vicki

        R. Fine says:
        ” I can just see it now – kindergarden teachers across the land sitting behind their desks with guns in their laps ready to blast away at the first person who comes in the door. ”

        Argument to ridicule.

        • R. Fine

          Perhaps you mssed the point which is the tenuous nature of the contention that we should arm kindergarden teachers to the exclusion of having, say, background checks on gun sales and/or the banning of certain types of heavy weaponry.

      • Vicki

        R. Fine says:
        “Perhaps it is you who should open his eyes to how the world really is”

        Have you considered taking your own sage advice?

  • ToughGuy1

    Read and understand the 2nd Amendment people! These gun control DC freaks, and Mr. Sequester, and Mr. Gaffe want to disarm America, and act like they really got a clue? “Do they??”

  • Dwight Mann

    Our arsenals of weapons should be equal to whatever the government forces might be in possession of. This is because that is whom we would have to be defending ourselves against, or of course foreign invaders.

    • eddie47d

      That is an impossibility and wishful thinking. I would trust you with a nuke like I would trust North Korea if you can comprehend.

    • JeffH

      Democide: Socialism, Tyranny, Guns and Freedom

      Democide is the elimination of a despised group by a government. It includes genocide, politicide, and other forms of state-sponsored mass murder. The hated minority headed for extermination may be defined by religious, racial, political, class, cultural or other attributes. Between 200 and 260 million people were the victims of democide in the 20th century, several times more than were killed in international wars during that period.

      The first widely studied modern democide occurred in Turkey between 1915 and 1923. Two million Christians were murdered on forced marches into deserts without water or food. This democide occurred in view of Western reporters, who took photographs and posted contemporary wire reports. The fact that the democide was known outside Turkey did not deter the Turkish leaders.

      Stalin and Hitler both noticed the lack of world reaction to the democide of Turkish Christians and planned accordingly.

      In Germany and Nazi-occupied Europe, Hitler proceeded with his own “final solution to the Jewish problem.” Stalin’s international socialists deported their “class enemies” to Siberia, where they were put to work in Gulag slave-labor camps, with years of torture through cold, malnutrition and brutal working conditions preceding the release of eventual death.

      Stalin also devised another means of democide when he ordered the forced starvation of the Ukrainians, and five million more innocent victims were added to his totals.

      In Communist China seventy million people were the victims of democide, murdered by overwork in slave-labor camps, by direct execution, and by regional forced starvation. Millions more were victims of democide in Pakistan, Cambodia, Rwanda, North Korea, and many other countries.

      Democide, as the name implies, does not happen in the dark of night without any awareness of it in the country where it occurs. The Turks knew the Christians were being mass murdered. Average Germans were fully aware of what was happening to the Jews between 1938 and 1945, and a large majority either actively supported or at least tolerated it.

      Today, we sometimes hear that the Second Amendment has outlived its usefulness, that it is a relic of our barbaric past and is no longer needed in the modern era. Horrific mass shootings by deranged individuals are cited as the primary reason for Americans to surrender their most effective firearms and rely solely on a state monopoly of force for their protection. This government-dependent attitude is shortsighted, historically ignorant, and extremely dangerous.

      In each of the cases cited above, a necessary preliminary step on the road to democide was the confiscation of privately owned firearms. In Turkey, “reasonable” gun control laws enacted in 1911 permitted the democide of two million Turkish Christians a few years later. In Germany, the “commonsense” 1928 gun control laws of the Weimar Republic preceded Hitler’s Holocaust by a decade.

      The situation is fundamentally different in America, because we have a centuries-old tradition of private firearms ownership guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The Second Amendment does not “grant” us this right; it puts into writing our God-given natural right to effective self-defense, including armed defense against tyranny.

      Can any glib politician, pundit or ivory tower academic give us an ironclad guarantee that tyranny will never arise in the United States? Not even a popular tyranny, like those of Ataturk, Stalin, Hitler or Mao? Can anyone assure us that today’s “commonsense” gun registration lists will not be used for future gun confiscation? Of course not.

      American gun owners will never permit this historical pattern to be repeated in their country, because they understand that the government’s heavy hand will be kept in check only as long as they are armed.

      Naive utopians and other “low-information voters” might not understand the historical pattern, and we don’t expect them to bother to learn it. Cynical and dishonest “progressives” who do understand the historical pattern cannot yet reveal their ultimate goal of creating a disarmed and helpless American citizenry. Nevertheless, millions of Americans understand their hidden aim with crystal clarity, seeing through the false sincerity of power-hungry leftist politicians who are actually Marxist wolves dressed in Democrat sheep’s clothing – for now.

      But unless and until these secret Stalinists and sundry other “progressives” can figure out a way to disarm Americans, they cannot execute their historically standard final solution to the “reactionaries-standing-in-the-way-of-utopia” problem. And this is a thorny problem for them, because tens of millions of Americans, disbelieving their deceitful bromides, will stick to their guns no matter what.

      Americans who support the Second Amendment will never be disarmed quietly by government edict prior to meekly boarding a train to a socialist “reeducation” camp. They will not be taken at government gunpoint on a one-way forced march into a desert or a Zyklon-B “delousing shower,” simply because they foolishly agreed to be disarmed by their future oppressors in the dubious name of “public safety.”

      If American “progressives” truly intend to disarm the American people, they will have to do it the hard way, by taking their bullets first, one at a time. As the 300 Spartans announced to the vastly larger Persian army at Thermopylae, “Molon Labe!”. You want our guns? Then come and take them!

      No registration – no confiscation – no extermination!

      Freedom now, freedom forever!
      - Matt Bracken, author of the “Enemies Foreign and Domestic” trilogy

      • Jana

        JeffH,
        I have heard it said they are just waiting for the older generation to die off. I do believe it now. These are the ones who have unregistered guns and guns no one knows anything about. This particular generation knows what freedom means, and has fought for these freedoms.
        We need to be sure and pass on our knowledge to our children as they are going to be left undefended and stupid if grandparents don’t cultivate a relationship with their children and grandchildren and teach them about the freedoms that are at stake right now.

      • kimo3690

        EXCELLENT Jeff!! I was raised to question authority; think for myself; and when reading something, don’t figure out what the author is thinking, come to MY own conclusion of what is written. THAT IS SPOT ON MY PATRIOT FRIEND!!

      • JeffH

        Jana, so true. “Pass it on”!

        Kimo, I was raised to respect my elders and respect authority…that respect wasn’t free…respect was earned. I was also raised by my parents to think…to not just take anyones word for anything. I was taught the differences between right and wrong and I’m pretty pleased that I was raised that way.

      • eddie47d

        That is hogwash Jeff H for you never…never question anything printed in these articles . You are no more than a blind sheeple looking for your next drink! When a question is asked you run fast in the opposite direction and then crow about how grand you are! I’m not saying you aren’t smart but very cleaver in not exposing too much about yourself. Avoidance of the tough questions must be a Conservative trait in obfuscating.

      • JeffH

        Sure eddie(LMAO :))whatever you say(with your credibility hovering just under zero), whatever you say. :)

      • eddie47d

        You’re the one who needs to work on credibility Jeff H. Was that more duck and cover for you? I was 100% spot on!

      • APN

        Eddie said: “You are no more than a blind sheeple looking for your next drink!”

        Eddie, have your ever considered mental therapy, as in shock treatments, etc?

        JeffH…EXCELLENT POST!!

        APN

    • Ron The Marine

      Thank you JefH for your post, it may wake up a few of the of the BHO “do-gooders”! be warned do-gooders!

      “When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but
      because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot
      be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because
      it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who
      would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would
      do so by force. It removes force from the equation… and that’s why
      carrying a gun is a civilized act.”
      By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

      Semper Fi and may GOD continue to bless America in spite of the enemies within!

      • JeffH

        Ron The Marine, I agree 100% with what you just stated…kudos and thank you for your service and you American patrotism.

      • eddie47d

        There are many “enemies within” and if what Jeff H said is true then most of the radical militia type groups advocating for violence should be at the top of your list. Some are outright treasonous and swinging from the right.

      • Don 2

        The only treason is in the WH.

      • Jana

        Don2,
        It appears that Eddie has become a monkey too as he is swinging right up there with them.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “There are many “enemies within” and if what Jeff H said is true then most of the radical militia type groups advocating for violence should be at the top of your list.

        These groups right? http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/25/farrakhan-urges-black-americans-to-collectively-purchase-land-and-wants-to-recruit-gang-members-to-protect-it/

      • Vicki

        I noticed that MSN conveniently left out the important part ending with just
        “In his speech Sunday, Farrakhan only addressed violence in terms of guns, saying illegal weapons are the problem.

        “The Second Amendment has no relevance to the black community in this sense,” he said. “All your weapons are illegal and you’re using them like a savage people.””

        http://news.msn.com/politics/farrakhan-touts-economic-action-plan-in-chicago-speech

      • Don 2

        Jana,

        Yeah, I think eddie’s really lost it here. Too much pressure? I can understand why he doesn’t want a gun. Maybe he thinks everyone else is as flaky as he is?

      • JeffH

        Don 2, one can only guess whether eddie owns or would own a gun.

        Here are a few reasons why he may not or should not own one…for his own self preservation and those around him.
        1. he’s not allowed to own a gun(mental issues?)
        2. under his current state of mental duress he’s afraid that it might turn on him and go off
        3. he trusts the likes of Bloomberg, Feinstein, Schumer, Obama, Brady, Morgan and the words of other anti-gun progressive nut cases

  • S.C.Murf

    What is a assault weapon you ask? It is a highly trained Marine, Navy Seal, Screaming Eagle with a knife

    up the hill
    airborne

    • Jana

      Exactly!
      Very good point.

    • JeffH

      :) Works for me! :)

  • USN retired

    Thank God the founders didn’t think like the liberals of today think. The founder, a group of very intuitive men, didn’t look at the future to figure out what men’s intentions were concerning the future of this country. They took a look at the history of men and the morality of humans. Greed and control is the inevitable fate of any country that let “THE’ few determines a countries future. The process of a three branches of government that would not allow any one faction to become the dominating figure. Unfortunately the stupidity of man, lazy to say the least, the congress has capitulated its constitutional responsibilities’ to the executive branch. A quick decision made of ulterior motives “does not a good decision make”. This supposedly allowing the president to make quicker decisions. Well, that he does with the stroke of his pin to bypass congress and the constitution at will. Congress making the same mistake as other fools have made in the past. History demonstrated by every tyrant that has completely existed overlooked, except by our founders. Uncontrolled benevolence ends up as uncontrolled tyranny. Rome, Alexander, Ginkgos Khan, King George, Linen. Hitler, JFK, LBJ and now Obama all gave a little to get a lot, TOTAL CONTROL. History and moral standards have been the salvation of man since the recording of history. Generals use history to conquer so do tyrants. The common use of the flintlock saved this country, the common ownership of a modern weapon will keep it safe and free. Where there is a weapon in the house is the place criminals don’t venture more than once. The town guarded by itself is safe from intruders, thus the constitution is written to include a well armed militia, THE PEOPLE. A tyrants worst enemy.

    • eddie47d

      Oh yes those pesky Liberals! One thing for sure our Founding Fathers were grand indeed but didn’t always practice what they preached. Liberals in charge would have abolished slavery on the spot instead of hemming ad hawing for decades like our Founding Fathers did! Equality and voting rights would have been afforded women if Liberals were in charge. Liberals would have had a stronger moral backbone in allowing Indians to survive instead of sitting ducks for territory exploiters. As far as guns in the home these days they are a criminals paradise. That is the first thing they look for when you are gone. More easy pickings!

      • Chester

        Eddie, they may have been liberals, but they were NOT stupid, In fact, if you do a bit of investigating, afraid you will find a good number of the founding fathers to have been slave owners themselves. As such, they could see the immediate consequences of eliminating slavery, the biggest one being the immediate fracturing of the “United States of America’ that was only just beginning to get itself together. What do you think would happen now if you told all the farmers they had to give up their tractors as property, then hire them back at a living wage and provide proper living quarters and sustenance? How about the factory owners who would be told they could no longer enslave their machinery, but must provide for it the same as they do the human employees? In that time and place, slavery was what kept the plantations(large corporate farms) going, and even kept more than a few factories running. Slavery ended in England before it did here, and even there it caused quite an uproar before all was said and done.

      • http://aol CommonSense4America

        OMG!! Are you telling me that criminals don’t go to gun stores and fill out their paperwork for the NICs check? We need a law that makes it manditory for a complete background check. BTW,,,did you notice the sarcasm??

