What the Illinois legislature aught to do is allow "conceal carry" but require all conceal carry permit holders to wear a sign identifying themselves as a CC permit holder.

I suggest a day-glow blood red scull & crossbones, with the words "GUN PERMIT HOLDER" in letters visible for 1/2 mile.

It could be on a vest (like construction workers use) that can also double as a holster.

I'd bet that many gun manufacturers would jump at the chance to design them.

The alternative is for the police to assume that everyone is carrying and anyone who makes any type of move, even for ID, is to be shot first, questions later.

The 7th circuit court of appeals are a group of Republican appointed morons.

However, if that criminal does not possess a gun, but breaks into your house threatening your family, or assaulting your wife or children, you would not even need to shoot. The simple act of pointing a gun at the criminal will probably send him running away. Whereas, otherwise, you may not be able to defend yourself as he robs you, or rapes your wife, or even tries to kill you, while you wait for the police to arrive. In fact, if the criminal is in control, you probably wouldn't even be able to dial 911.

Unfounded beliefs are called prejudices; not racial prejudices but just plain prejudices. The statistics are solid that back yard pools kill children fifty to one over firearms in the home. Firearms are generally the tool of choice of drug dealers and they ramp up the statistics on gun violence to what is a national tragedy, but they generally kill other dealers or people who welch on their credit line. But the statistics don't give bangers a separate category. They are lumped in with money muggers, so If you would like we could ask them to use some other form of punishment but I'm not too optimistic. Money muggers don't have to kill, and generally don't, but they are equaly in jeopardy of retalitory lead poisoning and with the numbers going up of us CCW holders every day they are now turning to burglary. Wives who kill their husbands are often saving their own lives in doing so, and I can only say, "You go girl." Just because you know me doesn't mean you can beat me, bad boy. Saves us fathers and brothers from having to do it, and we just have to do time for doing our family duty. As for illinois, I think illinois residents should be able to restrict the ownership and use of weapons for themselves but if they invite people to come for events, shows, conventions, and the like then us CCW holders need to protect ourselves in cities like Chicago where only the criminals are effectively allowed to have weapons on their persons. So if Illinois wants to let me carry there and ban themselves from carrying I'm OK with that.

Good Ol' Dog: how many family members get killed by gun owners each year ?

One is one too many.

If we read the 2nd Amendment as it was intended, "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA" meaning a well trained, state regulated, state based army (can you say national guard? I knew you could) then the issue becomes so much easier to understand.

The National Rifle Association became a sales force for the arms manufacturers in the 1960's. Prior to that, they promoted a "well regulated" gun industry. The NRA was in favor of gun laws because they protect the public.

During most of the period from 1950 to 1980, you did not have the explosive amount of gun violence that is present today. There were also many states that regulated the manufacture and sale of guns within their borders.

Remember, without a gun, you don't get gun shot wounds or death from gun violence.

By the way, what is wrong with my idea. It would certainly make every person intent on gun violence think twice if everywhere they went, people were wearing the "gun nut" vests.

So now your smart enough to second guess the Supreme Court? It must really be a drag trying to converse with mentally inferior people all day long. How about we just agree that you won't ever own a gun & you don't worry about how others go about leading their lives.

Remember, without a gun, you don't get gun shot wounds or death from gun violence.

Remember, without a knife, you don't get knife wounds or death from knife violence.

@Brad - Sorry to inform you, but most people I know do own guns. As a matter of fact, I am trying to think of someone I know that does not own a gun and am drawng a blank. Funny thing is, not one of these people have ever shot anyone. I am sick and tired of you gun banners comparing myself, my friends, and my family with criminals. We are responsible, respectable members of our community and comparing us to drug dealers, murderers and rapists is just flat our unacceptable. I am happy that you are willing to cower in a corner and pray when confronted by one of these said drug dealers, murderers, and rapists; I at least want a fighting chance.

Shots do not have to be fired in order for guns to deter crimes. But sometimes, they do. Regardless, I am a gun owner and I protect the lives and well being of my family by whatever means necessary - and I don't care who does or doesn't like it.

No matter how many laws are passed, bad guys will always have guns. There are no good guns. There are no bad guns. A gun in the hands of a bad person is a bad thing. A gun in the hands of a good person is a good thing. Gun laws only keep guns out of the hands of good people.

Dirp. That about says it all. Another gun-grabbing, under informed moron parroting the same old anti-constitutional BS, and even DIRECTLY UNDER THE COMMENT OF A MEMBER OF LAW ENFORCEMENT THAT SAYS GUNS SAVE LIVES. Don't bothering trying to reason with these types of people. They're unreasonable.

Victor,

Yes, and I believe that those that would not protect their families are cowardly and lack honor.

Dirp,

That would not be a concealed carry law, that would be an exposed carry law.

If they ever outlaw guns, somebody will have to use a gun to kill me if they wish to take my guns. Governments that cannot trust their citizens with guns ----- cannot be trusted.

Dirp, how many family members get killed by drowning in swimming pools? If one is one too many, then are you also saying we should ban swimming pools?

In Illinois, however, officials generally warned that allowing residents to carry concealed weapons would make the state more dangerous.

Doubt it could get any more dangerous than Chicago is right now, which already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, and one of the highest gun crime rates in the nation. So maybe they need to even the odds a little and let LAW ABIDING citizens carry for a change.

"This ruling runs counter to not only common sense but what every police chief in the country says, which is we should not allow more guns on the street," said Emanuel, who called the opinion "wrongheaded."

In fact, law enforcement isn't nearly as united as Emanuel claimed. In 2009, for example, the Illinois Sheriffs' Association passed a resolution supporting a concealed-carry law in Illinois.

So let me get this straight a leftwing liberal DemoRat crony Mayor lies on record to the media to try and justify his parties agenda, and no one sees the problem with this.

Just love how the left continues to try and push their failed agendas while ignoring the facts time and again, there are a lot things that cause more deaths every year that are not necessities that no one is trying to outlaw.

Anyone else manage to read the MSN story of the 20 dirtiest US cities, most are Liberal Demorat bastions, also just about everyone is failing on every front, schools, welfare, taxes, crime, decreased revenues, all because of DemoRat policies they want to force on the rest of the country for our own good.

Libs tell you what show us anywhere your policies ARE WORKING at all, every city or state controlled by the Dems is dieing a rapid death, and a lot of the people with any sense are leaving, just ask Cali, and Mich.

Brad , if guns are useless as you say, why do police carry them?

{ If an armed criminal confronts you, he's not going to wait while you take out your own weapon, If he sees you go for your gun, he's going to shoot you. In "self-defense," ironically. Most people live their entire lives without owning a gun and they do just fine.}

Brad Adamakis Obviously you've never owned a gun, because what you're suggesting depends on a particular situation. I live in Detroit and I can't count how many times that civilians and even cops have shot a would be robber, car jacker, etc... and won. In fact last year alone there was three stories on the news about how somebody tried to carjack an off duty police officer (carrying a conceled pistol) and was shot and killed by that officer. One incident there were three carjackers and the (off duty plain clothes officer) shot two of them and the other ran away. In all of these incidents the officers was off duty in their own vehicles, in plain clothes, and was carrying conceled. About a month ago some guys was working on their car in a residential neighborhood, when they were approached by a couple of guys trying to rob them at gunpoint. A tussle ensued and when it was over one robber was dead and another shot. Oh, did I mention the guys was unharmed and had a conceled permit? Oh, by the way those cops, they were unharmed too! Three years ago a man was approached at a gas station by a carjacker with a gun, trying to take the mans Escalade with his girlfriend and his baby inside. The carjacker didn't know he was armed as the man drew down on the carjacker and killed him. He also had a CPL! Your theory doesn't fly or have merrit and your statement about most people living their lives without guns may be true. However, where you live has a huge impact on how carrying a gun can be beneficial to your life. As I stated before I live in Detroit. Not only is it dangerous but I have had to use my own gun to protect myself. I can't tell you how many times I've seen people on tv crying and saying "THINGS LIKE THIS JUST DON'T HAPPEN HERE!" after some nut job goes on a killing spree Lol! These are the same people that think they live in "Mayberry" and "Andy Griffin along with "Barney Fiffe" will save their ____! Let me guess, you live in Mayberry don't you!

I support the right to own guns. I own a couple myself. But without proper training, someone who just buys a gun is like a gun in the hads of a 6 year old.

@kj. Don't pull the gun unless your going to use it. A gun is not just to scare someone. It's the last straw.

In America there is a sea of citizens who don't want to take responsibility for thier own personal safety (sheep). Yet, they want to deny those that take this right seriously the right to do so.........this is total bull $hit.

If you pacifists want to rely on the police to protect you then fine. But don't try to justify your passive views by trying to convice me that my I'm better off relinquishing my right to personal safety like you do. I know the police, or the government, can't protect me and my family any better that I can as an individual (as long as I have the means). Anyone who believes otherwise is a fool.

I hope the day never comes where I'll need to protect someone like you from the criminal element; or the government, with the regulations you so covet. Perhaps the police will be there? Or, not. If that day comes I wonder what you will think then?

The Dog.

I live ln the state of Wyoming, I can walk into a gun shop and purchase a hand gun the dealer makes a phone call 10 minutes later I load my hand gun stick it in the back of my belt and walk out the door with my new hand gun concealed and no I do not need a CCW in our great state it is not required. I have several friends in law enforcement and there take is that it's nice to know that almost everyone has a hand gun and if an officer is trouble almost all of our armend citizens will jump in and help the officer out. Our laws allow loaded guns in our vehicles openly or concealed. After all we are the last free world hope I never have to take a life but I will if it is required.

Oh look another NBC "second amendment" attack article and spin.

Nothing to see here, move along.

Brought to you by NBC, who writes a anti-gun article EVERYDAY to go along with their GAY AGENDA articles.

Crap news from a crap tabloid corporation is all this article is.

dirp; change your handle to "drip". More fitting.

Brad - Back up and re-investigate your stats….for every child that takes a gun to school we find that it was from a family that had never taught the child about guns, they had just put it in a drawer and said don’t touch. Yes gun’s do save lives, I read every day about someone, somewhere deterring criminal activity with
a gun. Then your claim that “most” people don’t own guns…it depends on where
you are talking about, in our area everyone owns a gun and our gun crime rate is less than .01%. Compare that to areas that highly restrict gun ownership.

dirp - Yes lets, read the amendment the way it was intended. “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.”

Note after the comma it says the right of the people, not the right of the Militia. According to Justice Scalia, “Nowhere in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.”

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

George Washington

Wait a minute, liberals - 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.

Dems: I couldn't have said it better myself you explained the exact reason the Second Amendment was written well done.

T Bird69, the only reason that I support the Second Amendment (in your paranoid conspiracy version) is that an invasion of China on the American continent would be fruitless with so many gun-lovers in America. They would lose. So, in that sense, and in that sense only, I am for the Second Amendment. We would shoot them (the China freaks) to hell and back. So, I am for that.

The bottom line is "Dems are not going to take your guns away", get off the
GOP's scare tactics, However the GOP WILL take your unions away! just my two cents. You have a President, that opened concealed weapons allowed in National Parks. The you have , Ohio, Wisconsin, Indiana Governors, who took union rights away, I rest my case, Frick the GOP

Dems, quit watching Fox News, the Dems are not going to take away your guns,!

Take my Unions away? I live in a right to work state......I think I'll live just fine, kind of like I have my entire life without a union. GOP scare tactics? The GOP believes in the NRA.....A Libertarian understands the constitution and the law of the land (2nd amendment)........

And the Nazicrats would take away my right to freedom of speech, as well as might right to resist...

Roosterboy: I was actually agreeing with Demsarehypocrites but to address what you wrote if that's the only reason you support the Second Amendment then you do not understand the complete reason of what the Founding Fathers truly intended. As I said Dems said it better then I ever could and he's spot on that is the first and foremost reason that the Second Amendment was written.

