This is a result of the NDAA, people are afraid of having their rights taken.

XD, you like that weapon? I like my Colt 1911.

The 2nd Amendment in the Bill fo Rights: A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

There is NO HIGHER WORLDLY AUTHORITY OR LAW THAN THE CONSTITUTION in the U.S. From the Constitution comes the power of the three branches of government. Not the other way around.

Without a Constitutional amendment any law that INFRINGES on the 2nd Amendment is Unconstitutional and is against everything this country stands for (primarily LIBERTY). No legal hack (from local attorney to Supreme Court Justice) can make any valid argument against the clear and consise language that you just read in the 2nd. But the agruments have been made and people were swayed by silver tounges to give up this right, to chip away at the inalienable.

The SOLE PURPOSE of the second amendment is to provide WE THE PEOPLE with the ability to defend ourselves from or own government should it become tyrannical and oppressive. (Like NDAA 2012). Unfortunately "we the people" have already allowed so much infringment on this right that we won't stand a chance when they start rounding us up as declared "terrorists".

The reality of the 2nd Amendment is that if the military can own a tank, we should be able to own a tank, they own an F-22 we can own an F-22. If you think it should be anything less than that, then you have zero understanding of the 2nd Amendment and are part of those that would infringe.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. "
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the
Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

in·fringe/inˈfrinj/
Verb:Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:

John-1453080

Really? someone gives facts and you resort too name calling.

Kinda sounds like you need to look at yourself.

NEG... LOVE it... 19 rd mag + 1 in the chamber. Actually I prefer it over the GLOCK which I was "formally" trained on. Sits better in the hand.

The model I have is a tad too big for general carry, but it's great for home defense. I'm looking at the Kimber Solo for carry, with a nice 357 in an ankle holster.

john-1453080 whether you like it or not you are also a part of the militia. I doubt you are well regulated though for well regulated as used in the 2nd amendment means well equiped.

@john-1453080

What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

@Kentucky Mike

What do you expect? He's a typical liberal moonbat.

Obama's agenda has a lot to do with the increased gun sales.... he and Eric Holder would like to redact the 2nd amendment. I don't think they will succeed, but don't want to wait and see if I'm wrong...

Unlike most folks these days... I don't count on the government to protect me... either with food stamps or from criminals, but would rather be proactive! Obama's program looks great on paper, but certainly won't work in the real world. And it won't help me protect my family! Count me in as one who wants to keep the 2nd Amendment!

No question about it; Obama has been the cornerstone for the best marketing strategy the firearms industry has executed in decades. It's immaterial that his administration hasn't made any significant changes to domestic gun ownership policies, the industry has done a great job of painting him as somebody who could do so at any time, so better buy one while you still can. I seriously would not be surprised to see them supporting his reelection - that would drive sales over the moon.

What I would find interesting, and perhaps it's in the article but I'm just not seeing it, is how are the stats trending on new owners vs. existing owners that are purchasing additional weapons.

@ john: i hope you are old so you die soon! do you like freedom? i read some of your other posts and am shocked that anyone on either side could debase the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA this way!!

Gee what a bunch of paranoid and brain washed people, did Obama once say anything about banning guns NO, I'm a Democrat and a NRA member so what, you think I'm going to say take my guns .... Get a grip people ..

So, using the Santorum logic, the constitution provides for the right of the people to bare arms, but does not provide for the right of manufacturers to manufacture ALL POSSIBLE arms, or for gun stores to sell ALL POSSIBLE ARMS. Restricting the manufacturing or selling of weapons of mass destruction that go beyond what would be used for hunting or reasonable self defense or a fun day target practicing, would seem both reasonable and constitutional... especially items like armor piercing bullets, 30+ round clips, automatic weapons, and explosive devices... No?

Tell me where this fails the 2nd Amendment.

Rick, you are the perfect Obama guy.... learn to read between the lines my friend! Read and learn! Obama would never come out and say he wants to ban guns... that would be political suicide! He's smarter than that, that's why he needs to go this November! He doesn't represent the informed public he represents his interests... and he is counting on those like you... rick, to keep him in office! The rest of us don't care for his vision of what America should be!!!

Gun sales are up and crime is down. What a coincidence.

Why do the gun advocates collapse a post then reply to it - doesn't that defeat the purpose of collapsing it....and you call him dumb.

What is going on in Kentucky that the rest of us don't know...get your news from your preacher and start seeing conspiracies.

The old fear rhetoric is alive and well - mission accomplished George.

Gun owners sound like kids at show and tell time, maybe if you sounded more like adults, people wouldn't question why you should have a gun.

Key word in the article; perceived. Get your preceiver re-calibrated, no boogie man is out to get you.

seldom

The rest of us don't care for his vision of what America should be!!!

Is that some more reading between the lines?

Four Points,

That's good and all but when the military rolls tanks into the street to combat an angry mod of thousands of Americans in the hypothetical war for the country exactly how are they supposed to deal with those? As far as I know RPG's are not for sale in legal markets, neither are grenades or C4 for that matter.

The second amendment means nothing if you cannot arm yourself on par with any military organization that may try to attack or restrict your freedoms in such a way as to authorize the American people to rise up against them.

So why is Hillary trying to sign us up for U.N. small arms treaty. I don't have to read between the lines with her. I was just asked to sign petition from Sen. Paul Rand to keep this from happening. Why does this matter. Just another way to confiscate weapons from the citizens of the U.S. It does not matter Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative. The U.N. and Clinton administration wants our weapons. What would the girl and her baby do without her guns to protect herself in OK. Good Luck USA.

Geowil,

Good luck buying a Stealth bomber.

Geowil

If small arms aren't a threat to a potentially oppressive government, then why is the government so terrified of armed citizens?

UPI 2 Nov 2009.

U.S. taxes on guns and ammunition -- which are used to fund wildlife conservation -- increased after Bill Clinton was elected president in 1992 and after Democrats took control of Congress in 2006. At the current rate those tax receipts will set a record in 2009.

It's not about Obama it's about not trusting Democrats. Nothing paranoid about it they do not have a good track record on the issue.

Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.
Sen. Diane Feinstein

Get a clue; crime has gone down (or has it) because people like me took measures to protect our selves before a criminal got past our front door. Civilian crime fighting has drastically risen, my windows are now barred, my home has security cameras, many homes have security protection by companies like Brinks. To say just guns in private hands reduced crime just isn't true.

Check out the number of insurance claims - many crimes go un-reported. Many crimes are not counted in the official statistics. Assaults are not part of the reported crimes stats. When my credit card information was stolen, all my bank wanted was a manager at each store to say that my number was used there and my bank refunded my money - the police didn't do a thing once I told them the bank refunded me.

There is also no way to officially keep track (I have the link if you want it) of the over all amount of crime, like every thing else it is all broken down into categories (I know you conservatives hate all those special branches instead of one big do everything branch) where it concerns government reporting.

In other words; you don't have a point - unless you count Fox talking points.

Colt 45, and 2 zig zags baby thats all we need ........

U. S. Census Bureau statistics Table 306 aggravated assaults 807,000 or 263 per 100,000 for 2009.

Source that the Census Bureau uses: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Crime in the United States," September 2010.