      • Vigilant

        Eddie, I’m afraid there’s more wrong with your posting than is right.

        “Oh yes those pesky Liberals! One thing for sure our Founding Fathers were grand indeed but didn’t always practice what they preached. Liberals in charge would have abolished slavery on the spot instead of hemming ad hawing for decades like our Founding Fathers did!”

        One of the sources of egregious misunderstanding today springs from the fact that the classical liberalism of the Founders is now represented by the Constitutionalists and Libertarians of today.

        Not only were the Founders liberals, they were downright radical revolutionaries. At the outset of the Revolution, 1/3 of the people were conservative traditionalists (Loyalists), 1/3 were liberal revolutionaries, and 1/3 didn’t give a damn one way or the other.

        The patriots understood their philosophy to be a radical departure from a world of monarchy, theocracy and Empire. They fought and won a war that allowed them to establish the most (classically liberal) nation in the world’s history.

        The clichéd put-down of the Founders as hypocrites is a bitter condemnation based on a number of misconceptions. It has its roots in a screwy idea that it’s perfectly OK to apply today’s moral standards to a civilization that existed over 200 years ago. It also seems to rest on an idealistic foundation that the Founders had no right to give us a form of government that wasn’t absolutely perfect in all respects. Both of these ideas are hooey.

        Today’s liberals, in their lack of knowledge about history (and their determination to ignore it) fail to admit that this brand new, radical idea of individual sovereignty (under Natural Law) had never before been applied to the task of creating a government. Moreover, they fail to recognize that the mechanism of government was crafted to open the door to amendments (Article V) which foreseeably would make the the law of the land more fair and equitable in view of society’s growing enlightenment (and yes, liberalism).

        It is therefore not relevant that emancipation and women’s rights, for example, were not regarded as important issues in their day. What is important, and which is a great failure of understanding by today’s liberals, is that those ills were remedied by application of the principles in the Declaration of Independence precisely BECAUSE the Founders wisely gave us the ability to change the Constitution via enlightened amendment.

        Lastly, the liberals today stand for almost everything the Founders despised. The Constitution was written to LIMIT the role of government, not expand it. To be sure, that’s the reason it was written.

        Modern liberals long ago ceased to be classical liberals and became statists.

      • Jana

        Vigilant,
        That was a great post. You said it very well too when you said that the Liberals that wrote our Constitution are not the same type of Liberals as today. Today’s Liberals are Socialists which is a step away from Communism. These Liberals of today are being led around by the nose by Communists and are so proud of it. They just don’t realize how gullible and stupid (yes Eddie stupid) they actually are.

      • JeffH

        Vigilant, kudos once more. Of course, you realize you can’t rationalize with a sack of hammers or a rock but, other than that, very well said.

      • RedMann

        Eddie47d, I really admire your gumption to keep arguing with these people. Of course it will have no effect on most of them, they don’t believe in facts and reason, just what they get from Faux Nuz and Limpbaugh; hysterical lies and distortions. It can help any undecided people who may wander in here to hear a voice of reason in this fever swamp of knee-jerk rightwingers, soaked in ODS.

      • Vigilant

        Jana and JeffH, thank you very much.

        As you prophetically said, Jeff, “you can’t rationalize with a sack of hammers or a rock.”

        And it was prophetic in that ReddMann immediately followed up with a comment that proves your point.

      • eddie47d

        That was a very good post Vigilant and thanks for all the Liberal atta boys. Exactly! Even if some of it was a backhanded compliment. I loved when you said that “the moral standards of today can’t apply to what happened 200 years ago” That is what the Liberals have been saying on a daily basis to you Conservatives. Yet you still yearn for the good ‘ol days which weren’t always so good. Except for the few privileged Americans.

      • eddie47d

        Jeff H [personal attack has been removed]. Jana [personal attack has been removed]

      • Jana

        Vigilant,
        LOL Oh so true.

      • Vigilant

        I think it might be time to change the old saw to read, “you can lead a liberal to water, but you can’t (to be lamented) push him in.”

      • Jana

        Eddie47,
        Don’t know what you said, as it was deleted already, but if you can’t talk without being a garbage mouth, its best to keep your mouth shut. Oh yeah right, it’s your computers fault not yours. You aren’t responsible for what comes out of it. Yeah, right.

      • Vicki

        RedMann says:
        “Eddie47d, I really admire your gumption to keep arguing with these people. Of course it will have no effect on most of them, they don’t believe in facts and reason, just what they get from Faux Nuz and Limpbaugh; hysterical lies and distortions.”

        Here is a fact followed by reason AND a dash of emotion for liberals. The facts are EASY to verify. US Population. FBI Crime statistics.

        ~300 Million Americans DIDN’T Shoot anyone yet gun grabbers insist that they be punished for the acts of a few.

        STOP PUNISHING the INNOCENT for the acts of a VERY few.

        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW

      • Vigilant

        Eddie, I’m truly sorry that you didn’t understand my comments. Please, and I ask you without rancor or sarcasm, please read them again.

      • Waco

        RedMann, Vigilant wrote a clear and reasonable response to eddies assertion of that “Liberals in charge would have abolished slavery on the spot instead of hemming ad hawing for decades like our Founding Fathers did!”.

        The continued trend I see on both Libertarian and Liberal sites are threads where Libertarians extend the argument in response to assertions and claims of this that or the other, while liberals always seem to respond with name calling with no real contribution to the argument. Yes there are Conservatives/Libertarians that are just as guilty, but it seems people like you, more times than not, are the ones that have a problem with believing “facts and reason”. Eddies assertion seems to be thoroughly debunked by Vigilant (pending investigation off course), especially considering eddies was an assertion of what could have happen if Liberal where there compared to Vigilant (seemingly accurate) account of the political groups of the day. Vigalant’s comment gave me something to think about, something to confirm or debunk, something to make me see a new fold so that I can see more folds. I would like to see both sides takes on a subject until all tangents, theories, and thoughts are completly exhausted. But I can’t because you want to say we can understand reason instead of coming up with a great counter to Vigilants response to Eddies assertion. Can you understand that, I am truly and Independent and need more information, not name calling.

        Vigilant, I loved the part you wrote about “today’s moral standards” vs. the one “200 years ago” and how the “Founders had no right to give us a form of government that wasn’t absolutely perfect in all respects” and how much crap that is. I have seen this argument a lot lately, where Socialist/Liberal think the constitution is garbage simply because our founding fathers owned slaves. That’s like saying screw math because the Greeks owned slaves. And how an individual cannot see the greatness of our founding document is beyond me. I also love your point on how the “those ills were remedied by application of the principles in the Declaration of Independence” and that “The patriots understood their philosophy to be a radical departure from a world of monarchy, theocracy and Empire. They fought and won a war that allowed them to establish the most (classically liberal) nation in the world’s history”. Those statements explain very clearly the fact that “Rome wasn’t built in a Day” and that at our beginning we where the most liberal and free country in the world to date. An accomplishment only an arrogant individual could toss aside and ridicule.

      • eddie47d

        No potty mouth (cuss words ) Jana. Assume what you want darling!

      • Average Joe

        Vigilant says:

        February 26, 2013 at 3:19 pm

        I think it might be time to change the old saw to read, “you can lead a liberal to water, but you can’t (to be lamented) push him in.”

        Actually, you can push them in…unfortunately… (to be lamented) you can’t hold them under…. ;)

        AJ

      • Frank Kahn

        AHEMM, eddie, eddie, eddie, it would appear that you are now, both a time traveler and a mind reader.

        First, lets set the record straight on the word LIBERAL. By the dictionary definition I am a Liberal, caring, compassionate, thoughtful, believe in progress and think every persons liberties and freedoms as tantamount. The current political use of the term Liberal has nothing to do with those qualities, they believe in big oppressive government, controlled freedoms, limited liberty and massive regulations. Now, considering the differences in the two sets of traits, you might be close to the truth on some of the issues, if they were my type of liberal.

        Here be what ya said:

        “Liberals in charge would have abolished slavery on the spot instead of hemming ad hawing for decades like our Founding Fathers did!”

        Considering the socioeconomic impact of such a move, combined with the fact that slavery was not only legal, but normal for those times, I doubt that any large group of people would have pushed such a radical idea forward. Change is seldom instantaneous, it takes a long time for such changes to really take effect.

        “Equality and voting rights would have been afforded women if Liberals were in charge.”

        Two different issues here.

        When you say “EQUALITY FOR WOMEN”, what does that mean? Life was EQUALLY difficult for both men and women. Women worked as hard as their men in providing and caring for the family. Women were cherished and protected as a very valuable asset to the community.

        Voting rights for women, do you mean individual rights? At that time, not only were women not given INDIVIDUAL VOTING RIGHTS, many men were left out. Only those men who owned land were allowed to vote, because they had a physical stake in the nations land. And who is to say that the women of that time did not have influence over the outcome of elections.

        “Liberals would have had a stronger moral backbone in allowing Indians to survive instead of sitting ducks for territory exploiters.”

        Hmm, another societal ethics dilemma. We were not there, so it is difficult to analyze the mindset or provide statistics as to the ideas of the majority of the nations populace. I am sure that there were many citizens who felt a desire to be more civilized with the indians. It is possible that the majority of animosity towards them was in the minds of the government and / or military. Right or wrong, it is human nature to oppress the people of a conquered area. Even true liberals might consider the members of their community superior to those of another. Much of the problems in that era has something to do with land ownership. We (European descendants) consider land to be sacrosanct. We own it as an individual and you must get our permission to transgress on it. The Indian nations considered land to be owned by the people (group). To us, if nobody owned a piece of land, we could settle it and claim it as our own. We failed to recognize the Indian Nations as a sovereign entity. And, on the idea of a stronger moral backbone, seems a little hypocritical to champion the idea that they would have been morally superior simply by taking the side of the natives against the majority of the settlers.

        “As far as guns in the home these days they are a criminals paradise. That is the first thing they look for when you are gone. More easy pickings!”

        Now, eddie, why did you suddenly slip from over 200 years ago to a diatribe on modern gun ownership? Are you going to start claiming, again, that it is our fault that criminals have guns?

      • JeffH

        AJ, :)

      • Vigilant

        Waco, I highly appreciate the kind words. Your thirst for knowledge is admirable, and I think it makes you wise beyond your years (whatever they are).

        Something I meant to comment on, but had no time, was a statement that eddie made, a statement to which you alluded: “Liberals in charge would have abolished slavery on the spot instead of hemming ad hawing for decades like our Founding Fathers did!”

        It may not have occurred to eddie that the only possible way “liberals in charge” could have affected a change to slavery would be via a repressive government, something they didn’t have and with luck, never will.

        Slavery, of course, was the greatest unfinished business of the Founders, and it was a miracle that the tragedy of civil war was averted as long as it was. But it is also an undeniable fact that, had not the northern reps to the convention accepted some compromise on slavery, we would not have had a union of 13 states.

        Evidences of the middle ground settled upon are in the Constitution itself. I speak of the 3/5 Compromise, the failure to use the word “slavery” or “slave” in that document, and the section which deals with the return of runaway slaves (“persons held to service or labour” – a provision that formed he basis for the Fugitive Slave Law). Not to mention the prohibition of the slave trade after 1808.

        George Washington’s letter of transmittal of the Constitution eloquently reveals the necessity of compromises reached:

        “In all our deliberations on this subject, we kept steadily in our view that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety–perhaps our national existence. This important consideration, seriously and deeply impressed on our minds, led each State in the Convention to be less rigid on points of inferior magnitude than might have been otherwise expected; and thus, the Constitution which we now present is the result of a spirit of amity, and of that mutual deference and concession, which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable.”

      • Vigilant

        Average Joe, I’m still smiling over your comment. Good one!

    • http://patrioticvets.com/america/ jb

      I think we have the wrong name for liberal, should be non-American

      • RedMann

        Hey jb, shove it where the sun don’t shine. Liberals love this country and the people in it a lot more than you do. We’re the ones who have advance all the is good and helpful throught our history. People like you have done evertything you can to stop and progress and improvement to our health andwelfare. BTW, I served in the Navy for 24 years and am in my 60′s.

      • Jana

        RedMann,
        That actually means nothing. There are a lot of cowards and whiners in the military. Liberals are generally the biggest cowards and turncoats. Example Kerry.

      • eddie47d

        That is where Conservatives are flawed . If they serve they are honorable if a Liberal serves they are cowards. If Conservatives don’t like foreign intervention they pat themselves on the back and say how righteous they are. If a Liberal says a war is wrong like Kerry did he is labeled as a traitor and the war machine marches on with their blessings. Every one of these Conservatives is a hypocrite!. Certainly not a true Libertarian,.

