Personal Liberty

Sam Rolley

Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After covering community news and politics, Rolley took a position at Personal Liberty Media Group where could better hone his focus on his true passions: national politics and liberty issues. In his daily columns and reports, Rolley works to help readers understand which lies are perpetuated by the mainstream media and to stay on top of issues ignored by more conventional media outlets.

Join the Discussion

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.

  • vicki

    And we are believing a terrorist why? This is just another attempt to demonize gun owners and their supporters. I wonder why the guy never mentioned Fast and Furious as an example of easy gun access without any checks.

  • JimH

    Wow, A fully automatic weapon without showing ID.
    Unless it’s from the trunk of some criminals car, it isn’t happening.
    I know MSNBC didn’t follow up on that and actually try to buy a “fully automatic” weapon without an ID.
    Otherwise they wouldn’t look so foolish.

  • Dave

    Can you get a gun without a background checks in this country?
    Can you buy a fully auto assault rifle?
    No but they are easy to convert.
    Vicki, Effort ot demonize gunowners? really?

    • JimH

      Hi Dave, Unless it’s from a private party, where in the U.S. can I buy a firearm without a background check or having to show ID.

      • Dave

        So that would be “yes” wouldn’t it? The latest proposals call for background checks on ALL gun sales. Or as I and the majority, including NRA members like to call it… Common sense.

        • JimH

          Common sense would be a law that would work,(work being the operative word) without trampling all over law abiding peoples rights, liberty’s and freedoms.
          So far I haven’t seen one.

          • Dave

            Ok Jim,

            What “works” in your estimation? So far the only thing I have heard from the NRA is “arm everyone” and reduce enforcement that fails too… so the floor is yours. Give me your solution.

          • JimH

            Hi Dave, None of what is in any new legislation would have stopped Adam Lanza. It won’t work. Not just in my estimation(even though “my” estimation is correct), It just plain old WON’T WORK.
            Taking away good peoples rights just, takes away rights we will never get back. Not worth the price.
            People were killing people long before the invention of gunpowder. The problem isn’t the gun, it’s that there are violent people. Sometimes guns are used by good people to protect themselves and others from violent people. So trying to ridicule or minimize the idea of more protection is wrong.
            There is no perfect solution. It isn’t a perfect world. The path the leaders in this country are on will do more damage than good.
            Just because there are evil or mad people out their doesn’t mean good and responsible people should be penalized.
            When a fox gets in the hen house you don’t go after the dog.
            IT JUST DOESN’T WORK.

          • Dave

            Alright Jim, lets try it again… what does work? You did not answer the question.
            Since you brought up Newtown… Lets examine that… If the assault weapons ban was is place, the Bushmaster would have not been purchased by Ms Lanza (she purchased all her weapons legally) and if there were a high capacity magazine ban in place that could have given someone the opportunity to either disarm Adam Lanza or at least escape. If we had more comprehensive mental services, Ms Lanza could have been told not to allow Adam to have access to her guns and Adam would never have been allowed to get his NRA cert.
            But we will never know “what works” because the NRA oppose all common sense safety measures because their main goal is to make money for the gun manufacturers.

          • JimH

            OK Dave, In Norway a madman with a bolt action rifle killed over 60 children in a country with some of the strictest gun control laws.(they don’t work) (either does the high capacity magazine argument)