BTW If anybody is wondering I belong to no party I am a Independent that wants the Constitutional Republic that our Founding Fathers established back.

mgbirish, turn off msnbc......I can assure you I don't watch Fox or any of the other trash on tv.......

Is that the only thing people from your ilk can come up??? turn off fux news??

Democrats are the jacks of all trades, but masters of none.

The Founding Fathers lived in the 1700's. Don't taser me, bro. Come on, let's evolve with the times. I think the Founding Fathers would have wanted that.

Rooster: Sure they would have wanted us too but within the scope of what they wrote in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Heck they knew the greatest threat to our freedom and liberty wasn't some foreign power it was our very own government (Jefferson said this very thing)hence they gave us a way to fight back.

Exactly T_Bird...

The arrogance from people today, amazes me. They don't believe another version of Hitler could rise again.

And no liberals I'm not calling Obama Hitler..........

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

By the way Rooster, less freedom isn't moving forward, its moving backward.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWRK0Prfpv8

Dems: When one reads the writings of our Founding Fathers it's truly amazing just how smart and forward thinking they were. However I believe they would be totally ashamed of the way this country is now and be asking themselves if this is truly the country they fought to build.

Them old guys said ya'll guys gonna need them guns for defence of persons, property, and freedom. I gotta agree with that.

T_Bird, I completely agree. Today's society believes technology or lack thereof back in the 1700's makes the forefathers and their beliefs outdated and meaningless.

The people in the country today don't understand that the constitution was written in a way that even a common man should understand it. Today's society believes it was written for interpretation, when in fact their on writings tell us the exact opposite.

Rooster: That last statement ruined any credibility you had. The Founding Fathers were not mere apes, they were some of the greatest thinkers this country has ever had. They wrote the greatest documents that's ever been written and founded the greatest nation on this planet (even though it's a far cry from their vision now). No we are not gods compared to them, we are mere men when compared to their sacrifices and vision.

If the founding fathers were alive today they would be a nightmare to anyone who would try to step on their rights. Now ask yourself which side of the argument would they be on. They refused to live under a tyrannical government, they put their lives on the line when they signed the Declaration of Independence and removed the obstacle to freedom.

Daniel, your analogy of the swimming pool is completely asinine. People who have swimming pools don't deliberately have them to kill someone. Death in a pool is usually 99.9% accidental. Tens of thousands die by guns because it was deliberate. BTW, I'd rather deal with a criminal that has a knife or some other weapon, as at least I can attempt to get away. No one can out run a bullet!

Discussions about gun control are polarized from the start, just as the election just past was and for much the same reasons. Neither side is willing to give the other any slack because of the fear it would turn into a slope those giving couldn't back away from. I'm 72 and a NRA member. I remember the NRA that was willing to look at reasonable legislation. That fell by the wayside when the anti-gun lobby became entrenched in the position that no one should have a weapon. When attacked, dig in and defend.

I'm a concealed carry permit holder. It is a bother. I have to spend at least one trip to the range per week to hold a level of skill that makes me safe to be on the street with a weapon. It is expensive. Range time and ammunition are not cheap. And, finally, it is a heavy responsibility. To even entertain the thought you might have to use lethal force weighs heavily. I would rather not have any of this but I live in a country where older people are considered anyone's meat. I live in a country where criminals have more rights and better representation than their victims. Also, the police are not going to get to where I was faced with an attack quickly enough to do anything more than string crime scene tape.

Recent MSN Article: Why gun sales are booming

High points:

Gun crime is in check

Politicians may be pausing on gun control because gun crime in the U.S. is receding. The number of murders with a firearm has been on a significant decline, from 10,225 in 2006 to 8,775 in 2010, according to the FBI. The complete numbers for 2011 aren't in yet.

There were 3.7 firearm homicides per 100,000 U.S. residents in 2009, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Firearms are used in about two-thirds of murders in the U.S.

And although guns are not used in every violent crime, the number of violent crimes is falling as well. The FBI estimates that the number of violent crimes per 100,000 U.S. residents in 2010 fell 6.5% from 2009, the fourth straight annual decline.

Note that the stats provided are NOT from the NRA, but are in fact from either the FBI or CDC.

When people bring up the Second Amendment they need to keep in mind that it consists of two stand-alone phrases. In Heller v. DC, the SCOUTUS understood this.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
[PAUSE]
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Also consider that the Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments to the Constitution) CANNOT be abridged. Check your dictionary, abridged means "not to be shortened." They CANNOT be overturned. They CANNOT be revoked. They CANNOT be repealed. They CANNOT be CHANGED! If the 2nd amendment CANNOT be modified in any way, that means whatever the founding fathers meant, (which has finally been clarified by the SCOTUS), MUST stand until the United States no longer exists. And the only way for that to happen is through subversion or conquest.

"When they took the 4th Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs.
When they took the 6th Amendment, I was quiet because I am innocent.
When they took the 2nd Amendment, I was quiet because I don't own a gun.
Now they have taken the 1st Amendment, and I can only be quiet." -– Lyle Myhr

"Throughout history, there have only been two groups of people that have never been allowed guns: Slaves and Conquered Nations. And which one are they trying to make us in America?" -- Sheriff Richard Mack

"Gun control is the idea that a woman who is brutally raped and killed is somehow morally superior to the woman who shoots and kills her attacker." -- Unknown

"The desire for safety (security) stands against every great and noble enterprise." -- Gaius Cornelius Tacitus 56 - 117AD, Roman orator, lawyer, and senator

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves" - William Pitt

Personally, I'm for Constitutional Carry. Open and concealed...

The problem is that the culture around concealed carry permits is largely not coupled to that of gun violence. The people who get permits are statistically far less likely to be involved in crime... as much because the permit is one of the first things they take if you do commit crimes, and most CCW aren't going to jeopardize their ability to defend themselves.

Second, the idea that CCW prevents crime is very difficult to pin down. People that have permits aren't necessarily going to intervene; Zimmerman is not the rule. Most people with a permit have it for themselves and have little interest in getting mixed up in situations they may interpret incorrectly and get in trouble with the law. Most permit holders when faced with an armed attack will still opt for retreat if possible --- especially in a massacre situation. They're not cops, and the vast preponderance who are serious about it knows it.

Finally, doing things about poverty will go a lot further to reduce gun violence than any gun control measure could ever hope to accomplish.

@victor: you actually don't sound like a law enforcement officer. Guns don't save lives. Guns take lives. The lives of kids who take their parents' guns to school. The lives of husbands who are shot by their wives, and vice versa. If an armed criminal confronts you, he's not going to wait while you take out your own weapon, If he sees you go for your gun, he's going to shoot you. In "self-defense," ironically. Most people live their entire lives without owning a gun and they do just fine.

Tell me this, how do you know, "most people live their enter lives without owning a gun and they do just fine"? When you actually compare responsible gun owners to irresponsible gun owner, you have no argument. Would you like me to distinquish the difference? If so, let me know.

@haggisbingo-2225582

Bunch of stupid idiot gun nuts!!

I

My own beliefs on firearms are rather simple: everyone, including children, should be trained on how to properly handle one, and anything purchasing any firearm with a 15 round capacity or lower should be made to be no more difficult than buying a candy bar.

I believe firearm safety should be a mandatory part of school curriculum. There are two areas of firearm safety. The first is knowing how to fire a gun, how to clean one, and basic mechanical safety. How do most gun-related accidents happen? The person did not know that even if they take the clip out, the mechanical workings of the gun chamber a round, meaning the gun is ready to fire even if there's no clip.

The other part could be divided into two distinct areas. The first has to do with recognizing a dangerous situation involving a gun followed by proper response. What do I mean? How many times do we see all these politically correct school department employee say that if a kid finds a gun on school grounds, he should leave it alone and tell the proper authorities? What's wrong with that picture? Whoever dumped that gun on school grounds either used it to commit some sort of crime somewhere else or positioned it there with the intent of using it on school grounds. The sooner that kid physically takes custody of that gun and gets it into the hands of the right authorities, the less likely he or anyone else in that school will be on the receiving end of it. The second, which would probably require a more extensive training program, is how to disarm someone who pulls a gun on you. Why is this important? Because you could be attacked by someone before you can draw your gun. Under these condtions, the last thing you want to do is immediately reach for your own gun because the bad guy will see it and pull the trigger; game over. You comply to formulate a counter-attack. Squat like a bitch and give the guy whatever he wants equals die like a bitch.

I have zero problems with easy availability of firearms with 15-round capacity or lower. A big part of that has to do with me being a big believer in lighter, smaller caliber firearms. I have a clear preference for 9mm and 22s because of the ease of handling. You can point one dead-red at where you want to hit and can expect the bullet to go where you want it once you pull the trigger. You can put 15 rounds on target in short order. And, depending on the type of threat you're dealing with, can pop one clip out, pop another in, then finish the job. I consider them to be primarily defensive in nature because of their ease of use; this mandates easy and ready availability.

What about hunting rifles? My philosophy is the same. You should be able to walk in and buy one with zero BS; they simply do not have enough round capacity for any kind of restrictions. I consider it no different than a man walking into a supermarket to buy groceries.

well, heck! let's just get rid of ALL guns laws! why we could get vending machines in schools and 'law abiding' kids could pick one up on their lunch hours just so they could 'protect' themselves from the bad guys. and while we're at it, why don't we make it illegal NOT to carry a gun! there's the ticket! so, if you find yourself in a threatening position you would be required to KILL! KILL! KILL! ohmygod! i'm getting so excited at the idea of that someday I might get to KILL some rotten bstrd who tries to hurt me...or oops! he was just walking across my lawn. and why stop at guns? why not allow people to make bombs? i mean, you NEVER know when the commies or the evil terrorists are gonna show up at our doors and we can't expect the military to help us? right? so, let's just all get bombs and guns and rifles and maybe a few grenade launchers and we can have weekend picnics where we just go shoot things...like stray dogs and cats. i'm sure ya'll don't care about them. there's still some polar bears, wolves and big cats out there. hell, lets' just wipe out the vermin! KILL! KILL! KILL! death is life! murder is love!

you know, if you choose to own a gun, that's you're right and i back that up. but, what i am hearing here is all the sudden it isn't good enough for all of you that YOU want a carry a gun. now you're condemning people like me who REFUSE by buy a gun. i am a coward? because i don't want to be responsible for the death of another human being? i'm being irresponsible because i expect the law to protect me? THAT'S what the police are for in a civilized society. that's why we don't live in the wild, wild west anymore and there aren't shoot outs at the ok corral. because we're SUPPOSED to be at least trying to become better humans. and what i find so hypocritical and dispicable is that it's this super religious faction out there, going to church every sunday, glorifying God in one breath and demanding your right to kill people in the next!

the truth is only a small faction of left wing radical types want to take away peoples' gun. the vast majority of us just want people who own guns to KNOW WHICH END THE BULLET COMES OUT before they buy the weapon. we'd like to know that there is some vain attempt to make sure that lunatics and children don't get their hands on guns. you have to have a licence to own a car. you have to have a licence to catch a fish. you have to have a licence to get married. but any numnuts can go buy a gun and there's not provisions that that person needs to know how to use it! why is asking that people know HOW to use a gun too much to ask? why? no one will answer that question.

and i guess, i will be the first to die in your society, because i won't carry a gun. and when one day, i upset someone and society has deemed it ok and normal to just shoot people who piss you off, my troubles will be over. this society? our troubles are just beginning, because we are moving away from being civilized and back into barbary and everyone is excited about it! it's sick.

Well, DemsAreHypocrites, you didn't even write that comment @#1.28 . And you also said:

I can assure you I don't watch Fox or any of the other trash on tv.......

Your whole diatribe in #1.28 was plagiarised, cut and pasted from a comment by LongsGhost on a Foxsports.com article on Dec. 3, 2012. http://www.huntingclub.com/connect/forums/aft/193887

We have a COH and a user agreement. Perhaps you should read it again before re-registering. ;-)

This is the second amendment.

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

Both sides of the argument like to make up there own as they go along. That does not help either side.