      • Jana

        NO Eddie,
        Only when a Liberal lies (which seems to be a lot) and which Kerry did.

      • eddie47d

        What did he say that was a lie Jana? That atrocities occurred? They did! That the war was a mistakes? Which it was! Has nothing to do with honor of those who served but facts about right and wrong in our involvement. Please explain yourself!

    • Charlie

      Praise King Jesus for Salvation and Healing… Acts 2:38 is salvation…

    • APN

      Eddie said: Liberals in charge would have abolished slavery on the spot instead of hemming ad hawing for decades like our Founding Fathers did!

      Eddie, the fact is, a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him .

      Given that, I would suggest that American has a larger population of SLAVES now than in the days of our Founders. I witness slavery in this country on a daily basis, whether it be drug addiction, welfare addiction, addiction to sex or violence, money, power, greed, etc.

      Your mindset is mutually exclusive to the term “Liberal” because you are consumed by your envy of the fruits of your fellow man. i.e; Coveting

      Yes Eddie, you are one of MILLIONS of SLAVES in America that define themselves as “Progressive” but you seem to lack the basic intelligence to understand that you are a slave to your perverse ideology.

      Your ideology has nothing to do with Liberty or FREEDOM but has everything to do with enslaving your fellow man.

      And no Eddie, using your redefinition of a liberal, the SLAVES of our founders would have never been FREE.

      APN

      • kimo3690

        BRAVO!!! Well said AGAIN!!! TY

      • eddie47d

        Nice opinion yet you seem to be a slave to your thoughts too. What a revelation!

    • Tltwtnts

      Having served in the navy 1968-1970 I can assure anyone that reads this post that usn retired is a brain washed moron that cannot tie his own shoes unless someone of a higher rank tells him to do the deed. He was incapable of making any decision without a book or higher authority telling him what to do and when to do it that is why he retired from the navy he was to stupid too think for himself he could drift thru life without ever looking out for his own or his family’s well being. He could leave it to someone else.

  • John

    Here in the beautiful hills and mountains of Southwest Virginia an interesting phenomena occurs and both Democrats and Republicans are involved. The Sheriff’s Dept., the prosecutors, and the judges work together to put criminals who use guns behind bars to the full extent of the law. Those criminals are not committing crimes (obviously), potential criminals largely are afraid to use guns in commission of a crime, and gun violence is low. Assisting is a long tradition of gun ownership and preparedness among citizens – this is not a good place to go to someone’s home at night and break in. Unless and until Chicago and cities like enforce the laws against criminals they will remain killing fields. As long as we continue our traditions here we will not see the carnage.

    We like guns, we hunt, we shoot for sport and we realize that none of that is the point of the second Amendment. I am neither afraid nor uncomfortable in the presence of guns and gun owners for good reason. History shows me I am safer. I wish Chicago politicians would leave me alone and fix their own problems. Mayor Juliana (and a few others) proved it works in cities.

    • http://wildeyguns.com The Christian American

      You must understand, there is method to their madness. It goes like this:
      Thesis, A society living in a degree of tranquility
      Anti-thesis, A society in a state of political turmoil
      Synthesis, the resulting society after the turmoil stops

      We are in manufactured anti-thesis. Naturally the people turn to government to stop it. In this case the government started it so that it could bring the conclusion that it wants, Communism in my opinion.

      • RedMann

        Once again, TCA, your profound reasoning is flawless.

      • Charlie

        Hegelian principle of education…Created by G. W. Hegel , a German… Created about 1600… What’s new ???

  • Karolyn

    Has anybody heard about the church in NC that is offering a gun to any man who will join?

    • Vicki

      Hey. What about us? Men are nice and all that but like a cop they are too heavy to carry around.

      • APN

        Great response Vicki!!!

        (:->>>>>

        APN

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

    Who’s Killed more Innocent People? Crazed, hate filled nuts with guns? or Liberal “Doctors” performing Abortions?

    For the last TEN YEARS the murder toll using a semi-automatic rifle was: 321…for an entire DECADE!

    Today Liberal Abortionists will murder: 3,300-4,000 of the most innocent of innocent- BABIES!

    Now let’s take a real look at Obama’s, Rahm Emanuel’s, and Al Capone’s city…Chicago…

    Chicago has some of the strictest Anti-2nd Amendment laws in the nation…how has that worked for them? Let’s see:

    More Murders in Chicago in 2012 Than Allied Losses in Afghanistan

    Body count: In the last six months 292 killed (murdered) in Chicago.

    (221 killed in Iraq) AND Chicago has one of the strictest gun laws in the entire US.

    President:–Barack Hussein Obama

    Senator: Dick Durbin

    House Representative: Jesse Jackson Jr.

    Governor: Pat Quinn

    House leader: Mike Madigan

    Atty. Gen.: Lisa Madigan (daughter of Mike)

    Mayor: Rahm Emanuel

    The leadership in Illinois – all Democrats.

    Can’t blame Republicans; there aren’t any!

    Chicago school system rated one of the worst in the country.

    State pension fund $78 Billion in debt, worst in country.

    Cook County ( Chicago ) sales tax 10.25% highest in country.

    And this culture is gonna ‘fix’ Washington politics for us???

    What City is Chicago? – Patriot Action Network

    Consider this-
    Most Violent States?

    MISSISSIPPI
    SOUTH CAROLINA
    ARKANSAS
    TEXAS
    MISSOURI
    ARIZONA
    FLORIDA
    NEVADA
    TENNESSEE
    LOUISIANA

    Notice all each of these States is either a border state or a Blue/Dem state, or BOTH.

    This is to show that where ever Liberalism holds sway there IS death, rape and ruin!

    • Vigilant

      (A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.

      (B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are

      120,000.

      (C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171

      Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of

      Health and Human Services.

      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

      Now think about this:

      Guns

      (A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.

      (Yes, that’s 80 million)

      (B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.

      (C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .0000188

      Statistics courtesy of FBI

      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

      So, statistically, doctors are approximately

      9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

      Remember, ‘Guns don’t kill people, doctors do.’
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

      FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT

      Almost everyone has at least one doctor.

      This means you are over 9,000 times more likely to be killed by a doctor as by a gun owner!!!

      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

      Please alert your friends to this alarming threat.

      We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!!!!!

      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

      Out of concern for the public at large, We withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention!

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

        Hmm, sobering perspective, Vigilant!

        Btw, why do liberals love abortions but hate guns?

        Because liberals can’t perform abortions using guns!

      • alpha-lemming

        Very good….. I’ve got my own little study here to try and get to the root of all this violence and have included some demographics, economics, environment, ethnicity,…. as many variables as possible looking for correlations. I looked at 2 random cities and found the following…..

        Chicago IL Houston TX

        Population 2.7 million 2.15 million

        Median HH income $38.6K $37K

        %Afr/Americans 32.9% 26%

        %Asian/Americans 5.5% 6%

        %non-hispan. whites 31.7% 26%

        Measures up pretty well with reasonable parity and similarities. Now let’s consider some other factors…..

        Concealed carry
        Law No Yes

        # Gun Stores 0 ~1500 (WalMart etal)

        2012 Homicides 506 207

        2012 homicide rate
        /100K pop. 18.4 9.6

        Median January
        Hi-Temperature 31 63

        Alas…. the evidence is leading to an unavoidable conclusion

        COLD WEATHER CAUSES MURDER !!!!!

    • Karolyn

      I beg to differ, Jay. Most of those states are red states
      http://www.ask.com/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states?o=3986&qsrc=999

  • Shane

    The people against gun rights are not anti gun at all, they just want the deadliest gang in history of man called government to have guns and take them away from law abiding citizens through force and coercion for the sole purpose of controlling them

  • SH

    The liberals are not anti gun at all, what they really advocate is that the deadliest gang in human history called government have guns and take them away from law abiding citizens so they can control the unarmed citizens through force and coercion

    • http://wildeyguns.com The Christian American

      You shouldn’t call them “Liberals”. These people are beyond that. They are socialist better named Fascist AKA Hitler or Communist AKA Lenin and Stalin, Given the opportunity they would be just as evil and bad. The only thing standing in their way is the people having the ability to defend themselves from their tyrannical actions. Liberals use to be God fearing Americans, until the socialist stole the name. They are amoral, functioning outside of morality. Snakes usually lay and wait fro their prey instead of taking the offense. That’s them, snakes of the most deadly kind.

      • Rusty

        I get the feeling, based off your comments that you do not know the difference between fascism and communism. You conflate the two, and they are quite different, although they lead to the same results.

        Liberals tend to be more on the socialist side of things, conservatives tend to be more on the fascist side.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Rusty, you can have all the feelings you can muster in your lifetime. Since feelings are changeable we won’t put any trust in your definitions.

      • tony newbill

        Christian American alot of these Liberals have become Marxists because they want to see a Reduction in Population and a ZERO growth Policy to Save Their earth from Human Destruction , case in Point …. Obamacare !!!!!!

        OBAMACARE IS A KILLING MACHINE AND MILLIONS WILL DIE

        http://www.newswithviews.com/Roth/laurie364.htm

      • tony newbill

        Rusty Fascism is just a stagnate time period of a democracy on the way to Communism

      • RedMann

        The Christian Maerican, you lake of education is showing. Liberal’s have nothing to do with Fascism or Communism, those are words that the Right Wing Noise Machine uses to frighten the simple people who listen to them. There has always been an element of socialism in this country – it has given us safe working conditions, child labor laws, laws to protect our food, water and air, a safe transportation system, what little good health care we get, and, despite Mr. Crystal disparagement, a good education system, Of course the right opposed all of this every step of the way.

      • Vicki

        Rusty says:
        “Liberals tend to be more on the socialist side of things, conservatives tend to be more on the fascist side.”

        Not even the right paradigm. The paradigm that counts is

        100% vs limited vs 0% government. socialist, facist, communist all the same when observed in this paradigm.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4r0VUybeXY

      • Jana

        Rusty,
        fas·cism (fshzm)
        n.
        1. often Fascism
        a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
        b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

        That sounds like you Liberals and your hero Obama. By the way, the Liberals of today are a perversion of the true liberals.

        • Nick Czudy

          jana. IF you think that how Obama has been acting to restrict the rights of the opposition, then what do you think of Gov. (Ultrasound) McDonald in Virginia and the Gov. of Michigan that have taken over the state government, contra to the wishes of the people, to enact laws in a Fascist manner? I have seen more evidence of Republican states acting in a fascist way that I have with Obama.

      • Jana

        Nick C,
        I don’t live in either one of those states and don’t really know what is going on, but I am sure there are a lot of Republicans in those states that don’t feel that way.

        • Nick Czudy

          Jana,
          I agree that you are correct that there will be a lot of republicans that agree with them.

          In both of those states, Virginia and Michigan, there were large protests and actually a vote in Michigan to overturn certain laws, (The city management law in MI.) the vote won in Michigan and without notice the governor re-enacted that law against the majority of voters wishes.
          This certainly borders on dictatorship.
          Also a number of states are enacting state laws that make it impossible for abortion clinics to operate, even though Roe is the law of the land. Should states be allowed to thwart federal laws?
          A similar situation occurred with all Americans have the right to vote, yet many GOP led states tried to enact laws to restrict many people from voting.(especially if they were likely to vote democrat.) there is a federal law that gives all Americans the right to vote.
          Yet the idea of having to register and have an ID that you are allowed to, and found capable, in operating a gun is a infringement of a gun owners rights.
          You need ID to vote but it is an infringement of rights to have to register, to own a gun or to drive a car. Where is the consistancy?

      • Jana

        Nick,
        I am sorry, but I still don’t know enough about it to comment. I do know here in Texas we have defunded Planned Parenthood. Not so they cannot have abortions, but that taxpayer dollars don’t pay for them.
        That may be similar to what is going on there.

        In another post you asked how we can know the mind of God.
        For one thing it is by studying the Word of God, the Bible. When you study the Bible and use the tools such as a good concordance and Bible dictionary, you can go back to the original Hebrew for Old Testament and Greek for New Testament and even Aramaic translations and get the full and deeper meanings.
        I have been studying the Bible now for almost 20 years for about an hour a day (one of the joys of my life). I started doing this to find out why God did certain things that didn’t seem fair. I found out that what He did was very fair, and what He did was to protect His children. The Old Testament bears witness to the New Testament even to the words Jesus says on the cross.
        Some of The Old Testament prophets are like reading today’s and tomorrows newspapers. God protects His Word through the Massahratic texts to keep them true.
        I am sorry you have become disillusioned.