Wait a minute, I seriously doubt that the framers of the Constitution anticipated the Internet, either, when they crafted the First Amendment, but does that mean that we should not have "Freedom of Speech" anymore? Or, you know, at least not electronically disseminated freedom of speech? Is the right of free speech only applicable when the instrument of communication is a quill pen and a bullhorn?

See, that's the wonderful thing about the Constitution - the rights it declares are, for the most part, common sense, basic rights designed to protect the people from an overweening or oppressive government and those rights are not technology dependent.

The First Amendment (which, incidentally, was the first to come under attack following the Gifford shooting) allows us to express and communicate our discontent. The Second Amendment gives us the capacity to resist if protest and "peaceable assembly" are inadequate to the purpose. It is not about hunting or home protection. It is, quite expressly, about the right to revolt (the first right legally established and expressly enunciated in the Declaration of Independence).
If you read the "Federalist Papers" then you will understand that the Second Amendment is NOT about the right to hunt and shoot deer. It is about the right of the people to have weaponry adequate to resist an oppressive government. When the government's forces were armed with flintlock muskets, then flintlock muskets in the hands of the people were sufficient. When the government got "repeating rifles" with metal cartridges, it became legitimate for the people to follow suit. We now have a government armed with thermonuclear weapons, ultra-sonic stealth aircraft, precision guided munitions, and armored vehicles of daunting capacity, yet you seem to think that a 30 shot magazine is "too much" for the citizen to have?
Understand where the debate starts - it starts with my right to fight the government with instrumentalities as lethal as those which the government possesses. Anything less than the right to own thermonuclear warheads is already an infringement of the right to keep and bear ARMS (not rifles or pistols - ARMS). The Second Amendment doesn't start with the right to own a single shot squirrel gun with everything more potent being a grant of privilege. The right starts with the right to personal power equal to the government's. Period. That is the only interpretation consistent with the Founder's expressed intent and with the purposes they declared.

If, in fact, you (as you claim) truly supported the Second Amendment, you would know that. In fact, it is clear that you lied about that support because you perceive that the second most important (and second recited) right in the Bill of Rights is not, in fact, a right at all, but a limited privilege to be exercised only to the extent that the government sees fit, which is the mistaken belief of all people who support "gun control" and who secretly hate the Second Amendment. Put simply, you're a poseur. You believe that you - and/or you with the connivance of the government, have the right to "let" me own a weapon of your choice and for those purposes which you deem allowable, when the whole point of the Second Amendment is to reject and resist any and all such encroachments on my most basic right, namely the right to resist, by equal force, those powers which would wrongfully oppress me.

Now, one does not have to be a crazed militia member to accept that interpretation of the Second Amendment. It's in black and white by the men who wrote it and seconded by those who adopted it. The truly shocking thing is how much the right has already been infringed, so I cannot countenance a supposed "supporter" of the right to keep and bear arms claiming that it should be infringed to the point of meaninglessness.

Ron Paul, the Champion of the Constitution and the Thomas Jefferson of our day, is a true American patriot and statesman. I am sick of oath-betraying, constitution abrogating, warmongering establishment neoconservatives posing as Republicans. Wake up America! Ron Paul for President in 2012.

And you think the 'Governement' CARES about you, your children your elders, NOT. Enough of the rhetoric, this lil YOUNG country (less than 300 years) is PATHETIC and nothing but self-serving/selfish!! Like it has been fromthe first "pilgrim' stepping foot on this stolen land.

did Obama once say anything about banning guns

Actually he did. After he was elected president obama said he would not introduce or call for any new restrictions on firearms because he did not have the votes to guarantee the passage of such legislation.

Also see post 4.10

Good luck buying a Stealth bomber.

I already did its called paying my taxes. and thats the problem, the government takes our money to build weapons we cant defend our selves against.

How Ever we can still LEGALLY buy Armor Piercing, and armor piercing inflammatory ammo thats left over from WWII and is antique. Its legal to buy if you can find it.

If you dont know what that ammo can do, i wont tell you, if you dont know you will be against it i'm sure.

Ron Paul, the Champion of the Constitution and the Thomas Jefferson of our day, is a true American patriot and statesman. I am sick of oath-betraying, constitution abrogating, warmongering establishment neoconservatives posing as Republicans. Wake up America! Ron Paul for President in 2012.

ROFLMAO. Talk about koolaid drinking, seriously. Ron Paul is a pork-living, Washington-insider Republican who says one thing and does another. Saying Paul is another Thomas Jefferson is like saying Jefferson was merely a wealthy slaver who didn't want to pay his taxes.

Ron Paul, an insider? HAH! Talk about sheer stupidity and ignorance. He's most definitely outside of the establishment which is why the mainstreamers fear him so much. He has maintained consistant positions and a solid voting record since the 80s. Ron Paul and Jefferson certanly have one thing in common. They are both hardcore constitutionalists and anti-federalists which is more than you can say about most politicans on either side of the isle these days. You are completely clueless.

Less than impressed? Not amused?

Ron Paul

Geowil

A point well taken on the whole body of our rights. Our forefathers could have never envisioned a tank or many other things politicians and groups use to attack our constitution today.

Therefore any amendment to the peoples rights should broaden those rights, not restrict them because it is easier to do.

Everyone should have the right to own a tank. But today the right to drive your tank to pre-school to pick up the kids, well that's another matter. That some would simply try to solve by taking away your right to own it.

Pedestrian is from San Francisco, that says all I need to know.

Interesting section here today-

Sick of Liberals- I agree with you all the way- well said - UNTIL you got to Ron Paul - his desire to pull into the U.S. Borders and not get involved with the world is the type of thing that started WWI and WWII : isolationism. It's pretty simple. People have GOT to start reading and remembering history. Liberals have been notorious for ignoring reality / history for decades. Lindbergh was a Fascist who thought Hitler was a flash in the pan (or on the right track) , so there ARE exceptions .....but generally speaking it's the libs who are lost when it comes to history. Bothersome to see "conservatives" who feel the same. We are not living in the 1700s anymore guys; get over it. The world is at our door, and we gotta deal with it.

The citizen upgrading in weaponry to match the government is an interesting idea, but would lead to a lot of large explosions all over the country....it would mean that the liberal nanny state promoters would be in a tizzy too, and that would lead too much foaming at the mouth and thrashing all the time.....requires some thought.....

Ritdog, I don't believe Dr. Paul is a isolationist. He believes we need to get our own house in order, before we try to police the world, he also believes the US would become stronger, if we continue to trade with the rest of the world just not police it. Policing the world is leading our country into bankruptcy. There are a lot of great videos of Ron Paul, on you-tube explaining this. The media has and will continue to try, to lie about Ron Paul, with false statements about his foreign policy. He is by all means a true conservative, who believes in governing by the constitution. I started paying attention to Dr Paul in 2007. He is a libertarian, not a republican, and libertarian beliefs are not for everyone. I do believe, the Republican party had best do a better job of providing a more conservative candidate other than Mitt Romney, or the country had best prepare itself for another 4 years of Obama.