Cynthia's point, Maybe LongsGhost and I are 1 and the same. Common sense should be used occasionally.

By the December 3rd was also my birthday.

alessa -

Wow! I'm familiar with the mentality; I've just never actually heard someone with that mentality outright proclaim that they WANT to be a victim! Nothing like putting a neon sign on yourself saying "take me! take me!"

And incidentally, that's NOT "...what the police are for in a civilized society." Not unless you have an officer assigned to every citizen (i.e., bodyguard). If the police were there to "prevent" all crime, well then there wouldn't be any crime now would there. You could deputize every adult citizen in the country and there would still be no assurance that no crimes would be committed. If you plan on waiting for the police to save you when somebody busts your door in with the intent of rape and murder (not necessarily in that order) you WILL be a victim/statistic. Fact is that the police generally arrive just in time to do the crime scene investigation and notify your next of kin.

Just out of curiousity, if you were in a public area and some lunatic opened fire on the crowd, would you prefer to to cringe in the corner awaiting the police while the mass-murderer takes out as many people as he/she can? Or would you be OK with an armed citizen taking the scum out before he/she could slaughter more people? My guess is the former, since you would prefer that private citizens not be armed.

@dirp and takenaka

Since you two are so brilliant please explain to me why most of the violent crime happens in areas that vote dumbocrap when there are plenty of guns in the rural areas but much less crime.

I own and intend to buy more...the best defense is getting educated...OBTW...did anyone see that news article last week? "4.5 million gun owners killed no one today"

If I were in the theater at the time of the Holmes rampage, and I dropped him on the floor using my concealed 38, would I be a hero or would I be prosecuted for not having a license to carry. Just curious.

If I wasn't arraigned you see my point..

Scot-whatever

You see more crime in heavily urban areas because THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE there. You see less crime in rural areas because THERE ARE LESS PEOPLE there. It has nothing to do with the ratio of guns.

Folks, I am a gun owner. I own and carry a GLOCK and have for more nearly 20 years. I am law enforcement trained and qualified to carry my firearm. I used to have a concealed carry permit but finally decided I didn't need it because the gun is CONCEALED! And, if I am carrying and get pulled over by a police officer carrying the firearm without the permit it is a misdemeanor in this state, so no big deal. I don't carry it all the time, only when I'm going some place where it might be needed.

All of this hullabaloo about concealed carry and open carry is baloney. It's the NRA jacking up their membership to keep those dues coming in. Nothing more.

I think people who want to own and carry a gun should be trained. When they go to buy the gun they must present a certificate of training from a recognized and licensed training facility in their state along with all the other identification required. The training would consist of gun safety, proper care and maintenance and a range qualification with a hand gun. NO certificate? Ok, when you pay for the gun you also pay for the training and go to the class BEFORE they had you the weapon. No training, no gun. Period.

Too many people are carrying guns who don't know the first thing about them. Many of you posting today, arguing so fiercely about your right to bear arms are not qualified the carry a firearm and are a danger to yourself and others.

I own guns, I have owned MANY GUNS. My wife used to joke that I should be invited to the next Geneva disarmament conference. Nowadays I own one gun. It's all you need IF YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING!

This continuing debate about guns, gun ownership, concealed carry and open carry is ridiculous. For most of you a good pair of running shoes would do you a lot more good.

Those who beat their weapons into plowshares, will plow for those who don't.

Spiddas: Actually you are incorrect when you say the Bill of Rights can not be changed. The Constitution and Bill of Rights can be amended but it is a long process which is as follows:

There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstandingamendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as anamendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention.Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.

The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:

• Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
• Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
• Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
• Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)

It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 US 378 [1798]):

Maybe we should put a band on ownership of automobiles also… We could save 20,000 to 30,000 lives per year.

I personally don’t own a gun because I wouldn’t have the heart to pull the trigger and would hate for my tombstone to read “killed with her own gun, she should of just shut her eyes and pulled the trigger” which is why I my "babies" are two large guard dogs who see no problem with causing someone pain. However, I do think that people who want to have guns, and have been trained to use them, should be allowed to carry them. If I’m ever in a theater or some such where some nut case comes in with a gun, I’m hoping there is someone braver than I who can shoot him/her/it.

Victor: If you're in Law Enforcement. Then I'm a GD hematologist. You're not in law enforcement. Stop lying. You're just an NRA/ right wing tool. I've never owned a gun in my life. And I have no intention of ever owning one. I'm 28 years old, and I don't live in fear & paranoia like all the other sheep who feels like they have to own a gun in order to keep safe. But again, people's unhealthy appetite and lust for firearms is indicative of the violent history America has, from the revolutionary war to the civil war to slavery to the genocide of the Native Indigenous People to the racial bigotry black people had to endure etc.

I actually had to stop reading comments after reading the second to last comment from Roosterboy. Oh My God how can you be so blattenly arrogant and disrespectful! "We are Gods in comparrison", really? If you're so "Godly", how come your counterpoints to the reality of the second ammendment are so bad? Shouldn't you have an actual arguement?

Oh, wait...I see. You're one of those who thinks your government is here to save you from yourself. Allow you to disrespect your elders and teachers. Give you the right to tell me how I'm suppose to live my life from your hypocritical stance. I got it.

It's been a long time since school, so I may misquote this. But I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who wrote that the amendments were designed so that "The Government of the people should never become more powerful then the people it governs". Look at us now. The fact is, most of the criminal element which carries conceled does not own any kind of permit. Nor do they care for one. And as one other poster put on here, to move to where you don't have this problem or find a better class of people...the problem is everywhere. I grew up in a fairly rural part of NJ where the problem was not quite as bad in the 1970s, but you could still be shot in a liquor store hold up. I moved to the suburbs of NJ in the 1980s and still saw the same problem...only now, you could also be shot in a random "drive by". In the 1990s I joined the military and saw the world. Some of it sucked and I saw what life could be like without the forethought of our founding fathers, for thier wisdom in creating this country I am soooo very greatful to them. Now, I live in an urban area of the country, where a gas station or bank robbery is almost a weekly event. I would rather have the right to protect myself and others should I find myself in one of these situations, then not.

Fact: I am an independant. Fact: I own firearms (notice, not just a gun...firearms) Fact: I do have children who know how to respect, not only thier elders, but firearms and that they are not toys. For me, it's not just about stopping the criminal. It's not just about hunting (although, the deer here aren't really worth hunting). I AM THIS NATION'S LAST LINE OF DEFENSE!! Will my M1911 or my Winchester 30/06 stop a nuke, nope...but I'd like to think that if it cost me my life, I will stand my ground in the defence of my family and my neighbors from all enemies of this nation...foreign and domestic.

Did anyone ever contemplate how the criminals obtain all the guns the use to commit crime??? They get them from the so called law abiding nra member gun purchasers who make a tidy sum selling their guns on the black market to criminals. When a private seller doesn't have to even see another persons ID or a backround check to sell their guns criminals can buy and commit gun violence at will. And the nra backs their members selling guns to criminals so it can drive gun violence up and the fear factor through the roof so people will feel the need to arm themselves against those same criminals. It's a vicious cycle and it will not end until the nra stops buying/bribing the entire gop to pass laws that make that scenario completely legal. I know of two gentlemen(criminals) right now where anybody, any time can put in an order for any weapon they like and 7 days later they deliver with no questions asked for the right price of course. The nra promotes American citizens murdering each other to keep America at the very top of the non third worlds ranking for gun violence and murder - all for the almighty dollar. Isn't that a proud statistic for you nra members?????

G-Man: I don't even belong to the NRA but I know more about them then you apparently do from you comment.

Wow, the same old songs (from both sides) and no actual wisdom or discussion

Ok, in the spirit of your comments, here's mine.

Concealed Carry Permits are for sissies and poseurs. They buy cute little concealed carry holsters and little badges that say "Concealed Carry" and think the are 007. Truth is in a actual fight of flight situation they would wet themselves and run. I wonder how many concealed carry guns were in that theater in Colorado the night the crazy opened fire? I'll bet you'd be surprised.

Real men tuck their firearm safely into their wasteband in the small of their back and cover it with a jacket and they take care of business if necessary. We don't worry carrying a little card that says the state thinks it's ok to carry a gun. If you do, you are a bunch of pansies.

Here's another little piece of information: On my most recent trip to Chicago I carried my firearm EVERYWHERE I WENT. Tucked safely in the waistband of my jeans or carried in the breast pocket of my overcoat. Nobody noticed, nobody cared. My wife and I were protected and if it became necessary I would have used the gun and walked away. Period. The gun would probably have a new home in Lake Michigan and I'd buy a new one when I got home.

No hand-wringing about laws or permits or all this other nonsense. I'm not a criminal. I'm not going to rob a bank or murder someone in cold blood.

But, if I'm going to a dangerous city with my wife, I'm going to do what I have to do to keep us safe.

HEY, guess what? I DID NOT HAVE TO SHOOT ANYBODY AND NOBODY KNEW I WAS ARMED, NOT EVEN MY WIFE!

So get over yourselves. It's the Code of the West, "A man's got to do what a man's got to do."

Now why don't you all take up knitting of stamp collecting or something safe. You won't need a gun and you won't pose a danger to yourself and others.

dirp -"If we read the 2nd Amendment as it was intended, "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA" meaning a well trained, state regulated, state based army (can you say national guard? I knew you could) then the issue becomes so much easier to understand".

You are wrong. The National Guard is not the "Militia" referred to in the Second Amendment. The National Guard did not even exist from the beginnings of the Republic until about 1903 when it was instituted and created by Congress as the Act of January 21, 1903.

In 1982 the Senate Judiciary Committee Sub-Committe stated in the Senate Document 2807 that the National Guard is not the militia noted in the Constitution.

All the arms, munitions, armament and equipment of the National Guard is owned and controlled by the federal government, not by "the people" as clearly stipulated in the last phrase of the Second Amendment.

Skip: Key word is Law abiding citizens didn't carry into that theater because it was against the law and there in lies the problem because criminals don't have a problem breaking the law.

BTW I have a cc permit and I carry my p345 everywhere I go tucked into my waistband. I have the permit for the simple fact that if I have to use it to defend my family or myself I can do so legally and not face prosecution. Having a gun on you without a permit and you use it to defend yourself or family even if proven it was self defense in a lot of states you will still face jail time for illegally carrying. However I also support Constitutional Carry and hope more states go that way.

SnakeEyes23

Victor: If you're in Law Enforcement. Then I'm a GD hematologist. You're not in law enforcement. Stop lying. You're just an NRA/ right wing tool. I've never owned a gun in my life. And I have no intention of ever owning one. I'm 28 years old, and I don't live in fear & paranoia like all the other sheep who feels like they have to own a gun in order to keep safe. But again, people's unhealthy appetite and lust for firearms is indicative of the violent history America has, from the revolutionary war to the civil war to slavery to the genocide of the Native Indigenous People to the racial bigotry black people had to endure etc.

I always wondered who that guy was that brought the knife to the gun fight.

@Snakeeyes23

If you so vehemently despise the gun cultire in the U.S., you are free to leave at any time. I hear that gun control is working out great in England, you might give that a try. I'm a Persian Gulf War combat vet and I've been an avid shooter longer than you've been alive. I've had to draw my weapon twice on perps in the civilian community in defense of myself and my family. In your arrogance, if you feel safe, I challenge you to try a trip to the inner city of Detroit, or Chicago, or NYC at 3 AM. Let me know how that works out for you.

The entire issue of the 2nd amendment is whether the states have the right to have a "well regulated militia" which, unfortunately, the Supreme Court of the United States seems to have forgotten in their interpretation of the law.

In other words, does the right to an army belong to the states, or to the Federal Government.

The specific issue of whether a state can have laws against concealed weapons is addressed in

Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897) https://supreme.justia.com/us/165/275/case.html where the Supreme court found that the state could have a law against concealed weapons.

Thus, the 7th circuit is wrong.