        • Nick Czudy

          Hi Jana.

          What was happening in Mississippi and North Dakota was that the GOP governor and majority houses attemptted to circumvent Roe vs Wade, by making a bylaw that any doctor had to be a registered as a OBGN and had to have admitting privileges in a local hospital. The first was no problem, but the later was nearly impossible, and they more or less encouraged the hospitals to not even consider applications for admitting privileges. Thus they were in essence shutting down the only women’s clinic in each of those states that served the needs of women.
          Now regardless of your religious beliefs, this took, away clean and safe medical services for women in those two states. In Mississippi, there was an election on the matter of abortion and it won with a majority to keep the services. The Governors went against the wishes of the people to get their own politics in place. This is now spreading to more states. This is indicative of the GOP governors are making their own political moves against the wishes and the campaign promises they made when they were elected. that is not very nice. Haha. warm regards. nick Cz

  • Jim B

    Does our so called leader walk around without armed protection…. NO! Are they armed to protect themselves against law abiding citizens… NO! So why would they want to take that right away from us, the law abiding citizen, we just want what they want and are allowed to have. God gave us all brains, time we start using them!

    • eddie47d

      Repeating the same words doesn’t make you any smarter Jim and makes you rather desperate.

      • http://aol CommonSense4America

        Why should our elites have better protection than “We the people”? Are they BETTER than us? I say no! They don’t want us to have a magizine that holds more than 10 rounds. They want us to only be able to fire one shot with each pull of the trigger, yet the President has an SUV that follows him in a motorcade that has a minigun that fires 6,000 rounds per minute. He doesn’t NEED that. Let’s ban that weapon for him.

      • speedle

        Eddie, it sounds to me like you are the one who is “desperate”. You don’t seem to have any legitimate rebuttal to what Crystal has written. You have to settle for trying to define the political position of plantation owners, a non sequitur.

      • eddie47d

        UnCommon Sense; Are you threatened on a daily basis like all our Presidents have been. Not everyone wants chaos in America like you want in an assassination plot.

      • eddie47d

        Contraire Speedle; 64% of those who kill in America LEGALLY obtained their weapons. That means there are huge cracks in who is allowed to purchase a weapon. Most gun deaths occur in ones home and by someone living in that home so hardly non-sequitur! The percentage is 56% within the home. States that have stronger background checks have a 38% LOWER rate of women being killed. So those who advocate for less background checks are killing our women in allowing angry husbands or kids to possess weapons.( I’m sure it works the other way to too in keeping men alive).

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Contraire Speedle; 64% of those who kill in America LEGALLY obtained their weapons. ”

        Irrelevant. Lets take the most recent number of 11,000 people killed and assume one killer each. That means that less then 0.004% of the population shot and killed.

        ~300 MILLION Americans didn’t KILL ANYONE

        STOP Punishing the INNOCENT for the acts of the (VERY VERY) few (>0.004%)

        Stop it
        Stop it NOW

      • APN

        Great rebuttal Vicki but don’t expect Eddie to understand it. Eddie perceives his liberal views as superior to GOD’s laws, just like most liberals do. Since he don’t trust himself with an assault weapon, whatever the heck that is, well, you and I shouldn’t own one either.

        If congress passes a LAW that forbids WE CITIZENS to own one, well, that applies to them as well, including the Military.

        The second amendment applies to ALL, equally.

        APN

      • Average Joe

        Ladies and gentlemen, eddie is quite simply a Hoplophobe and no amount of facts, figures or evidence to the contrary of his fear…are going to change his views on the subject of guns.
        Acknowledge this fact, allow him to ramble on and move along without comment to his irrational fear of inanimate objects…(rather than the people behind those objects).
        For hoplophobes…the gun is evil…and the people wouldn’t be evil…if the guns didn’t exist…casting aside all logic and rationallity.

        AJ

        • kimo3690

          TOTALLY AGREE!!! Why waste time?! I so enjoy other MORE informative and intelligent POSTS, I have “mentally blocked” anything eddie says!!

      • eddie47d

        Are you giving God a high five APN in authorizing those gun deaths? You are crazier than a loon if you think I’m above God or even to proclaim such a thing! There simply is no reason for most of those deaths so how about getting those figures closes to zero!

      • JON

        Here we go again with Vicki repeating herself over and over and over again with the following ignorant and irrelevant statement….

        ***~300 MILLION Americans didn’t KILL ANYONE
        STOP Punishing the INNOCENT for the acts of the (VERY VERY) few (>0.004%)
        Stop it
        Stop it NOW***

        Saying that has really nothing to do with the issue of gun violence or control. No one is being punished for anything.

        It will be a great day when the issue regarding gun laws is addressed from and logical stand point and not an emotional one. Common sense goes right out the window when emotions get involved.

      • speedle

        Eddie, your facts and statistics are both wrong and insignificant, and I don’t have the time to individually break down your foolishness other than to say you are either getting these percentages and numbers from a fallacious source or simply making them up. I guarantee you the claim that 64% of those who killed had legal possession of firearms is not only wrong, it isn’t even in the ballpark.

      • Vicki

        speedle says:
        “Eddie, your facts and statistics are both wrong and insignificant, and I don’t have the time to individually break down your foolishness….”

        You don’t need to. Just point out that

        ~300 MILLION AMERICANS DID NOT SHOOT ANYONE.

        STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT for the acts of a few.

        They have no possible statistic that can overcome the above simple truth. One that is trivial to prove. US Population. FBI Crime Statistics.

      • Vicki

        JON says:
        “Here we go again with Vicki repeating herself over and over and over again with the following ignorant and irrelevant statement….

        ***~300 MILLION Americans didn’t KILL ANYONE
        STOP Punishing the INNOCENT for the acts of the (VERY VERY) few (>0.004%)
        Stop it
        Stop it NOW***”

        Why thank you JON for spreading the word (Though I said SHOOT not kill). Now since the statement is based on a simple and easily verifiable statistic it is hardly ignorant. And since the subject is guns (and I said shoot not kill so i even included non-murder shootings) it is QUITE relevant.

        - JON: “Saying that has really nothing to do with the issue of gun violence or control. No one is being punished for anything.”

        Of course they are. All the gun-control laws that try and control the possession and carrying of arms punish law abiding citizens (criminals don’t care) by violating their RIGHT to KEEP and BEAR ARMs.

        - JON: “It will be a great day when the issue regarding gun laws is addressed from and logical stand point and not an emotional one.”

        So when did the anti-gun crowd plan on addressing the issue without emotion?

        - JON: “Common sense goes right out the window when emotions get involved.”

        We’ve noticed. That is why we are amused when a liberal tries to tell us that guns kill people. There is definitive proof that this is not a true statement but anti-gun people continue to try and tell us that guns are bad and evil (that would be emotion).

        Oh and here is that proof.
        http://personalliberty.com/2013/01/23/do-guns-kill-people-pistol-shotgun-assault-rifle-put-to-the-test/

    • RedMann

      For the same reason every other president in modern times does; because there are a lot of crazies who would love to kill him. You remember Kennedy, Reagan and Ford? By your response it sounds like you wouldn’t be too upset if somebody bumped of the president you all love to hate so much.

      • Jana

        RedMann,
        The key word which you so quickly overlooked was LAW ABIDING CITIZEN.
        Why is it that ONLY the President or ONLY movie stars etc should be able to protect themselves against criminals?
        Do you think that you yourself are not worthy of protection, nor you children or family?

      • eddie47d

        Jana; You do have the right to protect yourself in most circumstances. Just like a car accident you may not be prepared at all times. Most homeowners if they wish can have a gun in their home where most violence occurs. Ironic isn’t it that protection can cause so much death of loved ones in the home!

      • Jana

        Eddie47,
        Most of those are caused by other people bringing a gun into someones home to do harm than by the homeowners gun. That was on the news a couple of nights ago.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Most homeowners if they wish can have a gun in their home where most violence occurs. Ironic isn’t it that protection can cause so much death of loved ones in the home!”

        Illogical claim that guns cause death. We already proved this to be false eddie. Here is the evidence again.
        http://personalliberty.com/2013/01/23/do-guns-kill-people-pistol-shotgun-assault-rifle-put-to-the-test/

      • eddie47d

        That proves nothing Vickie. Its still a person within the house who is a friend or relative who does the killing. Its still a person behind the gun who kills someone and the gun is the main tool used. Your ignorance and fancy shouting is bliss nothing more!

      • Average Joe

        eddie,

        “You do have the right to protect yourself in most circumstances.”

        I have the right to protect myself…in ALL circumstances!
        Protecting oneself implies that someone or something is acting in an aggressive manner against either ones person or property..and as such…one has the right to protect both his/her life… and/ or property from said aggressors (whether it is by a common criminal or by the government without due process). To believe otherwise is pure lunacy….

        AJ

      • Jana

        Average Joe,
        Yes, Great Catch. I must have been asleep to have missed that.

      • APN

        EDDIE SAID: “Jana; You do have the right to protect yourself in most circumstances. Just like a car accident you may not be prepared at all times. Most homeowners if they wish can have a gun in their home where most violence occurs. Ironic isn’t it that protection can cause so much death of loved ones in the home!”

        I guess we need Eddie to explain to us in what circumstance Jana WOULD NOT have the right to protect herself , children, property, etc?

        Jana, I think Eddie is asserting that most violence and death in the home is due to someone being ARMED in those homes? Not sure about what he meant as he rambles along but I am certain he is a progressive lunatic.

        APN

      • eddie47d

        APN; I gave those percentages about gun deaths in the home and by someone living within the home or personal friend so continue to be snarky! Yes you have a right to defend your self at all times but not necessarily in all places such as a court house. That shouldn’t be a problem though since guns or other weapons aren’t allowed there anyway and for very good reasons.

      • Jana

        Eddie47,
        Ok, As we have seen on TV many times over family members sitting in a courtroom, one family member becomes distraught and cold cocks the witnesses family member. Lets say you are the one being cold cocked. You are going to just sit there and let them beat you up?
        Even this scenario doesn’t make sense. Your are grasping at straws Eddie and failing.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        February 26, 2013 at 5:06 pm
        “That proves nothing Vickie. Its still a person within the house who is a friend or relative who does the killing. Its still a person behind the gun who kills someone and the gun is the main tool used.”

        Record this date for posterity. Eddie finally gets it. Guns don’t kill people. People do.

        • R. Fine

          Guns don’t kill people? Really? Have you missed all the recent news stories of mass shootings in theatres, shopping malls, kindergarden classrooms etc? How about those two state troopers out west about 4 months ago who were gunned down by a fellow who was better armed than they were? I guess they were shot not by a gun but by something else firing bullets.

      • Vicki

        R. Fine says:
        “Guns don’t kill people? Really?”

        Really. And here is the definitive proof which I posted above but you apparently didn’t bother to study.

        http://personalliberty.com/2013/01/23/do-guns-kill-people-pistol-shotgun-assault-rifle-put-to-the-test/

        - R. Fine: “Have you missed all the recent news stories of mass shootings in theatres, shopping malls, kindergarden classrooms etc?”

        nope.

        - R. Fine: “How about those two state troopers out west about 4 months ago who were gunned down by a fellow who was better armed than they were?”

        nope

        - R. Fine: “I guess they were shot not by a gun but by something else firing bullets.”

        Correct. They were obviously shot by a PERSON where tool=gun.

        • R. Fine

          Well at least by the last line you do admit that it was a GUN. If all those nut cases had was a knife or a rock or a bat they would not have done as nasty a deed.Even a vast majority of NRA members agree with background checks on all gun purchases but not you I guess.

  • JeffH

    Gun Control has racist roots.

    According to the George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal Vol. 2 (1991): 67 titled Gun Control & Racism:

    The history of gun control in America possesses an ugly component: discrimination and oppression of blacks, other racial and ethnic minorities, immigrants, and other “unwanted elements,” including union organizers and agrarian reformers. Firearms laws were often enacted to disarm and facilitate repressive action against these groups.

    The first gun control laws were enacted in the ante-bellum South forbidding blacks, whether free or slave, to possess arms, in order to maintain blacks in their servile status. After the Civil War, the South continued to pass restrictive firearms laws in order to deprive the newly freed blacks from exercising their rights of citizenship.

    Another old American prejudice supported such gun control efforts, then as it does now: the idea that poor people, and especially the black poor, are not to be trusted with firearms.