            You ask what does work. Not taking freedoms, rights and liberty;s away from law abiding people. History shows it doesn’t work.
            Better mental health services would be a step in the right direction, but there is no 100% solution.
            In your preconceived notion that the NRA is this evil entity that is there to make money for gun manufacturers, you can’t conceive that they are a group of over 4.5 million people who are interested in protecting our 2nd amendment rights. You also suffer from the illusion that the NRA makes the law. Congress does that. They can only present their point of view to congress.
            Since Adam stole firearms from someone who past a background check, all the background checks in the world wouldn’t have made a difference.
            I own a Bushmaster AR-15 and some 30 round magazines. I’ve never killed anyone or even anything with it. I also belong to the NRA. I’ve never killed any one or anything.(with any kind of weapon)
            Depriving me or anyone like me of our rights, liberty’s or freedoms won’t work.
            Quite frankly you haven’t given a solution that would work either.
            I’ll ask you a question. How many people that shot up a school or theater or any crowd was a member of the NRA that you like to villify? Same question about conceal carry permit holders.
            These are not the people you need to worry about.
            Of course these new laws being proposed really aren’t about crime prevention. they are about control.
            You should ask yourself, why are some of these politicians so afraid of law abiding people having a gun they don’t know about?
            Could it be that if we can protect ourselves from a tyranical government and the Gestapo doesn’t know who’s doors to kick in, they have to behave?
            If a fox gets in the henhouse go after the fox, not the dog. that is closer to the solution than what is going on in the Senate or the Whitehouse.

          • Dave

            Wait… You don’t think the NRA has a strong presence in Congress to help make/shape the law? What world do you live in? The only thing the president proposed that “takes away” anything is the assault weapons ban reinstatement and the large capacity magazines. The rest his helping law enforcement, getting better mental health capabilities and examining why as a culture we are so quick to reach for the gun. The NRA opposes all of it. Nobody is talking about a gun ban. The NRA only cares about the gun manufacturers making more money. They oppose all of the president’s proposals and that tells me they are not serious about dealing with the issue. Even if 100% of what Obama proposed was made law, you still have handguns, rifles and shotguns to have for collecting, shoting and protection.

          • JimH

            Do you really think that if Obama gets what he proposes now, that he would be done? What world do you live in? It would be the START.

            The 2nd amendment is the ONLY gun law we need.
            It’s the freedom to “keep and bear arms”, not the right to hunt and target shoot.
            “Even if !00% of what Obama proposed was made law, you would still have hand guns, rifles and shotguns to have for collecting, hunting, shooting and protection.” Wow I have those things NOW, plus the other things that would be taken away. Still it won’t stop madmen or criminals.
            You haven’t answered, Why should we give up anything to get something that won’t work?
            Your preconceived notion of how much power the NRA has is still misguided.( I wish they did) They are like the Sierra Club or any other special interest group they don’t have the power to legislate.
            I really shouldn’t be penalized for something a criminal or madman did. I’m not one of those.
            Is there a right and freedom you enjoy, that if it was being taken from you, because of the actions of someone else, and the result of your rights being taken away would be it didn’t work, would that be the right thing to do?

            Would you stand up against it? Would you support a special interest group to help keep that right?
            Just because it isn’t important in your life, it still is one of OUR(including you) rights, for now.
            You shouldn’t be so willing to give it up, especially since it would all be for nothing, because IT WON’T WORK.
            Once that right is gone, it’s gone. There won’t be a, well that didn’t work, here’s your right back.
            Don’t be so frivolous With our(including yours) rights.