The specific portion of the case is as follows:

But we are also of opinion that even if the contract of a seaman could be considered within the letter of the Thirteenth Amendment, it is not, within its spirit, a case of involuntary servitude. The law is perfectly well settled that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the "Bill of Rights," were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (Art. I) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people

Page 165 U. S. 282

to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons; the provision that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy (Art. V) does not prevent a second trial if upon the first trial the jury failed to agree or if the verdict was set aside upon the defendant's motion, United States v. Ball, 163 U. S. 662, 163 U. S. 627, nor does the provision of the same article that no one shall be a witness against himself impair his obligation to testify if a prosecution against him be barred by the lapse of time, a pardon, or by statutory enactment, Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591, and cases cited. Nor does the provision that an accused person shall be confronted with the witnesses against him prevent the admission of dying declarations, or the depositions of witnesses who have died since the former trial. (Emphasis mine.)

John, I reside ( I was going to say "live.") in Hellinois. Things here are quite amazing; In southern Hellinois most folks hate, and I mean HATE, Chitcago and Springfield. I reside up by Wisconsin. Today, a driver ran over my mailbox. About 6 pm a local Cop pulled into my driveway to give me paperwork on the accident so I could get my mailbox fixed. I asked him if the local officers agreed with conceal-carry, and they all want us good people armed! Demwit Rahm has armed protection, am I less important? Quinn has body gaurds.

I won't wait for the police if threatend.

@ dirp- Sorry but you are incorrect. It's even been argued in court and the SCOTUS has determined it does in fact apply to the individual just like every other right in the Constitution.

hey dirp - give it up already ! See my reply post to you above. You are clueless !!

Don't feed the trolls.

Dirp, you are incorrect. Just like Gneisenau said. You should go back and check your facts!

Good for Florida??? I live there and can tell you there is nothing more southerners love than have something or somebody to shoot at. The NRA is nothing but a front for the gun manufacturing industry and runs a consistent scare campaign to ensure everyone is armed to the teeth. They don't give a damn that you have to take take two tests (written and driving) to get a driver's license but any fool can buy an assault weapon without a national database for background checks or any training required. Training alone would save lives. Many "open carry" states boast low crimes rates. The reason? Easy....they are southern states with small budgets (note how much they suck from the feds) so law enforcement is light. Trust me, local police forces are few and far between. County sheriffs have their hands full and don't even bother coming out when called for a non-violent crime. Results = low crime rates that have nothing to do with reality or guns. But nobody wants you to know that. Of course, let's not forget their fabulous "stand your ground law" which means even violent crimes often don't get counted in the statistics because they aren't considered crimes at all!

Meanwhile, we keep glorifying violence in every movie, TV show, video game, computer game, etc. etc. and then are shocked when some nut walks into a mall with an assault weapon and takes out a bunch of innocent people.

And before sometimes brings up hunting as an excuse to own an arsenal, please tell me who hunts deer or any other animal with an assault weapon? Nobody.....orsomebody who doesn't understand the concept of "hunting" and is a really bad shot.

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

George Washington

Drip: You continue to show that you have no idea what the founders wanted or meant by taking portions of the Second Amendment out of context. However to explain to you what the militia meant in the founders time was simply every able body citizen not "military" or "national guard" You see militia's then were strictly voluntary you could come and go as you pleased, you were not trained supplied your own weapon. The founders knew that true freedom and the power to defend it from threats both foreign and domestic resided with every citizen of this country hence the reason they added the Second Amendment. They knew that the actual greatest threat to freedom doesn't come from outside, it comes from the very government we elect so they gave us a way to fight back against said government if it came down to it.

Illinois is supposed to have one of the toughest gun control laws on the books. And Guess what there were over 500 murders and 2300 attempted murders so far this year in Chicago alone. Some nice gun control working there. Yes, we should listen to the state of Illinois when they talk about gun control because they have it all under control.

Thanks Mike.

ToniJ - I live in Florida as well and love when people talk about Floridians as "Southerners". Check the percentage, there are more people in Florida from the Northeast, Somewhere else in the US, and Foreign, then there are actually Native Floridians or people from the South.

I'm CC and so is my wife. Once when pulled over by a Deputy for speeding, I handed him my DL as well as my CC permit. When he asked if I was carrying, I replied I was. He did as he should and called for a backup officer just in case. When the backup officer arrived I was asked to exit the vehicle and wait at the back of it with the backup officer. While standing at the back of the car, I had a very good conversation with the officer. First he let me know that the way they where handling me was in no way to insinuate that I was a criminal, but rather for their protection. I had no problems with the way they worked at all. While back there talking he asked me about what weapon I carried, and then asked me why. I replied, in part, "because you can't be with me or my family 24/7 for protection." His reply was "perfect."

Most officers I've spoken with have no problems with CC. As long as you have no problems with the way they handle you when you are pulled over or questioned by them. Most feel you have just as much right to defend yourself and your family, as they have to protect themselves.

Well Mike it looks like you missed the point of my post. I don't give a rats patooty how polite you were to the cops, how well you or they followed procedure, etc. My point is (applying to Floridians as well as southerners) is that there is no reason for people to own assault weapons. There is a need for a national database for background checks. There is a need to require safety and usage training as a requirement to purchase a gun, just like there is for driving a car. This isn't about revoking the second amendment. It is about giving people a right but doing your best to ensure they exercise that right responsibly. But unfortunately, we cannot have that conversation in this country without the NRA propaganda inspired, knee-jerk reaction of gun owners (and yes I am one) who claim the government wants to take away our rights. Baloney.

Well Tony, I don't give a "rat's patooty" about your thoughts of peoples need to own whatever weapon they choose. The truth is you can kill someone just as quick with a six shot single action as you can a semi auto Colt 45. So what does it matter? You have a preference on how many times your shot?

The first part of my post was towards you, the balance of my post wasn't towards you, hence the second paragraph. My point to you was that that lumping Floridians as "southerners" is at best a tad off.

As to your second post, I agree there SHOULD be more training required. However, I disagree with the government not wanting to take away your rights to own the weapon or weapons of your choice.

ToniJ: I'd like to know what your definition of a "assault weapon" is? Mind sharing?

ToniJ:

First of all, let's define an assault weapon, from a military point of view. An assault weapon, by today's definition is a rifle or carbine with selective fire capability. That means that it can be fired: semi-automatically, burst and/or fully automatic(like a machine gun). Some military personnel would also add that an assault weapon has the capability of mounting a bayonet on the barrel. I would go along with that as I know some Marines who have had to employ their bayonets in hand-to-hand situations, in the mid-east.

Now, ToniJ, there are many clone-type firearms that resemble or are copies of military weapons that are not assault rifles. For example the M1A is the civilianized version of an M-14...my first rifle in the Marine Corps. It is highly accurate and it's a caliber that can be used to hunt any North American game animal. AR-15s, are clones of the M-16 and M4s our troops use today. I was part of the transition generation in the Corps. Again, the M-16 and its variants have fully automatic capability, the AR-15 does not. It is semi-automatic. Highly accurate as well, it is a good caliber for hunting. And, for your information, they also make semi-automatic clones of the AK-47, which also has its merits as a hunting rifle.

Believe it or not, ToniJ, I have known WWII Marines, whose favorite hunting rifles were the rifles they learned to shoot with: The M1 Guarand and/or the M1 Carbine. During their day, I guess you could call them assault weapons, but they certainly do not fit today's definition because they were semi-autos.

I don't see any need for a civilians to own fully-automatic weapons. However, the media, politicians and uninformed people insist on calling some of these military look-alikes assault weapons. But, then again, I've worked with reporters that couldn't tell the difference between a military issue shotgun or rifle. And, some are so ignorant that they thought the .45 and/or 9mm service pistols had full auto capabilities......Egad!

As for NRA propaganda, there are other organizations that support the 2d Amendment. But, in fact, the NRA has actually helped our legislators craft sensible and effective gun laws. It's efforts also go into environmental and conservation issues, as well as supporting our Olympic Shooting programs.

There are some who want to take away our right to own firearms....it isn't just speculation. And, the Obama administration is working on a U.N. Treaty for Universal Ban on private ownership of firearms. Do the research.

As for responsible firearms ownership, I couldn't agree more. I had my first firearms safety course at 8 years old. All five of my children started their firearms safety training at 8, as well. Gun security in my home actually exceeds what's required of home ownership. However, firearms safety starts in the home and children need to be taught safety and respect for firearms. Children who take their parent's guns to school, for whatever reason, have their roots in parents who are either negligent in training their children or not properly securing their firearms in the home.

As for knee-jerk reactions.....let's be serious. How many times have the politicians in our country taken every opportunity to cry gun control when a some criminal or mentally disturbed individual uses firearms to hurt people??????? In most cases, the system failed. But, it's far more convenient to pass a new law, than find the funds to improve the system or increase law enforcement assets. Then again, we have a federal agency that came up with "Fast and Furious" at a time when private citizens and law enforcement officials are being killed by foreign nationals along our border states.

Da Gunny

My proposal to increase gun safety in this country follows and will surely draw the paranoia of the far right, but here goes. Cars have many safety features and options because they can be a lethal machine. You can step on the brake, put it in neutral, turn the wheel, cut the engine, deploy the air bag or put on a safety belt. You can be convicted of manslaughter if you are caught driving drunk and kill someone. Firing a gun takes one simple action and you can't take the bullet back once you pull the trigger.

I propose that any person purchasing a gun must take a written exam and a gun safety course which includes at least a minimum number of hours at a firing range. I propose a ban on all assault weapons. I propose that any gun owner must be charged with a like-charge when his/her gun is used by another person when commiting a felony or crime. I propose a national database and mandatory background checks including for online purchases. None of these actions would infringe on a person's right to own guns. It's a start and would go a long way toward improving gun safety.

Now let's hear the far-right, paranoid screams and objections......

Written exam's, safety courses and such are all well and good but how's that going to work where gangs, drug dealers and such are concerned? They don't buy the via a gun store, nor does most of their guns have serial numbers so how is that going to improve gun safety? Fact is it's not it's only going to put more hoops for the law abiding citizens to have to jump through to exercise their Constitutional Rights. BTW you never answered what your definition of a assault weapon is.

And as predicted, the response is well, since we gangs have guns, let's do nothing.

ToniJ

If the weapon is not select fire, it is not an assualt weapon. reading comprehension a bit off. Second, once you ban a certain tyoe of weapon, that only empowers bans for other types of weapons. Also, how do you enforce a ban? There are literally millions of what you ignorantly refer to as "assault weapons" on the streets. A ban on future sales would mean nothing. What I think you really want is an outright ban on guns. If so, how do you propose this?

Ah, another predictable response. Any suggestions to make things safer is met with someone claiming you are trying to ban guns outright. And nothing changes. We are so far out of control with our love of guns and glorifying violence that it will be difficult to put the genie back in the bottle. But a conversation MUST be had about it without the far-right's typical obstructionist responses to any sane solutions. How's that shooting in Connecticut working for ya? Waiting for the body count of innocent children as I type. Mass shootings are UP in this country. By the way, asking me to define an "assault" weapon is a gotcha question looking for a gotcha answer so that the conversation stops.

ToniJ: It's not a gotcha question just wanted to see if your answer was the same thing the news media has been portraying as a assault weapon and which they are wrong in. An assault weapon is one that is selective fire by that I mean one can choose single round, 3 shot burst, full automatic that is the true definition of a assault weapon. You talk about sane solutions when any laws implemented only affects those willing to obey the laws and does nothing to stop the criminal elements so in effect it's a waste of time and energy and does not deter the crimes. Yes mass shootings have risen in the past few years and I'm afraid mass killing are going to continue to go up regardless of the weapon used until this country gets back on track of the Founding Fathers vision. Did it ever cross your mind that the nut case in Connecticut could have used explosives made out of household chemicals to cause more death and destruction? OR what about this that if teachers could be armed that the nutcase wouldn't have killed as many as he did? Simple fact is a person with the intent to commit a violent act is going to do so regardless of what laws are in place or the weapon used? How about this we need to address not the weapons but the reasons people feel like doing horrible things like this is the only solution to their problems. What's the root cause of this breakdown in society? How do we make it so people don't feel like things like this is their only course of action they can take? It's not the weapons Toni that's the problem there is a deeper root of a national problem that we need to get to the heart of and address.