    It is unconscionable that in 2013, so-called progressives are quietly permitting laws to stand that disproportionately diminish the rights of minorities. The late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was blocked by segregationists when he tried to get his concealed carry permit, because they knew equal strength to defend oneself leads to societal equality. Sadly, gun control advocates today are de facto fighting for that same inequality.

    Tell President Obama, Mayors Bloomberg and Emanuel & Congress to END RACIST GUN CONTROL LAWS &
    DEMAND EQUAL GUN RIGHTS for EVERY AMERICAN.

    Watch the Video & Sign the Equal Gun Rights Petition Today
    http://equalgunrights.com/petition-PM-3549
    Self defense is more than a Civil Right…it is a Human Right.

    ~300 MILLION AMERICANS DID NOT ASSAULT ANYONE USING ANY FIREARM.

    ~300 MILLION Americans DIDN’T SHOOT anyone AT ALL. Not even by accident.

    Join us in telling them to STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT

    STOP IT

    STOP IT NOW

    • eddie47d

      Another nice try in blaming someone else Jeff H. Slave owners and their governments were Conservative and those Conservatives kept guns out of the hands of blacks. Nice spin though! Liberals have no problem with blacks or whites defending themselves if it is justified.

      • tony newbill

        Eddie47d there you go again making false staements about the Conservative being the Racist in the way of equality , case in point take a look-i-loo at this please , seems like I see more Democrats in this list than Republicans and some pretty VIPs to boot !!!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_and_alleged_Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_United_States_politics

      • TML

        Many southern states, as well as northern states, allowed free blacks (especially those at the edge of the frontier, to assist the fear of Indian attack) to carry arms but required them to be licensed (whereas whites required no license at the time)

      • Jana

        Eddie47,
        Yes, like your great Joe Biden who told his wife that if she were being attacked, to take her shot gun and shoot it out the window.
        Oh that one was priceless.

      • eddie47d

        There you go again Tony inserting foot before engaging mouth! The Democrat Party during the days of slavery were Conservative. The KKK were Democrats but still Conservatives. The KKK was founded by Conservatives or at that time angry white racists.

      • RedMann

        Tony Newbill, those Democrats were mostly the Southern Democrats who jumped to the Republican party due to Nixon’s Southern Stategy. Most of the remaining few saw the error of their ways, unlike you.

      • eddie47d

        Jana: Remember Meteorlady who says she carries a gun to scare any attacker away (and willing to use that weapon if necessary). No different than what goofy Joe said and yes if you feel threatened fire a warning shot and then blast away if they don’t get the message. I know some of you like to shot first and then ask questions later so maybe you are as crazy as you claim Biden to be.

      • JeffH

        [personal attack has been removed]

      • eddie47d

        Jeff H ! [personal attack has been removed]

      • JUKEBOX

        Eddie, if you haven’t noticed, most of the gun crimes committed in Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, Memphis and Atlanta are BLACK ON BLACK crimes.

      • Don 2

        It was the Democrats who supported the Ku Klux Klan and endorsed its mayhem.

        The KKK was a vehicle for white southern Democrat resistance to the Republican Party’s Reconstruction-era policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for blacks.

        The first Grand Wizard of the KKK was honored at the 1868 Democratic National Convention.

        No Democrat voted for the 14th. Amendment.

        Senator Robert Byrd(Democrat – W.V.) once wrote “The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia. Byrd was a former “Kleagle” an “Exalted Cyclops” in the Ku Klux Klan and a recruiter for the Bed Sheet Bandits of W.V. Senator Byrd voted against Clarence Thomas being appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Former President Bill Clinton, a Democrat hero (why escapes anyone with common sense) praised Robert Byrd at his funeral in 2010.

        Abe Lincoln was a Republican.

        The Democrat Party is no friend to black Americans. They want to keep you down, keep you poor, keep you dependant on their handouts, and keep you voting for them, so you can stay down, stay poor, and remain dependant for life; the Road to Serfdom.

      • eddie47d

        Indeed the Democrats had a shady history in the black rights movement and that is pretty much what I earlier said. Now the table is turned and its almost 100% the other way. The Democrats have changed their way with giving Civil Rights and the Republicans have regressed.

      • Jibbs

        Black History Month: America’s first slave owner was a …
        According to colonial records, the first slave owner in the United States was a black man. Prior to 1655 there were no legal chattel slaves in the colonies, only …
        topconservativenews.com/…americas-​first-slave-owner-was…

        The Real Democratic PartyBlogAbout
        The KKK was the terrorist wing of the Democrat Party.
        May 15, 2008 at 1:01 pm | Posted in Democrat Party, K.K.K | 18 Comments

        Our nation’s top historians reveal that the Democratic Party gave us the Ku Klux Klan, Black Codes, Jim Crow Laws and other repressive legislation which resulted in the multitude of murders, lynchings, mutilations, and intimidations (of thousands of black and white Republicans). On the issue of slavery: historians say the Democrats gave their lives to expand it, the Republicans gave their lives to ban it.

        The Democrats:
        ◦Democrats fought to expand slavery while Republicans fought to end it.
        ◦Democrats passed those discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws.
        ◦Democrats supported and passed the Missouri Compromise to protect slavery.
        ◦Democrats supported and passed the Kansas Nebraska Act to expand slavery.
        ◦Democrats supported and backed the Dred Scott Decision.
        ◦Democrats opposed educating blacks and murdered our teachers.
        ◦Democrats fought against anti-lynching laws.
        ◦Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, is well known for having been a “Kleagle” in the Ku Klux Klan.
        ◦Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, personally filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 14 straight hours to keep it from passage.
        ◦Democrats passed the Repeal Act of 1894 that overturned civil right laws enacted by Republicans.
        ◦Democrats declared that they would rather vote for a “yellow dog” than vote for a Republican, because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks.
        ◦Democrat President Woodrow Wilson, reintroduced segregation throughout the federal government immediately upon taking office in 1913.
        ◦Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first appointment to the Supreme Court was a life member of the Ku Klux Klan, Sen. Hugo Black, Democrat of Alabama.
        ◦Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s choice for vice president in 1944 was Harry Truman, who had joined the Ku Klux Klan in Kansas City in 1922.
        ◦Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt resisted Republican efforts to pass a federal law against lynching.
        ◦Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt opposed integration of the armed forces.
        ◦Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd were the chief opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
        ◦Democrats supported and backed Judge John Ferguson in the case of Plessy v Ferguson.
        ◦Democrats supported the School Board of Topeka Kansas in the case of Brown v The Board of Education of Topeka Kansas.
        ◦Democrat public safety commissioner Eugene “Bull” Connor, in Birmingham, Ala., unleashed vicious dogs and turned fire hoses on black civil rights demonstrators.
        ◦Democrats were who Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the other protesters were fighting.
        ◦Democrat Georgia Governor Lester Maddox “brandished an ax hammer to prevent blacks from patronizing his restaurant.
        ◦Democrat Governor George Wallace stood in front of the Alabama schoolhouse in 1963, declaring there would be segregation forever.
        ◦Democrat Arkansas Governor Faubus tried to prevent desegregation of Little Rock public schools.
        ◦Democrat Senator John F. Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act.
        ◦Democrat President John F. Kennedy opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King.
        ◦Democrat President John F. Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI.
        ◦Democrat President Bill Clinton’s mentor was U.S. Senator J. William Fulbright, an Arkansas Democrat and a supporter of racial segregation.
        ◦Democrat President Bill Clinton interned for J. William Fulbright in 1966-67.
        ◦Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright signed the Southern Manifesto opposing the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision.
        ◦Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright joined with the Dixiecrats in filibustering the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964.
        ◦Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright voted against the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
        ◦Southern Democrats opposed desegregation and integration.
        Democrats opposed:

        1.The Emancipation Proclamation
        2.The 13th Amendment
        3.The 14th Amendment
        4.The 15th Amendment
        5.The Reconstruction Act of 1867
        6.The Civil Rights of 1866
        7.The Enforcement Act of 1870
        8.The Forced Act of 1871
        9.The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871
        10.The Civil Rights Act of 1875
        11.The Freeman Bureau
        12.The Civil Rights Act of 1957
        13.The Civil Rights Act of 1960
        14.The United State Civil Rights Commission
        Republicans gave strong bi-partisan support and sponsorship for the following
        legislation:

        1.The Civil Rights Act of 1964
        2.The Voting Rights Act of 1965
        3.The 1968 Civil Rights Acts
        4.The Equal Opportunity Act of 1972
        5.Goals and Timetables for Affirmative Action Programs
        6.Comprehensive Employment Training Act of 1973
        7.Voting Rights Act of Amendment of 1982
        8.Civil Rights Act of 1983
        9.Federal Contract Compliance and Workforce Development Act of 1988
        The Republicans:
        ◦Republicans enacted civil rights laws in the 1950’s and 1960’s, over the objection of Democrats.
        ◦Republicans founded the HBCU’s (Historical Black College’s and Universities) and started the NAACP to counter the racist practices of the Democrats.
        ◦Republicans pushed through much of the ground-breaking civil rights legislation in Congress.
        ◦Republicans fought slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom, citizenship and the right to vote.
        ◦Republicans pushed through much of the groundbreaking civil rights legislation from the 1860s through the 1960s.
        ◦Republican President Dwight Eisenhower sent troops into the South to desegregate the schools.
        ◦Republican President Eisenhower appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision.
        ◦Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, was the one who pushed through the civil rights laws of the 1960’s.
        ◦Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois wrote the language for the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
        ◦Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing.
        ◦Republican and black American, A. Phillip Randolph, organized the 1963 March by Dr. King on Washington.
        The 1964 Civil Rights Act Roll Call Vote: In the House, only 64 percent of the Democrats (153 yes, 91 no), but 80 percent of the Republicans (136 yes, 35 no), voted for it. In the Senate, while only 68 percent of the Democrats endorsed the bill (46 yes, 21 no), 82 percent of the Republicans voted to enact it (27 yes, 6 no).

        Thaddeus Stevens, a Radical Republican that introduced legislation to give African Americans the so-called 40 acres and a mule and Democrats overwhelmingly voted against the bill.

        During the Senate debates on the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, it was revealed that members of the Democratic Party formed many terrorist organizations like the Ku Klux Klan to murder and intimidate African Americans voters. The Ku Klux Klan Act was a bill introduced by a Republican Congress to stop Klan Activities.

        History reveals that Democrats lynched, burned, mutilated and murdered thousands of blacks and completely destroyed entire towns and communities occupied by middle class Blacks, including Rosewood, Florida, the Greenwood District in Tulsa Oklahoma, and Wilmington, North Carolina to name a few.

        History reveals that it was Abolitionists and Radical Republicans such as Henry L. Morehouse and General Oliver Howard that started many of the traditional Black colleges, while Democrats fought to keep them closed. Many of our traditional Black colleges are named after white Republicans.

        After exclusively giving the Democrats their votes for the past 25 years, the average African American cannot point to one piece of civil rights legislation sponsored solely by the Democratic Party that was specifically designed to eradicate the unique problems that African Americans face today.

        As of 2004, the Democrat Party (the oldest political party in America) has never elected a black man to the United States Senate, the Republicans have elected three.

        • Nick Czudy

          Wow Jibbs.
          That was an amazing lesson in history. I had no idea that the Democrats were totally opposite to what their ideals are today.
          Somewhere in that period there seemed to a reversal in the two parties philosophies. When did it happen? Why are the GOP so racist now? There have been such major changes in their policies.

    • Charlie

      Matthew 15:24…

    • APN

      Great post JeffH. Factual, logical and to the point.

      APN

    • Don 2

      That is a lie eddie, and you know it. The only difference in the Democratic party of today is that Obama and his goons want to put all of America into serfdom.

  • FreedomFighter

    Thank you Ben Crystal for this artical;

    The truth is the mortal enemy of the lie

    “perfectly tailored fearmongering campaign than one in which the government can use dead children to sow mistrust among the public.”

    The Obama regime is following communist dogma and procedures, once this lie is exposed they lose power.

    NEVER REGISTER YOUR GUNS, FIGHT FOR THE 2ND

    Laus Deo
    Semper FI

    • JUKEBOX

      Everything the Scarecrow Obama does is designed to instill FEAR in the hearts and minds of the uneducated (Dumb masses).

    • Charlie

      John 8:32….

  • moonbeam

    Thank you Personal Liberty for removing the separation between FB posters and us folks who don’t use FB. You were starting to scare me! I said to myself “OH NO! Oblamalamadingdong got to ‘em.” I felt unwanted, unloved. Now I can feel the love once again.