Its time for our country to move on from the cold war mentality.

I read an article yesterday which stated that authorities were baffled at why crime rates have suddenly dropped. Coincidence? I think this could indicate that firearm ownership can be a valid and safe deterrent to crime.

BRAINDAMAGE...

I can understand the screen name now, there are BARS on YOUR windows.. you have security cameras to protect yourself from those outside.

Who's the prisoner?

If that's what YOU accept as the norm for living, that's YOUR problem. For myself and family, I'll keep my firearms thank you. I'm NOT a prisoner in my own home.

you have security camer

Cops love those cameras. They provide great evidence at your killer's trial.

Guns should not be universally banned, nor should all concealed carry permits. That being said, this is what I don't get...

1. The "guns protect us from the government" argument. Perhaps they did at one time, but since about the 1940's I would assume that unless you have an airforce and soldiers trained to be on par with Seals/Rangers/Spec Ops, every citizen in the country could own a gun, and it wouldn't matter. Nor can you use Afganistan/Iraq as an argument to counter this point. They might be picking us off, but they are far from overthrowing our goverment. It's more pure exhaustion and high expenses that are killing us, as well as nation building, not so much hand guns. And even if you do suceed in taking down the U.S. government, you do realize that chaos would rule, right? It would basically mean the collapse of the world economy. Not to mention, why would the government people, want to destroy the government/constitution, when it's their source of power? It would have to be a complete takeover, coup'd'tat style, hijacking of the army, and if so, then I'm back to what I already stated above. Not to mention, why would the army go for it? And who are these people? Why wouldn't checks and balances stop them?

2. The "self defense" argument. First, if you are a law abiding citizen your odds of being in a situation where you can legally use a gun to defend yourself are slim to none. As evidence, I point to all the people in the world who never own a gun, and do just fine. Also, you can't make this claim without looking at each crime that's comitted, individually. How fast did it happen? Were there other avenues of defense available? Was the victim totally innocent or totally random, as opposed to also comitting a crime? Remember, all crimes aren't violent, and all violent crimes aren't life threatening. Second, if you think carrying one is a reasonable precaution, then why don't you walk around in latex gloves and surgical masks? You're soooo much more likely to die of an infectious disease, and gloves/masks are also a reasonable precaution.

3. The "crime prevention" argument. The vast majority of crimes are spontaneous and comitted from either shear desperation, or extreme emotion. The criminal very rarely spends any time planning. I can not see, "Research gun control laws in the area" showing up on any criminal's To Do Before Committing A Crime list. Therefore, I don't see how people claim that "If the criminal thinks you might be carrying we won't attack you." I guarentee you, ask any psychologist, they will tell that thought is not anywhere in the criminal mind, with the exception of very organized sociopaths. This argument only works if you see all crime and all criminals as rational. What about all the normally law abiding folks that committ crimes of passion? The road rager, the enraged lover, the over worked middle management dude... All capable under the right stressors of shooting someone and legally carrying concealed, but gun folks never discuss that kind of crime or criminal.

4. The "(Insert random object here) kills more people" argument. Yes, more people are killed by, let's say cars. However, more people drive/ride/encounter cars. This argument would work for the pro-gun position, only if you also wore a helmet and body armor (so as to protect you in the unfortunate case of a car accident) as well as carried your gun. Also, cars in today's society are pretty much necessary, unless you live in a large metropolitan area. Also, a hand gun, by its very nature is intended with no other purpose and invented solely to harm human beings. I'm not sure, but I don't think you could place any random obect into this argument that is on par with that.

5. The "Constitution" argument. First, and I know I'm generalizing here, most 2nd amendment supporters are right leaning. As are most who support obviously unconstitutional laws like DOMA. I find this hypocrisy that the 2nd amendment is untouchable, but we can piss on the rest of it attitude frustrating. Either you take my standpoint that, the constitution is more fluid and under the test of strict scruitiny may be amended (after all they did right an entire section about how to amend it), or you say, no way can we bend it in any way, shape, or form. When this amendment was written, there were no guns on par with what we have today. There were no police forces. We didn't have 911 and instant access to trained professionals. We didn't live all crammed together in cities and suburbs. We hadn't killed off all the wild life. We didn't have radar to detect invading forces. Things change, the father's knew this. In fact, either Franklin or Jefferson advised rewriting the Constitution every 10 years, because he assumed it would be obsolete. This amendment was written when a Redcoat could literally knock on your door, take your property, and know one would know for months that it even happened. Gun control is really the only thing I can come up with that would pass strict scrutiny, yet it seems like it has the most vehement opposition.

Here's what I think. I do a lot of things that could get me killed. Like leaving my house in the morning. I could take a lot more reasonable precautions. I could douse my hands with sanitizer everytime I touch something, I could wear protective body armor... But I don't, because I know two things. Bad sh$*% happens regardless of all the precautions in the world, and I will die one day anyway.

I know this was really long, but I guess, in a nut shell, it isn't necesarrily the "gun" that I have the problem with, it's the false arguments and fear mongering. Sometimes it seems like gun nuts are not only advocating weaponry, but working people up into states of hysteria. "Let's arm them, then stress them out real bad!!!" Not a good idea. Building more McDonald's isn't the cure for obesity, so what makes people think that promoting guns is the cure for violence??? The cure for violence is ending the fear mongering.

Hi Sarah... Yes, you post was long, but reasonable and well thought out.

Let me take your points one at a time.

1. The "guns protect us from the government" argument. Personally, I don't believe that will ever happen. However, it is a possibility if too many politicians start to tamper with our rights much longer. Remember, our standing Army is soon to be less than 400,000 men. We'll have more in the AF, Navy, and Marine Corps, but in total numbers it will still be small. There are currently 80 million legal firearms owners in this country with approximately 300 million firearms. Politicians and military leaders recognize that as a potent potential adversary. Again, will it ever come to that? I don't see it happening.

2. The "self defense" argument. I can personally refute that argument. I personally wasn't the initial attack victim, but I came to the assistance of an elderly gentleman who was being kicked to death. Of course when they turned on me, I drew my firearm and they wisely rethought their intents. I guess they realized it was foolish to bring kicking feet and a couple of knives to a gun fight. Fortunately, I didn't need to fire. I was thanked by the police when they ultimately responded and again by the victim and his family when I visited him in the hospital.

3. The "crime prevention" argument. I'll point to my response above and to some additional information. I believe it was Kennesaw GA that several years ago mandated by law (Unenforced) that ALL households within their jurisdiction have firearms in them. It was in response to a drastically escalating crime spree that they were experiencing from "persons" from Atlanta coming into their neighborhoods. Can you guess what the crime rate there is now? That's right. ZERO. Yes, there are still the stupid petty larcenies, and shoplifting, but the home invasions and burglaries have stopped. Coincidence?

4. The "(Insert random object here) kills more people" argument. Yes, there are many things that kill more people every year. But I don't know of ONE that doesn't take human involvement. (I'm not talking about lightning, or drowning, or bee stings) but all others.. even firearms, take the involvement of a human. And I don't think we'll be able to control them any time soon.