On a different note my heart goes out to the families of those lost today they are in mine and my families thoughts. It made me hug my kids a little harder and longer today when they came home from school.

You cannot separate the issue of gun safety and control from the issue of the breakdown in our society. They are not unrelated. There is a mountain of research that shows when children are exposed to violent cartoons, etc. and then given the choice of a several play weapons to use (knife, hammer, whatever) they will choose the gun. We have ingrained it into people's minds that violence is the quick and dirty answer to problems and guns are the quickest and easiest way to a permanent solution.

Another issue that we don't deal with that is also related to these problems is that of mental health. We are a country that offers very little in the way of understanding or helping those with mental health problems. Heck, it was only recently that a law had to be passed to force insurance companies to cover the illness at all. They know of the stigma attached to mental illness and that the mentally ill have few advocates so they could slash benefits there first and increase their profits. I've worked the mentally ill for my entire career and know the stigma they carry and lack of services for them.

Again, arguments that someone could have used household chemicals, knives, etc. are simply designed to divert a true conversation that leads to solutions. The same with people who claim we should outlaw forks to cut down on obesity. Just ridiculous.

If your question regarding assault weapons is an honest one, then my honest answer is I am not schooled enough in the topic to define what is or is not an assault weapon. I own a pistol. However, more often than not, the question is merely designed to derail a conversation and write off a person and their opinion when their answer isn't the "right" answer. When/if people ever get serious about controlling such weapons I'm sure a working definition can be found.

Toni: As I said it was a honest question not meant to derail. In today's society thanks to the news media that have no clue what the actual definition of a assault weapon is a lot of people out there have bought into it. Now thanks to the media their definition is anything high powered and semi automatic which as I mentioned before is simply wrong. Personally I own a 30-06, 45 pistol, shotgun, 22 rifle and a 32 pistol and I have a .223 and 30-30 in law-a-way, but none are in the true definition of a assault rifle. When I need the range like in a open field I use the 30-06, but in a wooded area where range isn't a factor I'll use the .223 (which looks like M-16 but is a AR-15 and does not have the selective fire and is a very good hunting rifle). The 30-30 is just one I've always wanted.

The examples of the explosives, knives and such also isn't meant to divert anything it's simply more examples of things that can be used if a person has it in their mind to do bad things they will no matter the weapon used. I can go out here to the local hardware store and in under 1 hour build a mortar, explosive or a number of other things and with the availability of information on the net one can build surprisingly just about anything out of materials that are very common and easy to get. My point is if someone has it in their heart/head to go out here and commit a horrible act they will do so no matter what laws are in place and in the end it's the law abiding people that get the shaft.

I've not seen any of the evidence you mention, but what I have seen is my own kids and the kids of my family. They watch the cartoons, play the video games and are exposed to weapons however when given a choice of toys to play with one always chose a fishing rod and the other chooses a toy horse (my kids) even though they had cap guns to choose from. My sister's kids chose baseballs and basketballs. Never was a toy gun chosen so from my point of view and experience you can separate the root cause of these people from firearms and as a society I still say we are going to have to address the root cause. Right now one of the big ones that I'm seeing is the decline in the economy is causing the feeling of hopelessness and despair with no visible end in sight and that's just one of many I'm sure.

Citing what you see in your own household or that of your sister is short-sighted. And years of research substantiate what I wrote. The "root-cause" is not as simple one thing such as the economy. This is a multi-pronged problem that requires a mutl-pronged solution. We will never stop people from intentionally killing each other but we can minimize as much as possible as well as minimize accidental shootings. The factors include, but may not be limited to, our culture's over-glorification violence and guns, the NRA's over-reaching influence on our lawmakers and laws and our culture's inability to address mental health issues (which can be exacerbated by a flailing economy but are not the cause.) Put together a task force of gun owners and non-gun owners alike. Have that conversation. Stop blaming each other. Stop avoiding the subject for fear the NRA will blackball your election. Stop accusing the other side of wanting to repeal the 2nd amendment. Do all that and we may actually get somewhere.

Wow, that is rough. I know when I left my first husband I left a letter that I had a guy friend he respected deliver. Because, he didn't have the guts to do anything to me that anyone else could trace to him, and that was bad enough. If your antagonist is unstable, all precautions would be iffy. I am so glad you had the foresight to protect yourself. I can protect myself 24/7 now, conscience clear about who is the good guy. Love to you, whoever you are.

well, i let an abusive marriage and my ex had a whole cache of guns. i never felt the need to go buy a gun and guess what? i'm still alive an kicking. if you're law enforcement did nothing about your crazy wife or husband, then you didn't push hard enough. some people you can't stop no matter what you do, but MOST people you can. even if my ex had come at me with a gun, i couldn't have harmed him. there is just something in my soul that could never do it, even if i had to die. maybe that's why he never die, because i refused to be afraid.

No offence Alessa, but I would be willing to bet that if you were in a situation where someone else had a weapon on you, you might feel differently. Everyone is afraid when someone puts a gun to their head.

As for the not pushing hard enough: there have been countless reported cases where people have taken others to court repeatedly because they were in fear for their lives and the courts did nothing, and then they ended up being assaulted, murdered, or worse by that person. One woman near me had acid thrown in her face at work by her ex who she took to court several times to get a restraining order on and failed.

The point is if your life is important enough to have someone else protect it, why isn’t it important enough for you to protect it? That doesn’t mean get a gun and shoot at every shadow you see, it means learn self-defense, find a defensive weapon that works for you and that you are comfortable with-be it pepper spray, a Taser, or even a firearm then learn how to use it properly and effectively.

Refusing to be afraid for no reason is foolish, but knowing you don’t have to be afraid because you know how to defend yourself and when is common sense.

Regardless of where you fall on the gun argument, you gotta wonder how many of these gun shop owners sit there at night laughing their asses off at all their chicken little customers while they count their money.

All they have to say is Obama and second amendment and they get the morons lining up outside their doors. A republican getting elected to the white house is going to be the worse thing for the NRA, Colt, S&W, et al. Nah ... there's always the black helicopters.

BTW, while I lean left on social issues, I own two guns, so put the flames away.

I see what you're saying about this being a dangerous situation but for who? Sure the gun manufacturers will profit but I tell you what, I'd rather buy a gun legally from the gun manufacturer to protect myself and my family than to sit back and complain while the criminals buy theirs illegally in the black market just to do harm to me and my family. Lets face it, YOU WILL NEVER GET RID OF GUNS. Criminals will always find a way to get them, just as the drugs that get past our borders. If you try, you will arm the criminals to their teeth while you are helpless to protect yourself aginst them.

jkane1

"now gun dealers profit from gun violence. Anytime profit is involved, there is a risk of these violent events being staged or paid for by those making the profit."

"just look at the world we live in and what corporations have and will do for profit. Pay some troubled guy a couple grand to go on a shooting spree, give him some weapons, and business is booming!"

Yeah,right,that is more than paranoia,that's on the verge of insanity!

Do you also believe that the WTC towers were taken down in a controlled demolition,by thermite charges?

That G.W. Bush allowed the WTC attack,and it was really done by the U.S. military as a "false flag operation"?

That bigfoot really exists?

Get a freakin grip !

The reason that gun sales go up after a shooting that is hyped 24/7 by the media is that the anti-gun politicians start talking about gun control,gun bans,magazine capacity bans,"assault weapon" bans,ammunition bans,licensing guns,etc.
This means that it is politicians,and the media that are the reason for the increase in sales-along with the fact that most people know that all gun control does is disarm those of us who are not criminals,and make things much easier for the criminals-they then know that no one is armed.

The right to self-defense is a basic human right-the police are not responsible for protecting individuals,the individual is responsible for protecting him or her self,and their families.

The increase in gun sales also is due to the FACT that people realize that the states and cities with the least restrictive gun laws have the lowest violent crime rates,and the states/cities with the most restrictive gun laws have the highest rates of violent crimes.

Mexico has some of the most restrctive gun laws of any country-yet they have the highest rate of violent and gun crimes.

More guns=less crime.

Confucius says "Better to have a gun and not need one than not to have a gun and need one."

B.S.

JKane1 and all of you:

USA Today News just came out with some very nice news today. From 2002 to present, violent crime has decreased, at the same time, national agency checks for firearms purchases have gone up to 16.5 million. However, 16.5 million only represents the number of approvals for purchase, not the number of firearms per purchase. So, for the Sara Bradys, Rahm Emmanuels and other gun banners, your arguments are being blown out of the water.

While the corporate media continues to sensationalize and sometimes "mis" reports any incidences with firearms, few if any, will report actual crime statistics, such as knives still being the preferred tool of rapists, muggers and pedophiles, for example. How many people in this country commit vehicular homicide or manslaughter, yet that is not front page news unless they run over 32 Japanese tourists at the California Mexican border. The Jeffrey Dahmers in this country did not use firearms nor did some of our most heinous mass murderers.

By the way JM, if you've read "Here Come the Black Helicopters," have you read "Screwed," by the same authors, or, "The DisUniting of America," by Schlessinger. Really good reading.

As for the Second Amendment: two key phrases are most important. The right "of the people" to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." We are supposed to have a government "of the people," for the people and by the people. Note "of the people".

And, the phrase that empowers the state to raise a militia. Again, the militia was/is the obligation of the people, who are able-bodied, to serve in a state militia. The National Guard being "in place of a militia" is a legal fiction, because the Federal Government reserves the right to take control of the National Guard. However, a state militia, may be raised to defend the state and in conjunction with other articles of the constitution and bill of rights, implies and/or supports the states' rights of sovereignty, which many politicians and presidents have tried to deny.

Nonetheless, it is amazing how many people will try to skew or outright lie about statistics to prevent honest, law-abiding citizens from exercising their rights under the constitution and bill of rights.

If anyone does honest research, in countries that require all citizens to serve in the military or maintain firearms in the home as reservists, the crime rates are extremely low and the prevalence of young people abusing or misusing firearms is almost non-existent. Organized gangs are almost non-existent as well.

In states, like Florida, crimes like rape and "smash and grabs" are in the decline. And, road rage is declining as well. Drivers are allowed to carry in their cars(the two step laws). Women do not have to wait until an intruder is fully in the house, to shoot a would-be burglar, rapist or stalker. The stand your ground law, while controversial, is also making people more wary of trying to mug or assault others.

In Alaska, where carry laws are very liberal, people respect the potential of each citizen being able to defend themselves from wrongdoers. Despite, the TV program about law enforcement in Alaska being tough, it takes less law officers to enforce the laws in the biggest state in the union.

So, Duh, people, you have every right not to want to own guns. However, don't be sheep and just blindly accept the rhetoric and propaganda handed out by the likes of Rahm Emmanuel; Sara Brady, and the other anti-gunners, including the corporate media. Think for yourself and do some research.

As for the NRA: That organization, has not only crafted some of the most effective gun bills for our legislature, but has championed many environmental and conservation issues in our country. Further, the NRA is the major supporter of our Olympic Shooting Team, provides guidance and oversees legitimate shooting activities(matches) around the country.

The NRA does not sell guns nor endorses any one firearm manufacturer. And, while the NRA is a not-for-profit organization, it does not qualify for tax exemptions and it's members do not receive tax write-offs, for donating to various NRA related activities, including donations to the NRA built/maintained Olympic Shooting Center for our Olympic competitors.

I don't get so aggravated with those who chose not to exercise their constitutional rights, but it pains me to see so many people who blindly believe the crap they are being fed by grandstanding politicians, biased media and the Sara Brady wannabes of this world.

Finally, there are over 1,800 federal laws and thousands of state and local laws regarding firearms. Some of those laws are so redundant as to be ludicrous. Nonetheless, it is not lawful firearms ownership that is the problem. It is our law enforcement agencies not having the assets to enforce the laws; break up the gangs and go after the black market gun runners.