  • Bruce

    These so called assault rifles do scare the people they were intended to be used against. The tyrannical government. They know they have EVIL plans for us financial slaves, that they have yet to carry out. They know how many EVIL things they have done to us in the past, and they know if we were to find out how many EVIL things they have done to us, we will rise up and use these weapons on those who chose to keep us slaves. So they hope that before we find out the amount of EVIL things they have done to us they can remove our guns so all we can do is yell, on our way to the gas chamber Well God willing, the EVIL will be laid out in, the light of day, for all to see clearly, and it will be eliminated, by a force greater than EVIL, then the peace we all want can come to earth forever, and everyone can share in this peace on earth.
    But first the birth pains must be felt.
    How many times did Jesus get angry and violent in the Bible?
    and who was he angry and violent towards?
    Why was he angry?
    Do we still have this problem today?
    And who are these people today?
    What so called work do they do today?
    do they produce something?
    or live off of others efforts?.

    • eddie47d

      Since Jesus was and still is a Liberal I think he would approve of doing away with so many weapons in the world. He did have a Conservative side also yet never advocated for violence with any weapon. I reckon He should be called the ultimate Compassionate Conservative which is a rare breed these days. Jesus did tangle with the Devil more than once but didn’t let his wickedness win. I’m not even sure if God would approve of the Evil that lurks in the minds of the war makers of today whether Liberal or Conservative. The excuses for armies,militias or even street gangs doesn’t get God’s seal of approval. Although He did have a good right hand punch on more than one occasion to subdue the wicked. When and if we get to Heaven I’m sure He will open the door or slam it shut.

      • FreedomFighter

        You know nothing – all you say is untrue or missleading in the extreme.

        Derek Prince – Satan’s Tactics
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ucZE6oCjmk

        Educate yourself Eddie, become more than you currently are.

        Laus Deo
        Semper FI

      • Vicki

        Eddie47d writes:
        “He (Jesus) did have a Conservative side also yet never advocated for violence with any weapon.”

        NEITHER do conservatives advocate violence. What we DO advocate is that you

        STOP PUNISHING THE INNOCENT for the acts of a very few.

        STOP IT
        STOP IT NOW.

      • Charlie

        What did King Jesus mean when He spoke Luke 22:36???

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

        Dear eddie47d,

        You write: “Since Jesus was and still is a Liberal I think he would approve of doing away with so many weapons in the world.” Please provide evidence of this claim. Book, chapter and verse will do.

        Best wishes,
        Bob

      • Average Joe

        eddie,

        “Since Jesus was and still is a Liberal I think he would approve of doing away with so many weapons in the world. ”

        Where do you come up with this stuff eddie? Where pray tell, does it say…anywhere within the Bible…that Jesus was a Liberal? I’ve looked and I can’t seem to find any reference whatsoever to your assumption of Jesus’ political leanings towards liberalism….in fact, quite the opposite seems to be true.
        While I realize that collectivist have a need to place everyone into a “labled group”…the truth is…each and every single person…is an individual and that no two people agree 100% on everything…nor will they ever do so. Each of us sees the world from a completely different perspective…based on our own individual expereinces in life.

        The first step towards recovery is to admit you have a problem (collectivism). The second step is to rid yourself of the “herd” mentality. Finally…recognize people as the individuals that they are…stop labling people and putting them into groups….

        Political tags – such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth – are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.
        Robert A. Heinlein

        AJ

      • eddie47d

        The Beatitudes pure and simply. Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus was a strict Conservative? Turning water into wine doesn’t count for most of you have had enough! LOL!

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

          Dear eddie47d,

          You write: “The Beatitudes pure and simply.” You demonstrate a gross misunderstanding of Christ’s sermon and his purpose. There was no politics in it. It was addressed to a crowd that needed teaching on the new covenant he was about to establish upon his death. A crowd that was being led by a sect that had perverted the old law. I suggest you go back and read Matthew 5-7. I submit that his teachings on adultery, divorce, the old covenant, giving, anxiety, judgement, etc., were they political, would not sit well with most liberals.

          You write: “Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus was a strict Conservative?” Where in the Bible does it say he was a “strict” liberal? As Jesus was not preaching a physical (political) Kingdom but a spiritual one, politics was not discussed except in reply to specific questions from those trying to entrap him. Therefore this question is irrelevant and absurd.

          Best wishes,
          Bob

      • JON

        I agree with Eddie. The rest of you are irrelivent.

        • R. Fine

          For the times he lived in Jesus was quite radical. He advocated positions that were shocking to most folks back then which might just explained why the powers at the time tried and executed him.

      • eddie47d

        Average Joe: “herd mentality” I think that moniker belongs to you and a few others who blindly accept everything that is in these articles. Obviously that is hardly true and most of you can’t think beyond what is said. Get your mind out of lock down or do you think PLD is a prison camp and you can’t think differently?

      • APN

        Eddie, Jesus was neither conservative or liberal, he was GOD in human form, the GODMAN. If you really understood the mind of GOD then you would also understand that GUNS are things of this WORLD, just like a rock or a spear, and both can be used as an assault weapon with deadly results.

        GOD was here on this planet to teach us about permanent things(Spiritual), as in Heaven, and not temporary things, as in rocks, spears and guns.(Earthly)

        The spirit of man is what does EVIL Eddie, not the rock, the spear or the gun and your assertion that liberals are in some way more “Like Minded” with GOD is childish and foolish and speaks volumes about you and your spiritual in-maturity. Jesus(GOD) gave HIS life as a sacrifice, not yours Eddie. Big difference!

        APN

        • kimo3690

          AMEN BROTHER!!

      • eddie47d

        Vickie: I’ve heard too many “wise cracks” here about Conservatives wanting to use violence to think anything differently. Rope your herd in or accept their voices as fact!

      • eddie47d

        APN; Conservatives are the ones who proclaim they are one with God. Yet turn around and declare hatred for others who don’t fit into their mold. i would agree that most Christians are Conservative and honest in their faith but Liberal Christians are no less faithful. Jesus never attacked the poor like Conservatives do yet they proclaim they follow Jesus. Are some Liberals hateful and wicked? Absolutely and so are some Conservatives!

      • eddie47d

        Freedom Fighter ; Prince has an opinion like everyone and yes God created the devil (fallen angel). There will always be good and evil and even God can’t stop it. That judgement will come in the last days but Conservatives shouldn’t be so hasty in patting themselves on the back (Liberals either). I’ve pointed out the errors of some Conservatives many times so it won’t make a lick of difference to repeat them but they will also be judged.

      • Jana

        As USUAL when Eddie 47 is asked to show proof he is SILENT.

      • Alex

        All the proof eddie47d needs is in Jesus H. Christ’s OWN words—the Sermon on the Mount (the only words we know Jesus spoke because He saw fit to have them recorded—all of the other Christian crap is just that—crap—the words of people who came along long after Jesus died).

        Jesus was a Socialist….

      • Jana

        Eddie,
        Actually Jesus was a Liberal, but a true liberal not the perverted Liberal that you and your ilk have made it as it is today.
        The Liberals of today want to have no part of God. They want to even ban the very name of God from our speech. I am sure you are so proud of yourself and your Liberal buddies.

      • http://google john

        Jesus is literally ‘The Word in flesh” He wrote every word in the Bible,he is the Word.He condemned Homosexuality.and Child sacrifice and all the sins you libs love to justify.He was not and never will be an abortion loving sin loving messiah.Study the Word you misrepresent. He is coming back with a sword in his mouth,there will be a lot of answering to do.

        • kimo3690

          AMEN Brother!!!

          • R. Fine

            Jesus wrote every word in the Bible? Really? Would that include the Old Testament (you know, the first half of the Bible that was written centuries before Jesus was born)?

        • Nick Czudy

          John and Eddie. I will admit that after growing up as a catholic, that i have become an atheist, through my life’s experiences.

          I read the many comments referring to God and Jesus and what he is thinking and wants and so on. I usually just ignore it as you are entitled to have your own beliefs and I respect that.
          What makes me wonder is how so many christians go about stating how Jesus or God felt, what they want, whether they are Liberal or Conservative and on and on.
          Just how do these people know what he is thinking and what he wants.
          These are things that are not addressed in the bible and even then the bible was assembled 325 years after Jesus’s death by a pagan Emperor. So it certainly does not quote God verbatum.

          It just amazes me how people such as Benny Hin or Falwell and other evangelists tell us what Jesus and God wants. Do they talk to them every day? Did you ever talk to him.
          How can you or anyone dare to speak on behalf of God? Isn’t it preposterous that any one of you dare speak of what God wants or is thinking?

          • Bob666

            Yo Nick,
            The same people are absolutly sure they knew exactly what our founding fathers were thinking as well.

            If you don’t believe me, hang around here for a while and they will tell you with out you’re having to ask.

          • Nick Czudy

            Bob, Haha yes I know what you mean,

            I am always amazed at how many people seem to know what was in the minds of people that existed hundreds of years ago and did not have benefit of being on video written or being recorded. It is really amazing. :)

          • Bob666

            Yo Nick,
            PLD never fails to amaze me and proves the saying; Fact is always stranger than Fiction!

        • R. Fine

          “Resist not evil” kind of says it all from your King Jesus. Sword in his mouth? I don’t think so. But then he ain’t coming back anyway so it hardly matters how you distort His Sermon on the Mount.

      • Matrix

        eddie47d…u…m…b…

        It’s a funny thought of all liberals that Jesus was a liberal, or black, or gay, or Muslim, or obama or satan…you are a sick and demented product of a sick and demented indoctrination educational system that the evil, progressive, Jesuit, Jewish, scum that controls your life has provided for you…and you are the final useful idiot that is willing to give your life, your soul, your mother, daughter, soul, son, father, soul, brothers, sisters, soul, to the evil that controls you…

        Enjoy your time in Hell, eddie…eddie…eddie… for it never ends!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        • Bob666

          yo matrix,
          “you are a sick and demented product of a sick and demented indoctrination educational system that the evil, progressive, Jesuit, Jewish, scum that controls your life has provided for you”

          Do you repeat this ten times a day while looking into the mirror?

          Cause I have to tell you that of all of the people that post on this web site, you get the wacko award for being the most disturbed. while you do have a first amendment right to be here, you do press the limits of decorum and civility. I have yet to see a post that you have presented that does not offend someone and I have to wonder if you really feel this way or if you just want to seek attention like an immature child.

      • eddie47d

        That was an ugly rant Matrix I would expect nothing less from you! I admit I am not sinless but apparently you are way ahead of me in that department. Will God be opening the door for you?

      • Jibbs

        47d is just being 47d! Never an ounce wisdom, he just repeats what obama tells him and is a talking head at best.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Vickie: I’ve heard too many “wise cracks” here about Conservatives wanting to use violence to think anything differently. Rope your herd in or accept their voices as fact!”

        Facts do not equal opinion. It does however explain why eddie never offers facts. He has them confused with opinion.

  • R. Fine

    I wouldn’t think terribly many gun owners in America today are members of “a well organized militia”. Therefore controlling gun and hopefully gun violence is not an infringement on the 2nd. Amendment.

    • Average Joe

      Nice try…but alas..a failure:

      As passed by the Congress:

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

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

      Got it? Good.

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

      • kimo3690

        GET SUM!!! WELL SAID BRAVO!!!

      • Tltwtnts

        Big O won and now he is going to take your guns most likely the best thing that could ever happen to you because it is obvious you are too stupid to own something that you could use to blow your empty head apart. I am extremely proud to be in the 51% that voted to make your life miserable!!!

      • Average Joe

        Tltwtnts,

        If that was directed at me..sorry to hear about your afflictions.

        “Big O won and now he is going to take your guns most likely the best thing that could ever happen to you because it is obvious you are too stupid to own something that you could use to blow your empty head apart. I am extremely proud to be in the 51% that voted to make your life miserable!!!”

        Thank you for your run-on sentence. It shows your obvious lack of intellectual prowess.
        BTW, I have owned guns for most of my 56 years of life and have yet to shoot anyone at all…including myself. However, if pushed into a corner, that could change.
        Anyone who wishes to take my guns… is welcome to try…they will not be given up freely. I will not fire the first shot, but I will attempt to fire that last one.
        Education and knowledge are wonderful things…get some…

        AJ

        • Frank Kahn

          Pride is a sin, and even if it wasn’t, your statements make no sense.

          If that clown Obama, whom you are so proud of wasting votes on, takes his guns, he will also take yours. No special treatment for the ignorant masses that voted for him. Actually, Obama is too chicken $hit to take anyone’s guns himself, he will hide behind his wife’s skirts while his goons try to do it for him. And, 51% of the small turnout of eligible voters is still a small percentage of the population. The only thing that might be worse than you people voting him back in would be for that pathetic power hungry Hillarious to get elected.