5. The "Constitution" argument. I'm sorry, but the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the bedrock of this country and it's existence. There was never a document like it before and although others have tried, no-one has come close to the genius of the Founding Fathers and THEIR understanding of Freedom and Liberty. Your last paragraph states: "it isn't necesarrily the "gun" that I have the problem with, it's the false arguments and fear mongering". You're making suppositions and offering no supporting documentation. I could also demand that the 1st Amendment should be amended to preclude one from making unsupported claims. But I won't. It is YOUR Constitutional Right to feel how you do and to say WHAT YOU DESIRE, and contrary to your lack of support for my 2nd Amendment Rights, I FULLY support YOUR 1st Amendment Rights to say what you want, when you want to say it, and where you want to say it, without fear of the Government or anyone else trying to silence you.

And I also apologize for the long post.

Have a Happy and SAFE New Year!!

Well done Sarah. Well done.

And I have a conceal and carry. I don't, but I can.

It's important to remember, I think, that the gun in the holster of the police officer is not there to protect the public, it is there to protect the police officer.

The second amendment simply affords me the right to protect myself the same way the police officer does. I don't see a problem with that.

According to the hard core gun owners, you have two primary reasons to own guns. 1. to protect your self from criminals. 2. to protect your self from the government...here I thought I shot guns as a sport.

1. I've never had to come face to face with a criminal, that is because I am proactive and avoid such situations rather than sit in wait to react. Hardly a prisoner in my own home, part of being proactive is talking with your neighbors, they all know my place is protected. If I ever do have to encounter a criminal - it is very unlikely they are there to kill me - if they need help loading up my stuff I'll be glad to help. What do criminals target; guns, drugs, and money - of which I have none of in my home. If you are a criminal you can tell who owns what from the toys in the yard - my yard says don't bother with him...lmao.

2. if you want to take on Uncle Sam - ask the folks in Waco how that went. Just like with the criminal; I'm going to sit back and not get involved, good luck finding your Rambo army..lmao.

You can rant all you want why you are entitled to own guns, I won't stop you from using one as you please - but I will comment on the outcome the next day at Newsvine...I look foreword to reading about you gun owners...lmao.

Hit the nail on the head Sick_of_Liberals on post 1.28.

Ohio I walked into the gun store got the FBI check and walked out with my brand new Glock 22.

Aunt Anna....I think the permit refered to is a concealed carry permit.

In Long Island, New York a pistol license costs hundreds of dollars and takes over 8 months for the lazy government to process. In New York City, practically the only people who can get a permit are rich and famous celebrities. Why is this not being brought to the Surpreme Court?

you don't need a concealed weapon permit in AZ ...can't get much easier than that!

Actually I was only talking about the license to own a pistol and take it to the range! Getting a CCW in lower New York is basically impossible.

I've just renewed my concealed carry permit. I didn't do it out of paranoia, I did it for the same reason I insure my house and my car. It, and the concealed weapon it covers are insurance on my personal safety. Through no fault of their own, the police are minutes away when seconds count.

I'm glad people are posting about Obama climbing into bed with the UN on the pending gun ban treaty. He can't pass the legislation he wants legally so he'll work through the back alley and try to get in under the radar, as he promised the anti-gun lobby. As more of his Executive Orders begin to slither out into the light and FAST AND FURIOUS closes in on the Executive Branch the question becomes not is he a true citizen but should he be stripped of his citizenship altogether and delivered to the UN to become a citizen of the world.

Ron Paul?

Simper Fi - I still qualify as a Marine. I took the defending the constitution oath serious so I bought one each of what I trained on in 1970.

Son was an Army Ranger '01-'05, OIF-OEF, all his buddies says they're coming to our house when the "zombie apocalypse" happens ;)

Semper Fi

exactly. We have a government that sold guns to mexican drug gangs that killed american citizens and no none went to jail. Libya was bombed on a whim. Just like the banks and the housing industry as it is corrupt--- no one goes to jail... If this administration had its way, we would all not have guns and put up against the wall.

Its amazing what a president will do for a second term. also sterotyping gun owners as southern rednecks also shows how "smart" you are

@IndieParty: Maybe just maybe you haven't learned how to read between the lines as in motive. Obama signs a bill to allow you and others to carry your gun in more places. In the way the new NDAA law is written will give the right for officer's to detain said person's forever. Kinda sounds like a set-up if you think about it. Now that is FACT. If you believe for one second that Obama does not lie then you need to stop drinking the koolade.

actually George Bushs last 6 months saw the greatest job loss since the great depression- an average of 650,000 jobs per month lost -( roughly 2.3 million) jobs Bush lost more in 6 months than Obama did in 3 years- Obamas were nowhere near that- easily confirmed by the dept of labor stats and not msnbc or fox or rush limbaugh- ! NO president could have stopped the bleeding in the first two quarters of the new administration- he inherited the worst economy in 60 years !

lets see eric holder authorized the sell of our guns illegally to mexican drug cartels without mexicos governemnt being aware of it and all while doing this janet napalitano and eric holder both told us that mexicos gun problems were our fault cuz they were buying guns en-mass here because of how lax our gun control is.

they were feeding the problem in mexico while manipulating the gun tracking data to only include gun from the US (we use SN's, most of guns made outside us dont) cause thats all they could track, they sold our guns illegally so they could use them in their false data to further some plan they have.

i dont get why people are so trustworthy of politicians and/or notable figures, people lie!!!!!!!! do you honestly think these elitist (never seen a poor politician?though some have gone broke) people have the common citizens' interest at heart? what would lead you to believe this? i dont trust not a damn one cause they have all showed to be selfish and self-serving, to speak lightly.

vwterry:

Barack Obama opposes four of the five Supreme Court justices who affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms. He voted against the confirmation of Alito and Roberts and he has stated he would not have appointed Thomas or Scalia.

Barack Obama voted for an Illinois State Senate bill to ban and confiscate “assault weapons,” but the bill was so poorly crafted, it would have also banned most semi-auto and single and double barrel shotguns commonly used by sportsmen

Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry

Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting

Barack Obama has endorsed a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition

Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.

Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities

Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people
who use firearms in self-defense (which means he would be in favor of prosecuting that mother who shot a home-invader just recently. Thank god smarter people than ol' Barack have the jurisdiction).

Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case

Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws

Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research"

Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America

Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them

Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military

Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines

Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.

Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month handgun purchase restrictions

Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns

Check it out:

1. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 219, July 29, 2005. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00219)

2. Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, Sept. 9, 1996. The responses on this survey were described in “Obama had greater role on liberal survey,” Politico, March 31, 2008. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269.html)

3. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 217, Kennedy amendment July 29, 2005. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00217)

4. David Wright, Ursula Fahy and Sunlen Miller, "Obama: 'Common Sense Regulation' On Gun Owners' Rights," ABC News' "Political Radar" Blog, http://blogs.abcnews.com, 2/15/08. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/obama-common-se.html)

5. Illinois Senate, SB 2165, March 25, 2004, vote 20 and May 25, 2004, vote 3.

6. “Fact Check: No News In Obama's Consistent Record.” Obama ’08, December 11, 2007. (http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/11/fact_check_no_news_in_obamas_c.php)

7. “Candidates' gun control positions may figure in Pa. vote,” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Wednesday, April 2, 2008, and "Keyes, Obama Are Far Apart On Guns," Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04. (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_560181.html)

8. 1998 Joyce Foundation Annual Report, p. 7.