          • Dave

            During the election of 2008, the fearmongers of the NRA said Obama would come for your guns and what did he do for the first 4 years? He actually expanded where gun owners could take their guns… (on fed land), then the NRA lies about the international arms treaty… why have the done this? To spread fear and garner more gun sales. Where is your proof that if this proposal was passed, that Obama would then call for more “gun gabs”? You simply have no proof of any of that and what it is a product of fear sold by the NRA.
            You say taking away assault weapons and large capacity magazines won’t work? I agree that doing that alone won’t work but it that and the other things that Obama is proposing saves even one life, its worth it. Since the NRA and the gun zealots do not want ANY gun safety measures, Where is your proof that an armed society is a safe one? I live in AZ and the gun violence is more than MA, a liberal state with tougher gun laws. So that premise is false. The NRA wants the status quote and for anyone to get a gun the minute they want it. That is a recipe for disaster.
            I know how to drive a car, I can do it very well… But I have to stop at stop signs, red lights and obey speed limits etc… because having those laws reduces the incidences of accidents because not everyone has my skill behind the wheel. That is the purpose of having laws and being in a society… To keep people safe. You may go through all the safety and targeting certifications and know how to proper handle your gun and store them when they are not in use. But you are not the reason these laws and proposals get started. Ms Lanza did not store these weapons she bought legally properly, nor did she shield her son who had a clear record of mental issues from these weapons and now she 6 educators and 20 6 year olds are dead. The time of doing nothing about gun safety and allowing the NRA to loosen gun safety regs is done. Today, I recieved a robocall from the NRA warning me the my Senator Jeff Flake just voted to pass these common sense safety measures. As a parent of a 4 and 7 year old, I sent Mr Flake a e-mail thanking him for his courage to vote the way he did in the face of the power of the NRA and their money as a Republican.
            I apologize for any inconvenience to your lifestyle, but I support any measures that allows law enforcement to do their jobs better, that gives us the ability to identify and help those with mental illness and keep guns out of their hands and yes, to get guns that who’s main purpose is to inflict maximum destruction off the streets. I do not agree with the otherside which is to say we should do nothing and make guns more widely previlent in a society that is violent enough already. To stop gun violence is to work on the issue of why people seek the gun so quickly in a dispute, make all drugs legal, and to have the proper rules and regs in place to finally get people to have the proper respect for weapons and to not treat then as “toys”. Then there is a whole economic issue that needs to be addressed too but that could take a whole different thread.

          • JimH

            Your car analogy is a good one. If you drive safely every thing is fine. If someone else drives recklessly no on is going after YOUR car.

            Some one else uses a firearm recklessly and the 99.9999999999% of gun owners should not be penalized for it.

            I’m sorry you feel the rest of us need to be treated like 5 year olds to keep you safe.

            I am also disappointed you hold our constitutional rights in such low regards you don’t mind throwing them away, to accomplish something that won’t work.

            During his first term Obama couldn’t show his true colors on gun control, if he wanted to be re-elected. Now the pressure is off, he will work harder for more regulation,that just won’t work.

            This is just the beginning. Since it starts in Congress Fienstein has already said she is just getting started. Other senators and representitives have said so, too. All Obama has to do is sign it into law. He hasn’t said he won’t. The NRA can’t legislate, they can just state their positions and let the voters be informed on who doesn’t respect our rights.

            You’re in Arizona, almost to Mexico. See how well strict gun control is working there.
            Look how well it worked in Norway.(he holds the record)
            The problem with “gun violence” is the violence part, not the gun part.
            Other weapons are available. If the gun isn’t there the killer just won’t shrug their shoulder and say oh well I guess I can’t kill them. They will look for another way.
            Since murder is against the law “all violence” is already covered.
            Matches come in packs of twenty. If they come in packs of four(no high capacity match packs for you) will it curb arson?
            Madmen and criminals don’t care about laws or rules, so hindering the law abiding people just doesn’t work.

            Maybe you don’t mind surrendering OUR freedoms, but I have a real problem with it.

          • Dave

            Do cars have speed limiters? Yes… Do you need to have the proper emissions? That is the proper analogy, not taking away your car.

          • JimH

            You’re just limiting the kind of car I can drive and taking away a car I already own. So yeah, not all of the cars I own, just some. Because SOMEONE ELSE was a bad driver.

            Cars aren’t a Constitutional right.

          • Dave

            Wrong, you can’t drive an Indy car on the road but you can drive a Ferrari. Nobody is trying to take all your guns away. You need to stop spreading that lie.

          • JimH

            I never said ALL the guns will be taken away.(so who is telling the lie?)

            Certain kinds. I have the right to own them now. But you think that after legally owning the Ferrari I should be OK with someone taking it away, because someone else drove recklessly in a Ferrari.
            But the sniveling little elitist says he will let me have a Prius.
            And I should be happy he will let me have that.
            Indy car= fully automatic machine gun
            Ferrari= AR-15
            Prius=Joe Bidens double barrel shotgun
            You can’t wrap your head around the idea that good people shouldn’t be penalized for the actions of a very, very, small few.
            Plus IT DOESN’T WORK.