Da Gunny

That is not true. I have a healthy paranoid streak, but this doesn't fit. What these incidents do is to wake people up to the fact that they are responsible for themselves. It isn't their fault, but cops only show up AFTER a crime has been not only committed but finalized in most cases. Gun dealers are busy enough handling everyday business. Even in normal times they can't get get enough stock to fill their stores. They don't need to go looking for trouble, or more. Try asking one-I did today.

WRONG AGAIN:

Illinois will be the very last state to have conceal carry.

All of the other states, including Colorado (Aurora Mall Massacre, Columbine in Littleton) have had CC for many years.

CC has NEVER prevented one single death, yet, when combined with stupid laws like "stand your ground" has caused many.

Uh... Just because your left-leaning news agencies have never reported on lives saved by CCW holders, doesn't mean that it has never happened. I can think of several off the top of my head.

dirp

"CC has NEVER prevented one single death"

YOU are wrong. My mother carried a concealed 32 auto at work. Two thugs tried to rob her at knife point over her counter. She refused to give them the money. They said they would come over the counter and kill her. She pulled out her auto and killed both of them dead on the spot. It never saw a courtroom. That was in WA in 1963. Never say never. Mom passed in 1996. The world lost one h--- of a woman.

dirp

CC has NEVER prevented one single death

Jacksonville FL

Springfield OH

Ill have to go with Freedom1st on this one. I live in WA and conceal carry. Although we have had a spike in murders this year, it has seemed to mellow out. Getting a gun in WA was beyond easy and I had my CPL approved with 5 days (even though they said its a 20 day turn around). Either way, I labeling WA as "Liberal" (in a bad way) still annoys the piss out of me. yes it high Democratic, but not all democrats are "Liberal". I vote Dem, but still support gun rights, gay marriage, and the legalization of weed.

I fell that republicans use the word "Liberal" instead of admitting that they just dont agree with it. Its much easier to blame someone else than admit it yourself. Gay marriage gets legalized, "its all those liberals" Well no, its just that your unhappy it doesn't fit your point of view. Instead of the GOP tries to make the other side look crazy. *Sorry for the rant, Im just getting so sick of people wrongly using the word Liberal."

dirp

WRONG AGAIN:

Illinois will be the very last state to have conceal carry.

All of the other states, including Colorado (Aurora Mall Massacre, Columbine in Littleton) have had CC for many years.

CC has NEVER prevented one single death, yet, when combined with stupid laws like "stand your ground" has caused many.

Guns save lives all the time. Check out the this link http://gunssavelives.net/ don't let the name bother you, each incident is cited with a link to the news story. It is an absolute unabashed lie when people say that guns don's save lives. In the town I live alone in the last year there has been two incidents of a guns saving a life. Unfortunately the media rarely reports of guns being used for defense and that sadly perpetuates the myth that guns don't save lives

don't bother with Dirp - he's either a troll, or a moron. Either way his gene pool needs chlorine.

The problem with concealed carry is that it is practically a fantasy that you'll be able to use it in public. Think about it. If you're out and about and somebody pulls a gun on you, you'll pull your gun on them. Unarmed passers-by won't know who the bad guy is. Armed passers-by won't know who the bad guy is. You might be able to defend yourself, or you might die trying. If you don't pull your gun, odds are better the assailant won't do your harm and the general public will know who the bad guy is to help you.

The site michelle linked to is mostly populated by folks defending themselves on private property, either at work or at home. You don't need CC for either.

But I also believe your local region shapes your beliefs. My town has had 2 murders in my lifetime, and they were crimes of passion. Robberies per year can be counted on a single hand. I feel no need for firearm ownership. If your region is less safe, you probably have a very different perspective.

Dirp You don't have a clue! I live in Detroit and I can't count how many times that civilians and even cops have shot a would be robber, car jacker, etc... and won. In fact last year alone there was three stories on the news about how somebody tried to carjack an off duty police officer (carrying a conceled pistol) and was shot and killed by that officer. One incident there were three carjackers and the (off duty plain clothes officer) shot two of them and the other ran away. In all of these incidents the officers was off duty in their own vehicles, in plain clothes, and was carrying conceled. About a month ago some guys was working on their car in a residential neighborhood, when they were approached by a couple of guys trying to rob them at gunpoint. A tussle ensued and when it was over one robber was dead and another shot. Oh, did I mention the guys was unharmed and had a conceled permit? Oh, by the way those cops, they were unharmed too! Three years ago a man was approached at a gas station by a carjacker with a gun, trying to take the mans Escalade with his girlfriend and his baby inside. The carjacker didn't know he was armed as the man drew down on the carjacker and killed him. He also had a CPL! Your theory doesn't fly or have merrit and your statement about most people living their lives without guns may be true. However, where you live has a huge impact on how carrying a gun can be beneficial to your life. As I stated before I live in Detroit. Not only is it dangerous but I have had to use my own gun to protect myself. I can't tell you how many times I've seen people on tv crying and saying "THINGS LIKE THIS JUST DON'T HAPPEN HERE!" after some nut job goes on a killing spree Lol! These are the same people that think they live in "Mayberry" and "Andy Griffin along with "Barney Fiffe" will save their ____! Let me guess, you live in Mayberry don't you!

Pragmatic you stated: " My town has had 2 murders in my lifetime, and they were crimes of passion. Robberies per year can be counted on a single hand. I feel no need for firearm ownership."

Well now. No wonder you feel the way you do. Your theory about "guns in public and who sees who with a gun" is wrong also but then again you're from "Mayberry" Tell Barney Fife I said hello. Lol!!

Dirp is baiting you folks. Stop falling for it and he'll go away. There are plenty of viewpoints worthy of debate here. Ignore Dirp and debate a worthy opponent.

And, all this time I've been thinking that Dirp is a mispelling for "drip" which used to refer to a social disease as well as a dork, jerk or nerd. In retrospect, dirp may qualify for all of the above.

Da Gunny

And, all this time I've been thinking that Dirp is a mispelling for "drip" which used to refer to a social disease as well as a dork, jerk or nerd. In retrospect, dirp may qualify for all of the above.

Da Gunny

And, all this time I've been thinking that Dirp is a mispelling for "drip" which used to refer to a social disease as well as a dork, jerk or nerd. In retrospect, dirp may qualify for all of the above.

Da Gunny

Pretty much everyone else realizes that the word "arms" in this sense means firearms. Try again.

Also the courts have stated - on more than one occasion that the 2nd amendment refers to the rights of a individual.

Thanks for playing. Try again.

RE: Read the 2nd Amendment

You really need to get up on your reading. The Supreme Court has ruled that you (an individual) has a right to own a FIREARM (gun).

Brad: absolutely correct. Let all the "2nd Amendment" nuts get the "arms" the 2nd Amendment was referring to, flintlock rifles and pistols.

If the 2nd amendment was only referring to flintlock rifles and pistols, then the 1st amendment was only referring to hand-operated printing presses.

Brad -- where does "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" come into your arguement ??

Brad

The Supreme Court has read & interpreted the Second Amendment for us & they voted by majority that YOU are wrong.

Brad every other one of the bill of rights is meant for individual rights.

Brad feels his opinion is far more educated than any of them thar stupid 'ol idjit Supreme Court judges.

Brad, you are correct. Firearm could mean anything, including a fifty caliber machine gun or even a cannon. To deny those is to deny 2nd Amendments rights as there are no clauses naming exceptions as some would like you to believe.

Arms could include tactical nukes. But big government doesn't want civilians possessing those at all. You can't get a permit for one in any state.

But while we all knee-jerk argue this, government is taking ever more privacy rights away without checks or balances. Nobody seems to care but me.

Brad, the dependent clause in the 2nd amendment does not alter the meaning of the independent clause.

I also note that while the 1st amendment states "Congress shall make no law," the 2nd uses the stronger "shall not be abridged."

Regardless, survive!!!

Prag, I care too and have watched our rights ebb for most of my 60 years.

Tactical nukes cannot be used w/o harming innocent people, so I have no issue with prohibiting private ownership of them. In fact, I'd like govt to get rid of them too, in part for the same reason.

Survive!!

Brad Adamakis

"The Founding Fathers didn't want a large permanent standing army, so they wrote the 2nd Amendment to guarantee that they could field well regulated militias when needed. If they'd meant "every citizen has the right to own firearms" they certainly could have written that, but they didn't."

The "well regulated militia" the founders were talking about was the ARMED citizens!

"in 1990, the Supreme Court held that the federal government possesses complete power over the National Guard. The Guard is the third part of the United States Army, along with the regular Army and Army Reserve. The Framers` independent "well regulated militia" remains as they intended, America`s armed citizenry."

“There is no evidence in the text of the Second Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution, that the words ‘the people’ have a different connotation within the Second Amendment than when employed elsewhere in the Constitution. In fact, the text of the Constitution, as a whole, strongly suggests that the words ‘the people’ have precisely the same meaning within the Second Amendment as without. And as used throughout the Constitution, ‘the people’ have ‘rights’ and ‘powers,’ but federal and state governments only have ‘powers’ or ‘authority’, never ‘rights.’”

"Samuel Adams warned that: "The said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."

"The Constitution and Bill of Rights repeatedly refer to the "rights" of the people and to the "powers" of government. The Supreme Court has recognized that the phrase "the people," which is used in numerous parts of the Constitution, including the Preamble, the Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to people as individuals. In each case, rights belonging to "the people" are without question the rights of individuals."

http://www.nraila.org/second-amendment/the-second-amendment.aspx

Brad-YOU need to read the 2nd amendment,in it's entirety,without the anti-gun bias you display by your comment...

—"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"

— protects a purely individual right, as do the First, Fourth and Ninth Amendments.

Brad:

I have read the constitution, had political courses and more than the average share of government and history classes. The founding fathers indeed meant firearms when they wrote the constitution. Firearms were necessary for protection against indians, marauders, the Brits, etc. Firearms were necessary for the state militias that eventually formed the core of the Continental Army. If all you had was a sword, if you joined the state militia, eventually you were given a firearm.

And, the first thing the british tried to take away from the colonials, after the French-Indian Wars, was firearms, followed by swords or any other weapon. So, the founding fathers indeed meant firearms, otherwise how would the colonials be able to form state militias to resist the brits or anyother infringement on states's or national sovereignty. And, in case you forgot, the native Americans were not all friendly and had french-provided firearms from the french indian wars. So, your assumptions about the 2d amendment not supporting firearms ownership are baseless.

I might add here, many constitutionalists believe that the 2d Amendment when supported by other articles of the constitution and bill of rights, ensured state sovereignty against overbearing strong central government. Some historians will say the Civil War was fought as much for state sovereignty and self-determination, as it was over the slavery issue itself.

As I've mentioned before, the National Guard is a legal fiction, as a state militia, as the federal government imposes the prerogative of making it a part of the government's military arm. So, a state still has rights to raise a militia and it is the implied duty, that able-bodied citizens be required to support/join the state militia as needed.

Finally, our founding fathers indeed intended that the right to bear arms meant firearms. Other articles and the bill of rights support this.

Da Gunny

Brad, if you want to argue that "arms" includes knives, clubs, and spears...in addition to guns, all that means is that the Constitution gives us the right to own knives, clubs, spears, AND guns. I'll accept that interpretation.

Obviously, the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

to Jim - politicians don' t want to be bothered with facts. They just want to spew their BS all over the place.

Jim, Rahm used to work for a pathological liar, B. Hussien Obama. Do you think Rahm is anything less?

Rahm is a man of small stature, who needs to (try) to intimidate as many people as he can to feel, bigger.

Think of Rahm as the prince in Shrek, you get it now!

Ban handguns and semi- automatic weapons.

Takenaka,

You always post the same damn mantra. I would love to engage you in an intellectual debate on this but you would have no ammunition (no pun intended). So, I will ask you this. How do you propose this to be done? Is this on future sales of weapons? With millions of guns already in the market, how do you ban something that is already readily available? Do you mean a ban or an outright confiscation? How do you enforce this ban? Seriously, these are questions I would like for you to try and answer before you post your assinine drivel.