9. “Obama and Gun Control,” The Volokh Conspiracy, taken from the Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999. (http://www.volokh.com/posts/1203389334.shtml)

10. Illinois Senate, May 5, 2002, SB 1936 Con., vote 26.

11. Illinois Senate, March 25, 2004, SB 2163, vote 18.

12. “Clinton, Edwards, Obama on gun control,” Radio Iowa, Sunday, April 22, 2007. (http://learfield.typepad.com/radioiowa/2007/04/clinton_edwards.html)

13. Chicago Tribune blogs, “Barack Obama: NIU Shootings call for action,” February 15, 2008, (http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/barack_obama_comments_on_shoot.html)

14. Barack Obama campaign website: “As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment . . .” (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/urbanpolicy/#crime-and-law-enforcement.)

15. Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm and http://www.ontheissues.org/IL_2004_Senate_3rd.htm) Oct 21, 2004.

16. Illinois Senate, May 16, 2003, HB 2579, vote 34.

17. United States Senate vote 245, September 29, 2005 and vote 2, January 31, 2006 and Saddleback Forum, August 16, 2008.

18. Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, March 13, 2003. To see the vote tally go to: http://www.nrapvf.org/Media/pdf/sb1195_obama.pdf.

Oh, excuse me... let me get that drool off my face....

When asked by Barbara Walters about gun control, Nancy Polosi said she would decide when it would be time, because it was more important to get the health care act passed at that time. Spoken as a true dictator.

John-1453080, please take your sanctimonious tripe and shove it. Talk about stereotyping.

As to your "impression" of firearms owners. Personally, I'm well employed and gross in the comfortable six figures... not including the cents, just to be clear.

Oh and I'm doing very useful things with my life. Including last year going to the defense of an older gentleman being kicked to death by some local "youth". I guess you would have scurried around the corner and then conveniently forget to call 911.

If you or someone in YOUR family ever needs help, should I and other permit holders just "walk on by", or will you kiss our ass when we bail YOURS out of a mess.

Remember this, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. You can ask an 18 year old widow and mother that question. She was on the line for 21 minutes with 911 dispatch before she fired and that was still before the police arrived.

WMG-21 one more thing to add to your list unfortunately I do not have a reference for it handy.

After he was elected president obama said the only reason he was not seeking more restrictive gun laws was he knew he did not have the votes to get them passed.

XDm9mm I live in the country and would consider 21 minutes a very fast responce time. Of course john and others of his ilk think the police will be there before they finish dialing 911.

Interesting article I took a small excerpt from. Indeed, Clinton and Obama ARE trying to be sneaky in revoking our rights to bear arms. Anyone who thinks differently truly needs to pull their head out of their nether regions and get some fresh air.

"While the rest of Washington was fixated on the debt ceiling debate, the NRA quietly marshaled opposition to the treaty among pro-gun senators.

Fifty-eight senators have now called out the president on his plan. Led by Sens. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.), 45 Republicans and 13 Democrats have written two strong letters —one from members of each party — to President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. All the senators have vowed to oppose any treaty that restricts civilian firearm ownership.

What’s ironic is that the United States already has the world’s pre-eminent system for regulation of true military arms sales. If the rest of the world merely adopted the U.S. regulatory regime, there would be no need for an Arms Trade Treaty."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61942.html#ixzz1idf7JAju

(XDm9mm, GREAT post!!)

John

Exactly what does Obamas ass taste like?

Ya just can't have enough guns to cling to, eh, Texas?

XD9mm- John was probably one of the pukes who was kicking that old man. And I liked the Post.

Thanx

dudogger- Nope I have alot of Military stuff that I hunt and protect myself and family with. Druggies and terrorist don't go down with a 22 cal. I like to see them explode when hit with a 50 Cal Barrett.

Steve-2081387 Of all people, you should know that.

XD9mm- John was probably one of the pukes who was kicking that old man.

dudogger- Nope I have alot of Military stuff that I hunt and protect myself and family with. Druggies and terrorist don't go down with a 22 cal. I like to see them explode when hit with a 50 Cal Barrett.

d

@MAC-329110 - Thats funny... I vaguely remember hearing that police are no longer mandated "to protect and serve" ...ergo that motto has is sans on most patrol cars... Actually lends credence to the percieved need to be self reliant.

I don't know about you guys but I bought my firearms in 2011, getting ready for the Zombie Apocalypse. Just in case. Nevertheless, got myself a new hobby, shooting range!

WMG,

In reading your lengthy post I couldn't help but notice that the first half is someones interpretation of President Obamas opinions or just his agreement with others. No laws enacted by the present administration. Big difference.

As to the second half, all of the examples shown are dated before President Obama took office, some even before he ran for the Senate. Again no laws enacted by this administration.

http://factcheck.org/2008/09/nra-targets-obama/

vwterry ... WMG's lengthy post shows obamas true feelings about guns and gun control. As I stated above after he was elected president obama said he would not call for any new gun control laws because he knew he could not get the votes to pass them.

all of the examples shown are dated before President Obama took office, some even before he ran for the Senate. Again no laws enacted by this administration.

So that negates what, exactly? Because it doesn't disprove his point.

Again no laws enacted by this administration.

No as he has demonstrated he prefers to rule by fiat and extra-constitutional means.

For those of you with reading comprehension issues, I again pose the question "Can any of you show any move made by this administration limiting gun rights? Any at all?" Bold added to help you see the point of my request. By "this administration" I mean as president with the means of enacting laws.

What you all offer are your impression as to what he wants to do, nothing toward what he has done.

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president." Author Unknown

Jus sayin.

make you own bullets and casings. Just like rolling cigaretts.

Hey dummy.... the loonies and bad guys will ALWAYS have guns... That is because they are loonies and bad guys. Taking away gun rights only hurts the honest people making potential victims of all of us. whats it like to be such a whimp???? How do you live with yourself? Oh, you are in LA "BOB"... now I know. Kiss your boyfriend good night and get a clue.

mike... the last sentence was uncalled for. Just accept the fact that he's from California... that's bad enough.

Mike-3784409 & XDm9mm: Take it easy on Bob n LA! The fact he still resides in Los Angele's, CA is proof that he is a dummy and should just be ignored.

Two words...

Re and Load!

If you don't own a gun you are in the minority. If you don't see the benefit of owning a firearm to defend your own home and property you are in a few bricks shy of a full load.

Seriously - someone from LA calling the rest of us loonies??? ROFL....

Amen Brother......Dillon Press..Phoenix Az. Stock up and make them at home.

OBama will not get re-elected, but I wouldnt put it past him to abolish congress or make a concerted effort to fraud the election. We will need our guns then.

The laws you quote are in place because of state votes, not federal. And as many conservatives states made it OK to carry concealed weapons in public and even into bars. WHEN Obama is re-elected, nothing will be done on the federal level about gun control, so take your name calling slurs back to the illiterates that think there is a plot out there to take guns away from people.