          • Dave

            You are basically saying that is what Obama wants to do, take all of your guns away even though he has NEVER proposed anything of the sort. Most of what Obama has proposed is around gun safety, sharing data between law enforcement, better mental health capabilities, I support the limiting of magazine size and I also support getting assault weapons off the street. We live is a society that glorifies violence, fame and as a society we have little sense of responsibility. We elect lawmakers to protect society and the country and sometimes, they protect us from ourselves.
            The NRA rejects all gun safety legislation. What gun safety laws does the NRA support? 1 provision of the main 10 provisions has anything to do with the actual “gun” but to the NRA, the whole package is rejected out of hand because they peddle fear not facts. The NRA even rejected their own position on comprehensive background checks… why? Obama supports it.
            The NRA is now an extremist organization. Common sense is nowhere to be found in their leadership.

          • JimH

            The NRA is an extremist organization?
            All 4.5 million of us?
            Wow get ready for the blood bath.
            If you go by the actual definition of “assault weapon” they already are illegal.
            Magazine limits, some Norwegian showed that doesn’t matter, so why take away good peoples rights on something that won’t work.(through this whole discussion you haven’t explained that yet.)
            In Illinois we have background checks. Even at the gun shows, there is a direct line to the Illinois State Police and only Federally licensed dealers can sell there.You need a Firearms Owners Identification card and waiting periods before you can pick up your purchase. Look at the Chicago murder rate. It’s higher than the casualty rate of the Iraq war.
            Didn’t work.
            You say the NRA rejects ALL gun safety regulation. Name one”safety”, not rights infringing, legislation the NRA opposed.
            If you can’t handle living in a free society, without enough elitists to tell you how to protect yourself from yourself, go live where they are and leave the rest of us free people alone to be free.(Mexico is just right down the street from you,with the draconian gun laws that got rid of all that “gun violence” and every thing)

            Assault weapons ban means taking away certain firearms, so tell me again, how Obama “never” said he wanted to do that.

          • Jeff

            So, gun laws don’t work because a gun nut in Norway got hold of a weapon and killed people? How many died? 60? That’s a lot in Norway, but here it’s a weekend in a few big cities. We’ve had something like 3,500 gun deaths just since the Newtown, CT shooting. If you think your right to own an AR-15 is more important than a child’s right to live, then you’re a sick man. Because the issue isn’t whether you will ever kill anyone. Most likely you won’t. But if we have millions of these weapons in circulation with millions of these large-capacity magazines, undesirable people WILL get their hands on a good number of them. They’ll steal them from your house; they’ll buy them at gun shows; they’ll even buy them in back-alley transactions from someone desperate for money. If 30 or 100 round clips are legal, I can GUARANTEE that a future Adam Lanza or Dylan Klebold will be armed with them. But, as long as your grandchildren aren’t in the line of fire, who really cares? I mean, you’d hate to have to leave your gun at home to go to a funeral, wouldn’t you?

          • JimH

            Hi Jeff, You believe that if good people give up their rights that evil people won’t get their hands on those weapons.

            Of those 3500 deaths since Newtown, how many were from an evil or mad person using a so called “assault weapon”?

            How many killers, if a firearm wasn’t around, would have found a different weapon? Most of those 3500 would still be dead. Maybe more because some good people wouldn’t be able to protect themselves from the bad.

            The problem with “gun violence”, is the violence part, not the gun part.

            Depriving good people doesn’t hinder the evil or mad ones.
            I’D hate for you to have to go to your unarmed friend or relatives funeral.

        • vicki

          Common sense gun control is hitting what you aim at. Denying people their God given right to the best tools of defense is certainly not sensible.

          Now I DO believe in universal background checks but we don’t need a new bureaucracy with all the inherent problems to make it work. Anyone can do it.

          Here is a common sense background check system. It is a LOT less expensive then the privacy invading one currently used and new one proposed.

          Check the background. Is it a prison (county jail etc)?

          If yes then don’t sell a gun to the inmate.
          If no then sell the gun to a free citizen.

          KEEP Criminals IN JAIL. It’s that easy.