          • R. Fine

            Fact is Ms. Clinton is very likely to be the next President. The well organized Obama team is already getting to work on that whilst the GOP is looking for the next collection of clowns to beat up on each other. It will be deja vu all over again.

          • Bob666

            Yo Frank,
            “If that clown Obama, whom you are so proud of wasting votes on, takes his guns, he will also take yours. No special treatment for the ignorant masses that voted for him. Actually, Obama is too chicken $hit to take anyone’s guns himself, he will hide behind his wife’s skirts while his goons try to do it for him. And, 51% of the small turnout of eligible voters is still a small percentage of the population”

            While there are many times that I agree with your post, when I see a comment like this, I start to discount what you have written. It is president Obama and not because I voted for him, but because he was elected twice.

            I respect the fact that you dont like him and am fine with that fact, but he was elected b51% of the small turnout of eligible voters is still a small percentage of the population, but it was greater that that smaller population that turned out for Romney.

          • R.F.

            In fact Obama’s win was impressive given it was for a second term. Plus the President was victorious in all of the swing states and even in places where Republican governors made it difficult for city people to vote. Of course running against the totally clueless and disorganized Mitt Romney did help the President but a win is a win anyway you look at it.

      • R. Fine

        Well I gues you’ve got me on this one. Now I realize that there is no need or justification to try to control the sale of heavy weaponry to any Tom, Dick, or Harry who wants to blow up an elemetary school and all the kids in it. Gosh dernit what’s up with the wimps who want to protect our kids? Time they learned a little grammar.

      • eddie47d

        Times changed Average Joe and almost immediately after the 2nd was signed into law over two hundred years ago. The militia was the army when written and as soon as the Continental Army was formed there was no need for any militias. That is something the pro gunners just can’t get over and won’t accept that fact.

      • JeffH

        eddie, it’s only natural that you would believe what you just wrote…you preferring to be a ward of the state rather than a free man. Oh, just so you understand(if that’s even possible)militia’s are necessary.

        The Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well.

        The Court reasoned that the Amendment’s prefatory clause, i.e., “[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” announced the Amendment’s purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Moreover, the prefatory clause’s history comported with the Court’s interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists’ concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule.

    • http://google john

      The man who wrote the 2nd amendment Said”Who is the militia?I tell you it is every able bodied man except for a few public officials” I guess that settles that. Next time study the founders and you might find America.

      • kimo3690

        Yep Yep YeP My Patriot Friend WELL SAID!!!

      • R. Fine

        Oh yes, study the Founders. Like the Founders would not have seen any problem with nut cases running around and blowing away people in movie theatres, shopping malls, elementary school classrooms etc. They’d have been fine with that. Pathetic.

      • chocopot

        So, R. FIne, somehow, in your deranged little left-wing mind, you suppose that taking away my constitutional rights, taking away my guns, taking away my 30-round magazines, leaving me defenseless, will somehow stop evil people and nutjobs from committing their horrendous acts? Did your mother drop you on your head when you were a baby?

        • R.F.

          No one is taking away your constitutional rights or your precious guns. What needs to be done – as best we can – is to prevent nuts from getting their hands on heavy weaponry that they then use to murder groups of young school kids and their teachers not to mention folks watching a movie, praying in a temple, shopping at a mall etc. Too bad you won’t help us on that but it’s going to happen anyway. For one example we need national background checks on all purchases. We do check ID when someone orders a beer or requests a senior’s discount on a movie ticket. Is it reallt so horrifying to check up on someone wanting a machine gun? What’s actually the matter with you?

    • Jibbs

      The boat for China leave’s in 15 min. You better hurry so you don’t miss it!

      • R.F.

        Actually we are doing a month tour of China but not until October. Also a few days in Hong Kong, Macau and Tokyo. So I needn’t hurry to that boat. In any case we are flying but thanks anyway.

  • http://google rose

    They need to ban those dog gone hot air ballons. 19 people died a horrible death from one. First burning up in the air and then dropping to the ground. They also need to ban living in a home, because 7 people a day die from house fires in the United States. Most of them under the age of five. People should be forced to live in tents for their own good.

    • eddie47d

      Another fallacious comment and immaterial to weapons safety.

      • APN

        Rose, LOL! Now that is funny!

        …and, don’t pay Eddie any mind, typical progressive and extremely THICK between the ears.

        APN

  • JON

    Reminds me of a quote from J. S. Mill. It reads, “I never meant to say that conservatives are generally stupid, I meant to say that stupid people are generally conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it”. 5/31/1866

    • http://private karen zoanelli

      I am not a gentleman, but I am a Lady, well educated (masters degree in two languages, and I CAN READ. also: I am a staunch conservative, by experience – I lived through WWII in Germany and experienced the aftermath in the East Bloc Countries, worked as a Journalist for UPi, and, by Jove, I see tyrannywhen it hits me in the eye. One thing I can say with surety: I the German People had weapons to defend themselves against the tyranny of hitler – we would have survivbed. my father was killed because he knew and understand the system – and didn’t keep his mouth shut.
      this beautiful country which I chose in 1982 to be my HOME, is being persecuted for its Constitution.

      • JeffH

        karen zoanelli, thank you for your insight and your comment.
        My step-dad and good friend lived in Warsaw and was hauled off by the Nazi’s to a work camp in Norway. He also see’s and understands what is tranpiring in America today and he says it’s not too much different than what preceeded the Nazi takeover of Poland.

  • Jibbs

    Mike Balog says:
    February 26, 2013 at 9:52 am
    @Eddie47d: Your statement is Ridiculas on it’s face. Do you Know what an Assault Weapon is ? NOT the Media Definition. And Assult Rifle, by U.S. Govt. Definition; is a Semi Auto – Select Fire FULL Automatic Weapon with a fire rate of at least 1,000 rounds
    per sec. Reloadable with a 30 round magazine or more. Read the Law, Federal Laws
    written in 1935 and added to by the 1968 Gun Control Act BANS Fullly Automatic
    Firearms, commonly called “Machine Guns” from the Civilian Population. With the
    Exception of those who could pass a Rigid Background Check, being issued a Class III
    Weapons Permit and Paying a $ 200 fee Transfer Tax to the BATF. Other Exceptions
    are domestic Police Forces and All the U.S. Armed Forces. The Commonly
    manufactured and owned AR 15, MIA1, M 1 Garand, M 1 Carbine, AKM / AK 47 Style
    Semiautomatic Rifles are NOT Assault Rifles / Weapons of War.

    The U.S. Govt. in a Dept. of Justice Memo, to Other U.S. Law Enforcement Agencies, The U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Boarder Patrol, CIA, DIA, etc. has Specifically Stated that a
    Semiautomatic Rifle, The AR 15 is to be considered a Good Defensive Weapon of
    Choice, The AR 15 is a SEMIAUTOMATIC Single Round at a time fired Rifle, it is NOT a
    Select Fire / Fully Automatic Fire Rifle. AND it Cannot Be Converted to be one due to it’s
    design. Specific Select Fire / Full Auto Fire Parts are Not part of that Rifle. IF This
    Typical black AR 15 Rifle is Considered by the Federal Govt. as a Prefered “Good
    Defensive Weapon” for themselves, THEN For the Rest of U.S. Citizens, it is the
    Common Rifle of the Relm, and Acceptable for WE The People Also. The We The
    People are the SAME People Mentioned in the Rest of the U.S. Constitution. IF you
    Tamper and Tramp on the Rights of the 2nd Amendment, You are doing so on all the
    rest of the U..S. Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution.

    ALSO, I might Remind you, that the so called Simple Bolt Action Rifle was and still is
    considered the Standard Battle Rifle for Reference Around the World. Prior to 1937,
    There were ONLY Bolt Action Rifles around the World issued to average Infrintry
    Troops, even Airborne Troops. Heavy Maxium and Browning Belt Fed Machine Guns
    were required to have three man gun crews to man and transport them. Semiautomatic /
    Fullautomatic Rifles such as the Browning Automatic Rifle, commonly known as the
    BAR firing a .30-06 rifle cartridge was developed during WW 1 as a Squad Supporting
    Weapon for our Armed Forces. The Commonly Issued Rifle as a Weapon during WW 1
    and in the beginning of WW 2 was the commonly issued Springfield Rifle, in .30-06 cal.,
    the Enfield Rifle, in .30-06 cal.. In both wars, in Korean War and in Vietnam, the
    Springfield A3O3 and A304 were issued as Standard Snipper Rifles with a scope for the
    U.S. Armed Forces.

    In Germany, in WW 1 and WW 2 the most common Battle Rifle for the Germany Army
    was the Standard Mauser K98k series 6 Round stock fed magazine Bolt Action Rifle.
    Which was also refined as a sniper rifle with a scope. The U.S. Armed Forces had been
    issued the M 1 Garand Rifle, developed in 1937 by Mr. Garand, which is a semi -automatic only reloading rifle with an internal reloadable 8 round in block clip. That is the
    main battle rifle my father and his brothers carried along with the M 1 Carbine, [ 15 or 30
    round mag fed] rifle from D Day to V-J Day… Becasue we had Better Weapons in WW 2
    like the semiatomatic rifles we Won WW 2.

    The Commonly issued Battle Rifle Prior to WW 1 also was the bolt action rifle, based on
    the German / Swiss Designs of the Peter Mauser and Paul Mauser brothers design. Bolt
    action rifles were developed fairly early in history coming into being during the 19th
    Century. During the Spanish American War, the U.S. were Issued the .30-40 cal Krag-
    Jorgenson Rifle developed in Europe, and the Winshester Repeating rifle in .45-70 cal
    replaced the .45 – 70 cal. single shot reloading falling block rifle issued eariler during the
    Indian Wars issued as a common infintry and calverly rife, replaced by the Henry, Marlin
    and Winchester Arms Lever Action Rifles. I wrote this from memory since I am a retired
    LEO [ Police Officer ], gun collector / amateur historian since 1970. Hope this sheds light
    on the Differences between what is Really a Fullautomatifc / Select Fire Weapon of War,
    a Semiautomatic Rifle and a Bolt Action Rifle for all those not familiar of the terms and
    the History of the development of Firearms. Please note, Infamous Criminals such as Bonnie and Clyde Carried and used a BAR [Browning Automatic Rifle] and a Colt .45 in
    their Bank Robbering Crime Sprees. “Pretty Boy George” and “Machine Gun Kelly” also
    Carried the Colt .45, And the Fully Automatic Thompson Submachine Gun using .45 cal
    hand gun ammo.

    For those Born before 1950 and during 1960, you may recall when JFK was Murdered
    in Dallas, Texas,,, he was Shot supposedly by a Single Assaliant using an Italian Bolt
    Action 5 Shot Internal Magazine Fed Rifle. Not a Semiautomatic Rifle or Semiautomatic Pistol, which were easily obtained during that time as well. So, Those who are Now Informed of the Differences between types of Firearms should Rethink their Positions
    and Consider the Obvious , Cirminals Will Use Whatever they want to commit any Crime.
    Honest Citizens Should Not and Must Not Be Disarmed. We are NOT the Problem.
    I also took that Oath as an Officer and I Never Recanted on that Oath either.

    Mike, an AR15 is very easily coverted

    • Nick Czudy

      Jibbs. thanks for that thourough and detailed history and explanation. I learned a lot from you. thanks. regards Nick Cz

    • JeffH

      Jibbs, while an AR-15 can be converted to full auto fire it is not that easy to do. While it requires an “auto sear” to make the conversion, it is also a Class III conversion. The sears were considered machinegun conversion parts and sears made after 1981 had to be registered (tax paid) and transfer as any other NFA item (these became the registered ones referred to above). BATF grandfathered the unregistered sears made prior to 1981, but sears made after 1981 had to either be registered or are considered unregistered machineguns – a serious felony. IT IS A FELONY TO POSSESS BOTH A PRE-81 DROP-IN AUTO SEAR AND AN AR15 – UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES CAN AN INDIVIDUAL LEGALLY USE A PRE-81 DIAS IN AN AR15. Technically, you are allowed to possess an unregistered DIAS which was made prior to 1981, but you cannot possess one if you own an AR15 – it’s one or the other, but not both. Obviously, this rule makes possession of a pre-81 DIAS useless – if you cannot own the rifle it goes in, about all you can do with them is to make cufflinks, earrings, or a very small paperweight.