Barrrie is making recess appointments when the Senate is not in recess. He's a criminal. As such, and being the most powerful man in the world, there is just cause for concern.

Only two things have kept Obama from attacking 2nd amendment rights.

In order of importance to Obama;

1. his desire to be re-elected.

2. the Supreme Court.

If Obama is re-elected, odds are he will be able to stack the Supreme Court with at least one more anti-2nd amendment judge. The two he's already appointed are rabidly anti gun. And not having to worry about re-election he will show his true anti-American colors. Gun owners and supporters of the 2nd Amendment are right to be concerned. This president has not only condoned but encouraged Holders stonewalling of congress regarding Fast & Furious, which is on a par with Iran Contra in terms of duplicitous Govt illegal activity. Any who doubt Obamas corruption need look no further than his hand picked attorney general Eric Holder to have your mind changed. if you're open minded enough to look at the facts without a knee-jerk partisan dismissal.

Bob.. Obama sponsored legislation in Illinois that would prohibit the sale of firearms or ammunition within a five mile radius of ANY school, place of worship, national, state or local park, library and a myriad of other locations. Basically, anyplace in Illinois.

Now, he realizes that he doesn't want to tick off 80 million LEGAL firearms owners... at least BEFORE the next election.

Oh, I would suggest YOU refrain from slurs against people YOU know nothing about. Unless you personally know one of the posters is in fact illiterate. However, the ability to compose a coherent sentence belies that theory.

Bob n LA: Folks are having a difficult time understanding you. Please spit Oblunders manhood from your mouth so your speech will be easier to understand.

If you take a look at history, which generally foretells the future, you'll notice that it is in the 2nd term of a presidency that a president pushes most for his ideology. During the first term, they are most concerned about being re-elected. It it during the second term that their true beliefs are more exposed. IF Mr. Obama is re-elected, it will be then that we may see an increase in his efforts to restrict guns and ammunition sales and ownership.

As a conservative, this concerns me. It especially concerns me because many republicans are acting childishly. They are being obstructionists and appear to be more interested in seeing the Democrats fail, than the country succeed.

I find myself generally voting republican, but not always. I have serious difficulties with Barrack Obama and his previously stated goals, his friends, and his background, so I cannot vote for him...but when those who I consider to be members of my own party act like whining, spoiled brats where am I to turn?

Republicans....PLEASE get your act together. Stop quarreling just for the sake of quarreling. Stop putting your party first and try putting THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA first, because if you don't, the democrats might just win...because they acted the more maturely. Then, they may be able to push through an agenda that actually WILL be a threat to our 2nd amendment rights.

(FN-40 (beats a Glock all to Hell), Taurus titanium .357 magnum, Ruger Super Blackhawk, Taurus Judge, AK-47 (pre-ban, authentic Russian), Seiga 12, Seiga 308, Remington 1187, Izhmash .22 target rifle...and many more)

- Edge

Well put.

Blamo... I believe the latest FBI crime stats indicated the opposite. Crime is DOWN, especially in areas with MORE legal firearms sales.

Crime is actually going down, Blamo, despite the bad economy.

Wrong Blamo, violent crime is down according to the FBI stats released just this week. Funny, but the NRA seems to be correct that an armed law abiding public is one of the greatest deterrents. Over the last 20 years violent crime has steadily decreased as gun ownership has increased. The places that violent crime hasn't decreased are the cities with Orwellian anti-gun laws. Chicago, DC, LA, Detroit. The list reads like a relocation guide for criminals. Chicago's motto, "Come here if you want to Murder, Rob or Rape, We're unarmed!"

Violent crime just went down in Grady County OK, Thug with knife vs. Mom with Shotgun.

Shotgun Beats knife 'bout every time,,,,,

Big City Police Departments are fudging the numbers in collusion with the FBI...You think Obama's DOJ wants to report crime is UP ???...You think these Mayors want to report crime is UP ??.....Prosecutors are bending over backwards to push for Plea Bargains to lesser crimes that won't be reported as Felonies. Just read your local papers....One thing I did notice a decline in locally.....Successful Home Invasions....as more folks arm themselves, the more often the perp(s) leave the scene in body bags....And I don't think that is a statistic the Police Departments report....I wish they would all get the National Attention the gal in Oklahoma got.

Blamo is correct, crime is UP, he did not say violent crime. Property crimes have increased nationwide as people steal to survive. Construction sites in my area are lit up like an airport at night to keep the metal thieves away.

Hmmmmmmm......record gun sales AND violent crime down???? Coincidence????

AZ, yes it is. Violent crime has been on a decline for several years now. I forget the exact numbers but in crime riddled areas like Detroit v. crime fell, I think, around 40% between 2007 and 2010. If not exact it was around 40% within a 5 to 10% margin. Similar and even greater reductions were seen in many places across the country.

I could probably dig up the article with some searching but I do not have the time to spend thirty to forty minutes doing that right now (it was an article from here).

luvenia.. no it's not Democrats... It's BOTH Republicans AND Democrats. ALL of them are beholden to the same special interests for the most part.

luvie,guess ou forgot the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban by Clinton and recently Obama defying the Supreme Court ruling that Race cannot be used in college acceptance yet Democrats did both these things.

Is that why Obama just by passes the congress and appoint folks when the senate is not in recess. I seem to remember a young Hitler sending the German congress home.

Liberals I know it never occurs to you but folks actually voted for the GOP also. Perhaps stopping Obama is what their voters wanted. I realize that is hard for you to grasp. But that is why the government was formed as 3 equal powers.

No worries Democrats have no regard for the Constitution. Thats obvious now.

maybe you should read history. democrats have always been for slavery of humans, segregation laws were all democrat ideas, jim cow was a democrat, the KKK was democrat, democrats had several KKK members in congress and lesser, democrats uses minorities to gain power over republicans and over the people, democrats bribe people and commit voter fraud for power. the list goes on on how far the dems will go to gain power, the republicans are not saints by a mile but they dont have the bad history dems do (dems like to revise history makes nice propaganda). its better to not trust any politician now-a-days and get rid the lot.

Hate to tell you this, Aunt Anna, but Mr. Obamas' recess appointments are the lowest of the last 5 presidents. Recess appointments made by King Ronnie and Shrub Jr. are much higher. Gueoss that was okay, though, right?

CONGRATULATIONS leroy..

Isn't it amazing when the dirtbags of society feel the next victim might be carrying and actually think twice about doing wrong?

I believe it is Kenneshaw GA which has a legal requirement (NOT ENFORCED) for ALL homes to have firearms in them. The laws passage was in response to drastic increases in area crimes. Want to guess what the crime rate is now? Yep.. zero, nadda, nothing, zilch, OK.. there's still the stupid petty stuff like shoplifting or petty larceny, but no serious crime.

How does "gun control" work? Bad guys will always have guns. That is because they are Bad guys. Just like what happened in Oklahoma. A woman was threatened a guy broke into her house and she shot him dead. His buddy didn't go in the house after seeing the carnage. If she didn't have the gun legally and use it correctly she would be dead. That is great GUN CONTROL. Oh and that is one more criminal that will not be breaking into any more houses.