Pedestrian-in-SF

"When you want the right to carry an automatic weapon into a church,"

Who is asking to carry an automatic weapon anywhere?

You claim to be a gun owner,yet you do not know the difference between an automatic,and semi-automatic firearm?

"Try looking at any of the literature the NRA is sending out these days. It's disgusting how a once reputable organization has turned into something so low."

Try looking at the literature put out by the anti-gun groups,none of which were ever "reputable"-yet they sink lower,and lower-they continue to use lies,half- truths,obfuscation,manipulated data,cherry-picked data,and outright lies-sinking so low that they making videos depicting gun owners as child-killers-showing a guy at a range shooting a target that is the outline of a small girl child-THAT is OKAY?

No, just people sick of the government telling them they aren't allowed to exercise their rights. Especially one that's specifically expressed in the constitution.

NOBODY is telling them that, Gneisenau. It's impossible to have a reasonable conversation about the problem of gun violence in this country because gun dealers and the NRA lobbyists don't want their profits tampered with. I've been shooting since I was a child and I'm disgusted by the fear-mongering crap these organizations indulge in.

@ Ped in SF. Apparently they are. That's why the courts forced the state of Illinois to issue CCWs. Because by not doing so infringes on the rights of the people that live there. Kind of blows your theory out of the water.

Pedestrian: Most of the data is coming from the CDC studies. NRA is just using the data.

Wrong, again boys. Try looking at any of the literature the NRA is sending out these days. It's disgusting how a once reputable organization has turned into something so low. I repeat: NOBODY is telling Americans that they are not allowed to exercise their right to bear arms and protect themselves and their homes. When you want the right to carry an automatic weapon into a church, shopping mall, theater or state building, you cross the line. Kooks always have to take things too far and then the families of the victims have to pick up the pieces.

If you want to talk bad government that's not to be trusted...look no farther than"FAST AND FURIOUS".

Allowing assault weapons to go to the cartels so it could be blamed on lax US gun laws.If it was not for honest ATF agents blowing the whistle,we would be hearing about the cross border carnage that we caused right now.That's why gun owner's don't trust Obama,in spite of what he says.

Hey Ped, Sorry old son, it is you that are wrong. I have owned a Class III full automatic machine gun since 1985. You might say as an owner and subject to the extra rules that BATF has for NFA weapons, I have looked into the criminal usage by other people who LEGALLY own machine guns. Since the NFA was passed in 1936m there has been 2 - only two - crimes committed with a machine gun by the legal owner, and one of them was a cop who had his own stash of weapons and was involved in drug dealing. Of the thousands of legal machine gun owners, across some 76 years, only two crimes.... do you realize how far below 1% that goes?
(statistaically zero)

So Machine gun owners are NOT crossing any lines. Owning such weapons are NOT causing the crimes.

As a WW2 reenactor, I have carried my Machine gun into many public areas when doing memorial services and historic displays. SO who the hell are you to say I've crossed some "line"?

Do you know how many assault weapons fly off the shelves in bulk sales in Arizona per week, John? How many gun dealers wink and nod and say nothing because they profit from the sale? Do you think they care who gets killed as long as they get their money? It makes F&F look like amateur hour. It was a sting operation that went wrong - it was dangerous and everyone involved knew it. Nothing more, nothing less. It has nothing to do with Obama's supposedly sinister wish to take your guns. He has expanded gun rights in this country, but since he's got a 'D' behind his name, everyone runs around like chicken effing little. Very good marketing tool for those that profit from this nonsense.

Ped, You have heard of the NICCS system? The BATF "Bound Book:" that all gun shops have to keep and display for inspection to any BATF agent?

If you did, you would know that when a firearm is manufactured the serial numbers are all recorded and tracked when they leave the manufacturer to the dealers. The dealers has to enter the numbers in their book, and update it when it sells and who to. So, if a gun shop was winking at sellign guns to Mexico, then they surely were crying with BATF demanded they show where gun number such and such went to! Ped, I bet your eyes are brown....

Do you know how many assault weapons fly off the shelves in bulk sales in Arizona per week, John? How many gun dealers wink and nod and say nothing because they profit from the sale?

OK I'm calling bull@!$%# on this. You bet dealers care. They have to keep detailed records of every sale. Those records get audited a lot. The government knows every gun they get by serial number, make, model and manufacture. They have better by God be able to account for it - and that includes they background check they are required to make.

Any guns flying off the shelf illegally in AZ are strictly a result of Fast and Furious and our national justice department are solely to blame.

Pedestrian- have you TRIED to buy a gun in AZ?? YOU personally?? I doubt it because your statement is incorrect. On a recent vacation in AZ we stopped in a local gun shop just to browse. I checked out a gun I was interested in. I chatted with the owner as I shopped.. Yes- I did ask questions although I already knew the answer- I am from out of state. He showed me the paperwork and YES they still do background checks. So if they are "flying off the shelves" as you stated then they are sold to people who did indeed pass a background check if in state and definitely ONLY to another dealer if out of state.

If Fast and Furious was just an innocent mistake,why is Obama using EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE to withhold documents and protect Holder?

No Mr PED,no sting gone wrong....a government trick that backfired and needed Obama to cover it up.

You must be a troll, anybody this stupid isn't smart enough to type.

Pedestrian-in-SF

He has expanded gun rights in this country, but since he's got a 'D' behind his name, everyone runs around like chicken effing little.

Can you tell us what rights Hussein has expanded since he has been in office? I will concede that we have not lost any rights, thus far. But I don't see where he has expanded any rights either.

Oblama has expanded welfare at the expense of our military personnel. He's expanded foreign aid at the expense of public safety. He's been quietly working on treaties with the U.N., that would compromise our national sovereignty. And, he has been working with the anti-gun coalitions behind the scenes to pull in the reins on legitimate firearms ownership

Pedestrian, consider this. The NRA has about 4 million members. But there are an estimated 100 million gun owners in this country, meaning that 96% of us are NOT members of the NRA. I own guns. I am not a member. I don't want to be a member, and I don't read its literature. There are millions of people just like me. I am not worried about the government coming to take away my guns. I don not believe what La Pierre spouts, and quite frankly he does not represent me or my beliefs. I own guns because I enjoy shooting and because my wife and I are disabled and unable to defend ourselves without firearms..

Do you know how many assault weapons fly off the shelves in bulk sales in Arizona per week,

Since an assualt weapon is one that is characterized by being selective fire, and select fire weapons are unavailable to most people anyway, my guess is the number sold is zero.

Yes, Nstiz, gun dealers are required to track sales. That's why there are records of bulk sales in Arizona being common - all you need is a valid ID, and you can waltz out of there with a gross of fire power, nobody stops to ask WHY you need 30 of this particular weapon anyway, Mr. Smith. Quite a few kids right out of high school end up making large cash purchases. Whatever, it's their right, right?

Deerhunter - your stupid, insistent use of the Presidents middle name as some retarded dog whistle obliterates any point you might have attempted to make. Of course you "don't know" about the expansion of gun rights in this country over the past eight years - to acknowledge them would defuse just one of the lame excuses for your unreasonable hatred.

Gunny. Whacka, whacka, whacka. See a doctor for treatment of paranoid delusional issues. Put down World Nut Daily, turn off Glen Beck and start enjoying life and contributing to society like a normal person. Nobody's out to take yer guns.

John, almost 8,000 pages of documentation were submitted regarding F&F, Holder testified 11 times. Executive privilege was finally invoked (for the first time by this President) because Issa's committee was going to find Holder in contempt no matter what. After all, why focus on that Jobs, Jobs, Jobs thing when you can waste time trying to embarrass this administration in an election year and work up the base with perceived "threats" to their 2nd amendment rights, doncha know. Holder and the DOJ were also investigating voter suppression and that didn't really make the GOTea very happy. Do yourself a favor and read the Fortune article on F&F. It's quite enlightening and refreshingly non-partisan.

Except when it comes to online gun sales. All bets are off.

When you pry my cold dead hands from it, or when you pry it from my cold dead hands?

Nevertheless, I'm with you and Heston as well.

Do guns make you safer?

Yes Davey, why yes they do.

Guns make you safer? Wow. I'm going out right now and getting a gun.

Um, wait, before I do that, let me make sure.

How do you know that guns make you safer? Do people who own guns live longer, than people who do not own guns?

I'm serious man. If guns make you safer, then I will buy a gun. I want ot be safe. If guns have not been proven to make you safer, if you are just as safe with a gun as without one, why bother?

Have you got any data that shows guns make you safer?

ME to, I feel very safe with my .40 XDM. Thanks for asking.

Davey, let's ask the single mom who killed a home intruder if a gun made her and her child safe.

ME to, I feel very safe with my .40 XDM. Thanks for asking.

I don't care how you feel. (Sorry if that sounded harsh.) I want to know if you are safer with a gun.

Davey, let's ask the single mom who killed a home intruder if a gun made her and her child safe.

Understood. In a society where there are so many guns, there will certainly be some legitimate, bona fide defensive gun uses. And, fyi, I congratulate anyone who sends a scumbag to his (or her) eternal reward, with or without a gun.

Of course, I can also show you examples where people, good people were robbed of their lives by a bad guy with a gun. This is one that really made me sad:

http://plymouthwhitemarsh.patch.com/articles/officer-bradley-fox-laid-to-rest

Officer Fox's gun did not keep him safe, in a situation where he was attacked by someone with a gun.

I know there's lots of folks that really like their guns. But, is it rationale? Are you safer with a gun, or without? Is our society safer because there are so many guns?

When the killers are coming up the stairs, will you greet them with a handful of statistics about the number of instances when guns have not been used for self defense or something more substantial?

I know, I know, killers coming up the stairs. You have to be ready for anything in this dangerous world we live in.

Fine, you can imagine a bunch of scenarios where you will need a gun to defend yourself. For some reason, I do not imagine these things. Maybe I am naive. That's OK.

But, you could buy a gun today, and the killers might not come up the stairs for 5, 10, who knows, maybe even 15 years. So, you have a gun sitting around the house for 15 years, waiting for the killers. Who knows what could happen. Burglar breaks in, finds your gun, just then, you walk in the door, burgler kills you with your own damn gun. All kinds of things are possible.

But I still would like to know, how effective is it to have a gun for protection. We know that a gun is capable of being used for self defense. We can imagine all kinds of scenarios where we would need a gun for self defense, but, how well does that go?

Look at that poor SOB, George Zimmerman. He had a gun. Made him feel brave. Now he is in a world of s h i t. George Zimmerman's gun got him nothing but trouble. He'd a been better off without it.

No stats to show that guns actually make you safer? Is the life expectancy of a gun owner longer than a non gun owner?

Regarding "killers coming up the stairs," that's how most relatives get shot--"I'm a day early for my visit, but I still have the key to Pop's house. I'll not bother waking him up, and just go to my room." And then there's a tragedy, and Pop has to live with the fact that he killed his kid, thinking he was an intruder.

In Oregon, there seems to be at least once a year where one family member accidentally shoots another. The closest one to my house was a woman who thought that she was fending off an intruder, but it was her husband, the same guy who bought her the gun to defend herself, because he said that she needed to have it. Both claimed it was an accident, and no charges were brought. This in the same town where my lost wallet was returned with all the cash in it, and where the murders for the last few were husbands against their wives, a father against a son.

My dad kept rifles, but then he used them every year to go hunting. One for deer, one for elk, one for antelope, and kept us well-fed with game. He also used them on dogs that were attacking our chickens and rabbits, saving the county from having to issue tickets against their owners. Sad to say, they were stolen out of his house he was away for a visit. I know how to use a rifle, but I don't have one as I freeze when I'm under threat, and I really don't want to hand out any more guns than are already on the streets.

"George Zimmerman's gun got him nothing but trouble. He'd a (sic) been better off without it."