      If you are considering buying an auto sear to convert your AR15 to a full automatic firearm, there is only one option – the registered & transferable DIAS. While it may be tempting to buy a pre-81 to save thousands over the registered sear, the risks are considerable. Possession of an unregistered machinegun (a pre-81 DIAS and an AR15 rifle…or possibly even just a so called “pre-81” DIAS) is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison, and up to a $10,000 fine, and permanent loss of your right to ever own a gun or vote again. Numerous rumors have circulated that some of the people selling the pre-81 sears are actually BATF operations. Buyer beware.

      http://www.quarterbore.com/nfa/dias.html

      • Chief Boring

        The bolts are different as well, so it is not an easy task to convert an AR15 to full automatic fire.

    • jopa

      Jibbs:That is one definition that the Fed uses however the NRA and and several individual states have their own definitions.The AR-15 was not considered an assault rifle in Ct. because it didn’t have the lug for a bayonet nor was it capable to launch grenades.It was all in the state laws fine print therefore a person could register that particular weapon in that state.If you did a more thorough search you will find there are many definitions for any particular firearm in individual states that do not totally agree with the Feds description.

  • jopa

    In reading the very first sentence of the 2nd amendment if followed closely we should all be happy.We would have the right to bear arms however that right has to be not just regulated ,but well regulated.Putting limitations on differant types of arms is following the Constitution for the safety and security of a free state.I rest my case, thank you and have a good one.

    • Frank Kahn

      Read it a few more times, jopa, it says well regulated militia, not well regulated arms or people.

      The two concepts are very different.

      A militia is a group of people who band together as a military unit to perform some type of action. The action of the militia is mostly to defend, or provide defense of their home / state / country. To be effective, they need to be trained in weapons usage. This training might include safety and practice for effective use of deadly force. It would also contain training in the care or maintenance of weapons. They would also be taught / trained in military tactics which would enhance their ability to successfully defend their home. This would give them a type of uniformity in their actions and thus be called regular or regulated.

      The people, although referencing all citizens, is an individual reference. It means every individual citizen of this country. Since, THE PEOPLE, is referring to all citizens, it cannot be used for the phrase well regulated militia. The citizens who are incapable of acting as a member of the militia would not be included. This only leaves the possibility of arguing whether or not you can restrict the right to bear arms, to just those capable of being a part of the militia. You might say that only citizens between the age of 17 and 45 are suitable to be a part of the militia, and therefor only they have the right to bear arms. This however would run into other difficulties concerning the passing of laws that are only pertaining to a specific group of people.

      Weapons, can neither be trained nor taught a specific rule or action, they are simply a tool used by the militia to perform their function as defenders. Since they are inanimate objects, regulating them could only be meant as restrictions. If you walk the logic tree backwards you will see how this is counter productive to the idea of a militia capable of defending our home. If you restrict weapons you restrict the tools needed by the militia to effectively defend our home. This in turn weakens our nations ability to field an army of massive proportion that is supremely armed for defense.

      • Nick Czudy

        Hi Frank.
        This has been debated many times. But with only two sentences. If they talk about a well regulated militia in the first sentence, I see that it applies as well to the people. it makes no sense that the people not have the same regulation as the people.
        It says that the people shall be able to have weapons. It talks nothing of what kind of weapons..
        Since the constitution has the mechanism to impost laws and to amend the laws. it would also give them the means to clarify and impost restriction on those arms.
        After all, we cannot own tanks, nukes, or heat seeking missiles.
        Common sense dictates that there needs to be some line as far as the weapons that the average joe can have.
        I know that you will not agree with this, but I think that there are many that will. So we should have a nation wide referendum if we are ever to know just how the population thinks.
        regards Nick

        • Frank Kahn

          You are right that I will not agree, you said

          “This has been debated many times. But with only two sentences. ”

          IT IS ACTUALLY JUST ONE COMPOUND SENTENCE.

          “If they talk about a well regulated militia in the first sentence, I see that it applies as well to the people. ”

          THIS IS A TRUISM, SINCE THE MILITIA IS (IN PART) THE PEOPLE, WHAT IS SAID ABOUT THE MILITIA IS SAID ABOUT THOSE CITIZENS WHO WOULD BE ELIGIBLE TO BE A PART OF THE MILITIA. BUT, EVEN SO, IT DOES NOT SAY RESTRICTIONS, IT SAYS REGULATED, WHICH I EXPLAINED BEFORE. AND, THE LAST PART OF THE SENTENCE SAYS “THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”. I WILL NOTE THAT IT DOES NOT SAY “THE RIGHT OF THE MILITIA”.

          “it makes no sense that the people not have the same regulation as the people.”

          HERE I AM ASSUMING YOU MEANT AS THE MILITIA. YES, EVERY CITIZEN SHOULD BE EDUCATED IN THE SAFETY AND USE OF WEAPONS.

          “It says that the people shall be able to have weapons. It talks nothing of what kind of weapons..”

          OBVIOUSLY THAT MEANS ANY WEAPON, TO HAVE LISTED THE TYPES OF WEAPON WOULD HAVE BEEN A RESTRICTION (INFRINGEMENT) ON THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

          “Since the constitution has the mechanism to impost laws and to amend the laws. it would also give them the means to clarify and impost restriction on those arms.

          THE CONSTITUTION SETS LIMITS ON WHO CAN ENACT LAWS AND WHAT KINDS OF LAWS CAN BE PUT IN PLACE. WHEN YOU USE THE WORD AMEND, YOU ARE A LITTLE GENERAL, DID YOU MEAN AMENDING LAWS OR AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION. FIRST THE LAWS, NO LAW CAN BE MADE THAT VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION, SUCH LAWS ARE NOT LEGAL AND WILL HAVE NO STANDING IN COURT. ASSUMING THAT A LAW IS CONSTITUTIONAL, IT CAN BE AMENDED (CHANGED SOMEWHAT), AS LONG AS THE CHANGE DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION. THE CONSTITUTION CAN BE CHANGED, BUT ONLY THROUGH AN AMENDMENT WHICH MUST GO THROUGH RATIFICATION BY A LARGE MAJORITY OF THE STATES. IT CANNOT BE DONE BY THE PRESIDENT, IN CONGRESS OR EVEN BY THE SUPREME COURT.

          “After all, we cannot own tanks, nukes, or heat seeking missiles.”

          ACTUALLY, WE CAN OWN TANKS AT THIS TIME, I AM NOT SURE IF THE WEAPONS SYSTEMS CAN BE FULLY FUNCTIONAL OR NOT.

          “Common sense dictates that there needs to be some line as far as the weapons that the average joe can have.”

          AS MARK TWAIN ONCE SAID, COMMON SENSE REALLY ISN’T SO COMMON SOMETIMES. SAYING THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME LINE AS FAR AS WEAPONS ARE CONCERNED IS ARBITRARY AND A MATTER OF INDIVIDUAL OPINION. WHILE YOU MIGHT THINK THAT RESTRICTING GUNS THAT LOOK SCARY OR HOLD MORE THAN 10 ROUNDS IS REASONABLE, IT DOES NOT MAKE IT “COMMON” SENSE. AS A GENERAL RULE, THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION IS NOT OPERATING UNDER THE GUISE OF RATIONAL COMMON SENSE. THEY ARE USING SENSATIONALISM AND EMOTIONAL TACTICS TO SWAY THE OPINIONS OF THE CITIZENS. WHEN STRONG EMOTIONS LIKE FEAR, HATRED OR ANGER ARE PRESENT IN A DISCUSSION, IT IS NO LONGER RATIONAL.

          • Nick Czudy

            Frank. It was a good response.
            I guess that I just have a few things that I disagree with and that is my opinion.

            !) if the militia is to be well regulated, then my common sense would take it that the people bearing arms should also be well regulated.

            2) right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
            I see that letting people buy guns is satisfying this clause. As for the government for the people and by the people, the right that determines what kind of weapons can exist under the 2nd. Many do not see it that way, but I do.

            3) The main excuse given by the gun lobby, is that this right is for the people to bear arms is to oppose the government, That is the part that scares me,. Is this so that everyone can be like the Waco Branch Dividians? That is going too far. We do not need to have armed groups that can potentially cause harm to innocent people. This applies to the ,militarists and the fascist groups that think that their purpose in life is to oppose the government. That means that they are opposing the people. I do not see that the 2nd amendment is giving these types of groups the blessing blessing to stock pile arms.

            This discussion hopefully will get discussed and dealt with in the months to come.
            We will have to see what happens.
            regards
            Nick Cz

  • Meli

    I hate to burst your bubble, but liberals are not trying to take your guns away. They are trying to make you take reponsibility for how you use those guns, how you secure them so that they won’t get stolen. Gun violence has gotten out of hand in America, and if we cannot live together without having to be afraid that our neighbors are going to shoot us, then people are going to start getting serious about repealing that sacred second ammendment. Gun owners talk a lot bout freedom, but they rarely make a case for respomsible gun oewnerhip. It’s time to change that.

    • Frank Kahn

      If nobody shoots anybody, either by accident or on purpose, with my guns, then I am being responsible. You have no say in how I handle or store my guns. Keep your fat liberal nose out of my business.

    • Truth_B_told

      Perfect example of the misguided liberal Meli! This person thinks that gun laws work? Well honey hate to burst your rose colored bubble but they do not do a thing but unarm the law-biding American Case in point Chicago toughest gun laws in the country and the most dangerous place in the US. So he can not protect himself a right given by God not the 2nd amendment all that dose is confirm that truth. We have people in office that will trample your rights now and could care less about you but do care that you are able to defend your self from any Tyrant but you don’t get it and more than likely ever will. Your Savior Obama is about the closest to being that Tyrant along with his minions of Finestine and Frankin that know its all about control much like Hitler Stallen some of there pals in things like the SS. You drank the Kool aid honey.

      • Truth_B_told

        Lets look at a few things Obama wants:
        To be able to throw you in prison without due process of law for life if he so choses to do so?

        Is this an act of a TYRANT?

        Authorize drone attacks on US soil against US citizens? He wants to be able to do that too!

        Is this an act of a TYRANT?

        Cause the monetary system to collapse when a loaf of bread will cost you $100.00 because they printed so much money its worthless

        Is this an act of a TYRANT?

        IF it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck? I think it’s a duck!

        • R. Fine

          None of your allegations have any validity.

        • Nick Czudy

          Truth. Of the three things that you have mentioned here on this comment, none of them are true. They are the talking points of the Right Wing Bubble. Just because sites like this and similar sites say, so, does not make it a fact.
          Even your name is a contradiction.
          If a lie is told to you enough times you will believe it. You need to get out from the bubble and see reality. Please broaden your sources of information.
          If you research the three statements you made, you will see that they are just not true. Please act like your name purports you to do.
          thanks Nick Cz

      • Nick Czudy

        Hey Truth, I have heard that statement many times that God said that you have the right to arm or protect yourselves. Or that it is a God Given Right. Where?
        Can you please direct me to where God said that?
        I am not aware of that?
        Thanks
        Nick Cz

  • http://omanuel.wordpress.com omanuel

    Government deception is out of control. What a sad, sad state of affairs.

    Leaders of our government have already lost, and/or are now losing, credibility in the world community, as well as in the scientific community:

    http://news.yahoo.com/afghan-leader-alleges-us-taliban-colluding-075031783.html

    The pseudo-scientific climate crisis is explained succinctly at Power to the People:
    http://tinyurl.com/a2ocxtq

    Historical details and references for the rise of “climate crisis” (1945-2013) are given here: http://tinyurl.com/atf8w63

    I deeply regret that I could not connect the dots earlier.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo
    PhD Nuclear Chemistry
    Postdoc Space Physics
    http://www.omatumr.com
    http://omanuel.wordpress.com/

  • Kevin

    (((Helpful Tips for the Identification Of “Charlie”))) ……………………….There is growing, irrefutable evidence that the Crimean Khazars, whose kingdom extended over what is now the Ukraine to the Caspian Sea, officially converted to pure Mosaic Judaism in 861 under the rule of King Bulan. The Khazars do not appear to have been a people unto themselves, but rather a blend of many races resulting from the heavy trade that was going on at the time. The campaign of the Rus (Russian) Prince Svyatoslav of Kiev effectively broke the back of the Khazarian empire in 965 AD, although Khazar itself continued until at least 1030 AD. Under the growing persecution of Kiev Rus in the 11th and 12th century, the Khazars disappeared as a people. Nonetheless, there is overwhelming evidence that at least a portion of the Jewish Khazars fled to Eastern Europe and north into Poland and Lithuania.

    [excessively long cut-and-past post edited. please use a hyperlink]

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.