You on the other had would be dead. That is because you believe in Gun Control.

@Leroy... this is because as more & more LEGAL, LAW-ABIDING citizens arm themselves... criminals have to look harder for an easy target. Look what just happened in Oklahoma & South Carolina: Law-abiding gun-owning citizens protecting their loved ones from criminals. While I do believe that background checks are important... I don't believe for one minute that any gun-control laws have contributed to a decrease in violent crimes. Gun control laws only hinder the law-abiding... not the criminals. Criminals lie, cheat, and steal. They can get firearms from any of a dozen suppliers in their circle of associates selling stolen firearms.

@Bob n LA: The NRA doesn't claim we need these for hunting... they are very clear that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to protect ourselves. It has NOTHING to do with hunting. That mother in Oklahoma waited 21 minutes on the phone with a dispatcher until the perp finally gained entry... and she shot him dead. The police didn't show until well after. We can not depend on the police to protect us. The police almost always show after the crime to take a report. Budget cuts have both reduced the officers in the field, and released thousands of prisoners early from the prisons here in CA. Don't tell me the police are capable of keeping the peace.

Gun rights advocates, I think it is dishonest for either side to claim the high ground in all countries and all situations. I can point to situations where gun control absolutely did curb gun crime. Perhaps in today's America, where guns are so prevalent, legal gun ownership can reduce crime, in other countries and other situations, gun control works. We should ALL be able to agree, however, that background checks, including at gun shows, should be in place. A guy like Loughner with well known social problems should NEVER have been able to purchase a gun. Also, the ban on extended clips is a no brainer. The only reason an extended clip is needed is for a rampage, or gang warfare.

leroy brown

"We should ALL be able to agree, however, that background checks, including at gun shows, should be in place. A guy like Loughner with well known social problems should NEVER have been able to purchase a gun. Also, the ban on extended clips is a no brainer. The only reason an extended clip is needed is for a rampage, or gang warfare."

If you are going to talk guns, get the terminology right. Clips are something used in hair. Magazines are used in guns. The bigger the better for fighting off rampaging, poison dealing, gang bangers.

And as for agreement on more gun laws, that is not going to happen. There are already enough and they have yet to stop a single murder.

5thGunOwner

Crime has been on a downward trend for the past 10 years or so, It would appear that people arming themselves has/had nothing to do with it.. By the way I too am a gun owner.

Leroy, list these situations where gun control actually deters gun crime, specific situations.

Bob-3374873..." A guy like Loughner with well known social problems should NEVER have been able to purchase a gun."

His mother had a direct connection to Sheriff Dupnik and others in high political office.....Everytime there was a problem with Loughner, it got swept under the rug.....

They didn't become "well known"....till after the shooting....otherwise he would have already been given a rubber room at the Hotel Silly.....And a robe with no belt and paper slippers.

Leroy

In Virginia, I have been to hundreds of gun shows, and can tell you there is >"NO"< gun show loophole. Having a CHP I am supposed to be excused from the background check. But the dealers, still under contractual agreement via their FFL, are still required to do the check. AND they do. Meanwhile there are ALWAYS cops swarming the place, Sherriff's and deputies, troopers, city and plainclothes etc.) including the data base control center they have set up in the back to do the B-checks, so that when someone who is not permitted to have a gun are pounced on immediately when the name is punched in. Anyone who's been to one would know that. What is mistaken for a "loophole" and under attack is the sale of private property, and or the gifting or grandfathering of my firearms to my children or grandchildren. That is not of anyone's business, but mine. There is already a law making it illegal to knowingly sell a firearm to a felon or disqualified applicant. And many thousands of other laws. Enforce them.

The gun bans are not working in other countries. "VIOLENT CRIME" is sky high since, as predicted.

sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=2240

Loughner ." Well known" social problems? Who's fault is that? If they were well known they would have prevented the tragedy. What does his "Well known" social problems have to do with me? No law has ever prevented a crime from happening. And until someone DOES commit the crime, we are innocent until proven guilty in the USA. We cant punish the masses for the actions of another.

"No free man shall be debarred their right to bear arms" ---- Thomas Jefferson.

If they are that dangerous, that much of a threat to society, they should be kept locked up. Loughner is in custody and should remain there. Lenient judges should not let him out under any circumstances.

Question... What is an extended clip?

BLACKTOP-

"Crime has been on a downward trend for the past 10 years or so, It would appear that people arming themselves has/had nothing to do with it.."

BZZZZZZZZZRRRRRZZZZZZZZZTTTTTT!!! Wrong answer!

If you look at these maps of the concealed carry "Shall Issue Progress" www.kc3.com/CCW_progress.htm

and "Castle Doctrine" states en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine#cite_ref-9

You will learn that it has EVERYTHING to do with people arming themselves

" By the way I too am a gun owner."------ Irrelevant.

Sooo more guns being purchased AND violent crime down........seems like gun sales work.

I think Leroy is talking about clips that hold more ammunition than one would need to defend their home or family.

Two points, however: since you can't know under what circumstances you might have to defend yourself, or how events will play out, it seems to me that having five extra bullets in your gun by the time it's over would be vastly preferable to having one too few...

And second, no one who's ever been to a shooting range for just plain old recreational destruction of those filthy smug paper targets would ever claim any clip is too big. Reloading takes half your time at the range as it is. May as well load it up as much as possible so you have more time to shoot.

Ghostcoon-

Then I think "Leroy" should learn exactly what it is he's talking about. It is called a magazine. Not a clip!

Couldn't agree more with the rest of your post. Have a great new year!

blacktop

Crime has been on a downward trend for the past 10 years or so, It would appear that people arming themselves has/had nothing to do with it.. By the way I too am a gun owner.

Expiration of the phony "assault weapons" ban. National Instant Background Checks instead of 5 day waiting periods. There are now at least 31 states with castle doctrine laws (as of 2010). I would guess that many of those were passed within the last 10 years. Increased number of concealed carry states & states with reciprocity. Handgunlaws.us has a map that shows by year the changes, many are within the last 10 years.

BTW gun show loophole is a canard. If you have an issue with the laws of your state regarding gun shows then contact your state representative.

Mike in Delray

Bob-3374873..." A guy like Loughner with well known social problems should NEVER have been able to purchase a gun."

"His mother had a direct connection to Sheriff Dupnik and others in high political office.....Everytime there was a problem with Loughner, it got swept under the rug.....

They didn't become "well known"....till after the shooting....otherwise he would have already been given a rubber room at the Hotel Silly.....And a robe with no belt and paper slippers."

Mike, you should be addressing leroy brown since he made the above statement, not me.

brrrrrrrrr

carry concealed cause cops can't constantly catch crafty criminals .... the above was just an acronym for his ththoughts. He was at a loss for words.

Good one!

Idiotic Americans killing each other.Each year how many thousand die because of guns? At least you have one industry left. I feel sorry for all the innocent people and the endangered police officers. If you polled the law enforcers, I think you would find most would like a ban on automatic weapons and handguns.

Wouldn't be much of a poll. Police officers would know that it is illegal to own an automatic weapon without the ATF tax stamp, private ownership of any automatic weapon made after May or June of 1986 is illegal period no exceptions.

According to the CDC's chart - 10 Leading Causes of Injury Deaths by Age Group Highlighting Violence-Related Injury Deaths, united States - 2008 The answer is suicide firearm 18,223 (number 4 in ranking), homicide firearm 12,179 (number 5 in ranking)

Leading causes: Unintentional MV Traffic 37,985, Unintentional Poisoning 31,116, Unintentional Fall
24,013.

Imagine the number of lives saved if idiotic Americans would read the label before stuffing something in their pie hole, or if they were not so clumsy.

Not that any of this matters. You have a demonstrated history on the Vine of not caring about facts, truth, or reality when it comes to your posts.

Very true! raleigh Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it!!!

We know, what do you expect to happen when he preaches and pushes divisiveness on the public?

Suing Americans so foreign criminals can continue leeching off the taxpayers, Portraying successful people as the enemy and the poor as automatic victims, walking all over the constitution to start wars, make illegal recess appointments, fine people for not buying healthcare, etc...

and how Australia banned ownership of swords after they were used instead of guns.Think killing will stop by the time they get to banning automobiles????

I'm sure the cops like it. Just like the do in Europe. Then cops can beat protesters with impunity.

During the Occupy protests it looked like the cops beat protesters here with impunity.

gee,ya think stabbing that cop in NYC might have had anything to do with pissing the cops off???

Don't worry I'm getting prepared for when the Democrats get the OWS protestors out burning things this summer.

I feel the cops may need help.

Currently that would be my best guess also. I wonder if the liberals are arming up?

What's that old Latin saying ? "If you wish for Peace,you must prepare for War" Smart people have lived by this idea forever. Don't start it, but be ready to end it !

That is not Latin. Liberals are not paranoid and are not stockpiling weapons. They are reading books and expanding their minds. Good luck with fox news.

Si vis pacem, para bellum is a Latin adage translated as, "If you wish for peace, prepare for war" a strong society being less likely to be attacked by enemies). The adage is from 4th or 5th century Latin author Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus's tract De Re Militari book 3.

Pity that you have never made the attempt to read a book or expand your mind.

Bassai, Thank You ! Takenaka is an "anti-gun" troll who thinks he is smarter than everyone else.

Takenaka san, p!ss off !

Probably a much higher percentage than that will not let their rights be trampled and remain defenseless. They will not turn over all of them either, only the least valuable ones to create an impression of complying.

I.M.Curious... it's actually 80 million legal gun owners with approximately 300 million firearms.

Of course that doesn't count the illegal guns provided by Holder and company during the Fast and Furious fiasco.

300 million guns owned by 80 million people,, that's an average of 3.75 per owner,,

By that reconning I've got a lot of other peoples guns at my house!

XDm9mm,

Don't forget about operation Wide Receiver under the last Attorney General...or was that 1 OK?

I wonder how much a "gun confiscator" would make, and does the job come with funeral insurance. Im willing to give you my guns, but youre going to get the bullets first.

Steve, we need to ask Obama what Calderon's taste like.

Or... Steve, we need to ask Obama what Calderon tastes like.

Steve, there are a few wussies on this thread that would take the job! Firearm confiscator that is

The worst case scenario is Obama, or another of his ilk, signs the gun ban agreement with the UN. He then passes it into law the same way he did Obama-Care. The gun roundup starts and is resisted. The government orders the Armed Services into the streets to carry out the President's wishes. The Armed Forces largely refuse to fire on fellow Americans. The government applies, and quickly gets, military aid from the UN to pacify the population. Open warfare breaks out as the US military sides with the population and the Democrats who started the whole thing run around telling anyone who will listen how this isn't what they meant at all. People are not going to give up their guns peacefully, this isn't Britain, this isn't The Land Down Under. Political power brokers are never going to rest peacefully with an armed populace. Too much chance of that populace rising up one day. There's a collision course here; make your plans accordingly.

Wide Receiver... only difference was they

1.. DIDN't intentionally permit firearms to cross the border..

2.. The MEXICAN Authorities were fully informed and kept updated..

any question?

Nope,if the Republicans were to run Howdy Doody,he would beat Obama handily.

With all that comes out of their mouths and with republicans and refusing to compromise and work together? I don't think so really who did you all have: the token black guy, the crazy chick, two mormons, and the rest are old white guys and out of all them, the only one that says the occasional smart thing is Ron Paul but we all know the republicans won't have as the candidate.

IM Curious, the Republicans are going to run Howdy Doody no matter which one of them gets nominated, based on this field. And no, Howdy won't win.

LOL,you think Chris Christie,Jeb Bush and a few others won't be at the Republican Convention tossing their hats in the ring if the GOP thinks it needs another candidate??

huntered76: Any of those you mentioned are better that the POS POTUS we have now!

All the dems have is Obama, and we all know how well he has worked out.

True BUT....the POTUS blames EVERTHING on everyone but HIMSELF. Just ask him.

It also must be nice to keep your head in the sand. I'm sure you never heard about Fast and Furious.

If you care to wake up that foggy piece of meat between your head you might remember the current administration was busy drumming up a lot of false gun smuggling charges to Mexican drug Cartels.

To bad it turned out to be Obama trading the guns to the cartels. To bad a border control agent was killed by the Obama administration smuggled fire arms. Whats really funny that the press isn't letting you in on the fact of the Chicago court case going on against a cartel member. He is claiming the feds gave his drug running immunity and 1500 firearms to turn evidence against the other cartels.

I'm sure you would much rather go back to your propaganda machine sheep the Democrats own you.

Aunt Anna

What about the last administration who did the exact same thing. Theirs was called "Wide Receiver". Or maybe that one was OK with you?? Neither justifies the other but 2 different administrations did it.

There are a couple BIG reason why gun sales are up. None of which are mentioned in this article.

1 - People over the last several years have felt out of control of their own destiny. Therefore they want to be able to protect themselves and their families in the event of a break in or other confrontation. Due to the economy, armed robberies are up and people want to be ready!

2 - The downturn in the economy has also seemed to bring out the craziness in people. I had a friend come to my home at 2 am pounding on my walls and doors, I called 911 and turned out she had snapped and needed someone to talk to because she was losing her home. After that, I went and got a gun to protect myself.

The gun purchases are NOT up because the economy is getting better, its because its getting WORSE. People are not buying these guns for hunting or recreation or even to add to their collections. That is absurd. The majority are for reasons above. Why doesn't someone ask the retailers that are selling these guns what is the #1 reason they get customers coming in for? I did. I asked the salesperson at Academy Sports, he had been working the gun counter for 10 years, he said far and away its for personal protection. People dont feel safe or that the government will protect them, so they will take matters into their own hands. Survival of the fittest my friends.

Wow, you're just puking out information without proof.

You had a "friend" come over in the middle of the night because she was freaked out, and your answer to that was to call 911 and buy a gun? I'm glad you're not my friend.