George Zimmerman may very well have been seriously injured, even killed, if he hadn't had his gun.

"We can imagine all kinds of scenarios where we would need a gun for self defense, but how well does that go?

Depends on the situation, depends on how well the person is trained. You've made it clear that owning a gun would not make you feel safer. If that's how you feel, that's fine; nobody's forcing you to own one. Other people, likewise, should be allowed to decide the matter for themselves. If they feel safer with a gun, the Constitution says they have the right to own one.

ElkMeadow & davey

Imagining killers are not killers will not change the fact that they are killers. Home invasion and murder are not products of imagination. Fear that contrived senarios will produce tragedy is the mindset of the coward and only serve to leave you defenseless from predatory violence. Since you have choosen to be useless in defending yourself, your family or your fellow citizens if you or they are the choosen victims of violence, better that you stay safely locked in your little room sucking your thumb until someone with heart stops the bad guys. You will only get in the way.

Steven, I want what you are smoking.

George Zimmerman may very well have been seriously injured, even killed, if he hadn't had his gun.

George Zimmerman had a vigilante mentality and his gun made him brave and gave him a false sense of security and he got himself into a situation that he never should have been in. i.e. following some guy around, who he suspected of being a bad guy.

And I'll tell you something else. And I'll bet you 1 million dollars on it, Today, with benefit of hindsight, if you gave George Zimmerman the choice, get a beating or be charged with murder and have your name splashed all across America and become the Poster Boy for Stupid, well, I bet you that George would take his beating. What George Zimmerman is going through now, because of his questionable use of a hand gun, is nothing short of pure hell. His life sucks.

Hey man, I hate to say it, but in life, you sometimes are gonna take a beating. You are going to be beat up. It's no fun. But it is better than some other things. To arm yourself so that you do not get beat up does not make sense to me. It is a case of the cure being way worse than the illness.

Depends on the situation, depends on how well the person is trained. You've made it clear that owning a gun would not make you feel safer. If that's how you feel, that's fine; nobody's forcing you to own one. Other people, likewise, should be allowed to decide the matter for themselves. If they feel safer with a gun, the Constitution says they have the right to own one.

I want to get a away from feelings. I want to know if there are facts. I want to get away from illusions and delusions, from fantasy. Is a person safer if he or she owns a gun? Is it possible that a person is less safe with a gun?

I understand what the constitution says, and how it has been interpreted by the courts. I also know that it is very hard to get a machine gun. So, don't pretend that this is not a legitimate policy area to discuss.

If I go to the store today and buy a hand gun, am I safer? If I am not, would you suggest that I not buy one?

Somebody pinch me. Am I hallucinating?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/14/police-respond-to-shooting-at-connecticut-elementary-school/

Do hand guns make you safer?

George Zimmerman was a member of the neighborhood watch; it was his responsibility to follow someone he suspected of being a bad guy. And I'll bet you a million dollars on this: If you gave Zimmerman the choice, be charged with murder and have his name splashed all across America, or be murdered himself by having his head smashed to pulp against the concrete, he'd choose to be charged with murder (and hopefully acquitted, if justice prevails). As for your obsession with getting "facts" about whether a person is safer with or without a gun, I really don't see what you're driving at. As I said, it depends on innumerable factors that are impossible to quantify--the type of situation and the gun owner's degree of training among them. If you say you are safer without a gun, that too is only your "feeling." Someone else's feeling that they are safer with a gun is just as valid.

They also don't have the Mexicans flooding Switzerland with illegal drugs. That is where our violence comes from.

Been to Switzerland lately, kj?

Indeed, most of the so-called "gun violence" statistics in the US are just gang deaths.

@Pedestrian - No, but I have done my research. It is probably the only place in Europe that I might like to live.

I was in Zurich in October (in between Paris and Venice), and nobody is carrying rifles on the streets or in supermarkets. Of course, there are countries where guns are openly carried everywhere - Yemen, Afghanistan, Somalia...

Perhaps it is not extremely common, but people do openly carry firearms in Switzerland, more frequently than we do here in the US. Again, they have a much smaller amount of gun violence.

kj...I am with Pedestrian-in-SF; I do not know where you look to obtain your research sources (NRA publications?), but having traveled throughout many countries in Europe as well as having parents and a brother who live in Europe, I have NEVER seen anyone carrying a rifle in the streets, supermarkets, or anywhere else (I do not frequent any hunting areas, as I am a vegetarian who does not see killing a sentient being as a sport; guess I am now open for attack in this area, too).

Admittedly, there are fall events that are dedicated to the celebration of the hunt, and game is served in many restaurants, but even then, I have not seen anyone walking around with rifles.

If they report a smaller amount of gun violence, my guess is that it may be because they don't glorify violence in their everyday culture, or politicize things that should be subject to rational, common sense conversations. Where do you draw the line? Handguns for personal defense? Semi-automatic? Automatic? Rocket launchers and hand grenades? How about situations - should it be that you can shoot someone entering your home? How about your yard? Your block? Can it be someone you just feel wrong about - a "suspicious" individual, perhaps? If someone opens fire in a crowded venue, should you be allowed to fire back? We can't even have these conversations here without people leaping to their feet, waving their "don't tread on me" flags and squealing about their rights. Who's looking out for my rights when my drunk of a neighbor is stockpiling guns and ammo?

Pedestrain,

Cutting through all the BS, I would like to know exactly your stance on guns.

Chuck, I fully support the constitutional right of Americans to own guns to protect themselves and their families. That said, I do not agree that a populace armed to the teeth in every venue makes anyone "more safe." I support registration and background checks because I don't think that disturbed people should have easy access to guns via private/internet sales. I also don't support the open sale of high-capacity magazines and I don't think that the ban on assault weapons was in violation of the 2nd amendment.

I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.

LOL. Besides they cop wouldn't do anything until it was over and then just take a report..... ;)

Please, everyone read District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), before you argue that individuals do not have the right to possess a weapon.

jackieboy

So where were all these weapons when the mall shootings occurred? In the pockets of those people who had the cc permits. Those people, so well trained and armed, were scared @!$%#less and didn't pull their weapons. Unless the state had reasonable laws that doesn't allow concealed weapons in malls, churches, bars and the like.

Actually MOST states allow "private" entities to BAN firearms even those who have CCW. YOU as an individual, the mall, a business can all post a sign stating NO GUNS. That is what happened in Aurora CO at the theater. The chain has a POLICY that states NO GUNS and appropriate signs. Where I am, one can NOT bring a firearm into a church unless the church ALLOWS it in writing. They do allow in bars, unless again the bar posts signs. To date there has NOT been a single CCW violation. There have been ILLEGAL carries but no one with a CCW.

I may be wrong but I believe the recent mall shooting in OR was done with a rifle that was STOLEN within hours of the shooting. /s I am certain he read the signs at the mall. /s

NO GUNS sign = Defenseless Victims inside.

jackieboy - you make very stupid assumptions.

The way I was trained in firearms classes, some one carrying concealed had better think twice before getting involved in anything that does not directly involve them.

This is because of the laws and ramifications if one pulls a gun and shoots. They will likely be prosecuted - hopefully found not guilty, but no guarantee. They could be sued by the family of the one who was shot - "My baby boy" and "He was such a good boy" and all that crap.

According to the Constitution, an individual's right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The U.S. Supreme Court has already decided this issue.

Proof, once again, that when guns are outlawed only criminals will carry guns. That was the case in the mall shooting you brought up. The law abiders did not wear firearms as they were banned from that mall and the criminal ignored the rules, as they all do, and shot innocent, unarmed, people with a stolen rifle. Thank you for the example!

jackieboy,

As was posted just above, just because you're carrying concealed and there is shooting nearby, doesn't mean you are obligated to, or should deploy your firearm and go out to defend the innocents who possibly are being shot.

Most responsible concealed carriers (I would think that is the vast majority of them based on the number of gun crimes they commit) know that under circumstances such as theater and mall violence, it is difficult to determine exactly what is happening. Even when police arrive at the scene of such mayhem, all they really know is that there's a report of shots having been fired. Law enforcement has to proceed into these events with the idea that they really don't know what is happening.

If a person carrying concealed is directly threatened by certain violence, or witnesses another person directly threatened by certain violence, and under both circumstances grievous bodily harm or death may result, those are pretty much the only circumstances under which the firearm can legally be deployed in self-defense or in defense of another. Even under such circumstances, the CCL holder who choses to shoot may still face criminal and civil actions in court.

jackieboy

"for one know the 2nd means that law enforcement agencies can arm themselves, that the National Guard can and does carry weapons. But the 2nd only applies to MILITIAS. Nowhere does it metion individuals."

No matter how much you wish and hope that is true-your are wrong...

The Constitution and Bill of Rights repeatedly refer to the "rights" of the people and to the "powers" of government. The Supreme Court has recognized that the phrase "the people," which is used in numerous parts of the Constitution, including the Preamble, the Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to people as individuals. In each case, rights belonging to "the people" are without question the rights of individuals.

in 1990, the Supreme Court held that the federal government possesses complete power over the National Guard. The Guard is the third part of the United States Army, along with the regular Army and Army Reserve. The Framers` independent "well regulated militia" remains as they intended, America`s armed citizenry.

“[T]he operative clause [of the Second Amendment] codifies a ‘right of the people.” And went on to explain: “In all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention ‘the people,’ the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. . . .’”

"We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not they are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training.”

And in 2005, as a result of lawsuits aiming to destroy America’s firearms industry, Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act to end this threat to the Second Amendment. The act begins with findings that go to the heart of the matter: "Congress finds the following: (1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms."

http://www.nraila.org/second-amendment/the-second-amendment.aspx

The 2d, by maintaining the state's rights to raise a militia, meant that able-bodied citizens could be obligated to serve to protect the state. As mentioned before, the National Guard is a legal fiction, when referred to as a state militia. Since the federal government employs the power to integrate the guard into the armed forces, it does not constitute a state militia.

In fact, many experts on the constitution believe, that the interlocking characteristics of the 2d Amendment and other amendments and rights, that our founding fathers also meant the 2d amendment to infer the rights of states to protect their sovereignty from any attempt or abuse of power by a strong central government.

BTW: be aware that there has been proposals within the Obama administration and legislators to raise the taxes as high as 70% on the purchase of firearms and ammunition. This has been brought up by media sources. So, in effect, Obama will add more taxes to a select group of people in the U.S. and will make it financially more difficult for legal firearms owners to hunt, target shoot, protect farms and ranches from predation etc. He is also engaging in treaty talks in the U.N. for universal private firearm bans and other actions that would compromise our national sovereignty.

And, it is obvious to me, that many people in these blogs, don't know the difference between a so-called automatic assault weapon, a semi-automatic firearm or even a shotgun. And, there was even an idiot in another site, who was trying to tell everyone he can buy automatic weapons over the counter at his local Bass Pro Shop. The problem stems from the media too.

I've seen reporters describe a military pump shotgun as an automatic rifle and service pistols as being machine pistols. Duh! That is no joke. I didn't know my Colt 1911 Commanders model was fully automatic until I read a newspaper article about an alledged shooting with one.

I'm still looking for the sear selector switch on it. LMAO!

Da Gunny

The unorganized "Militia" which is not the National Guard, is still a part of U.S. law and directly refers to the calling up of private citizens bearing arms to assist in protecting life and property from unlawful riot, invasion or civil disturbance. Not needed? Only if the reality of over a thousand nuclear weapons aimed at the U.S. military waiting for the push of a button is a fantasy.

At the mall shooting in Salt Lake City, the other man shooting the shooter was an off-duty police officer. When the other officers arrived, they recognized their co-worker. Otherwise, they wouldn't have known which one was the perpetrator and which was the defender, and likely would have shot them both.

In future public shootings (there will always be a public shooting, there has always been a public shooting), how would anyone know who is the bad guy and who is the good? Is the defender going to put on a Captain America shield so everyone knows he's the good guy, and any bullet from his gun, whether it shoots straight or ricochets is blessed and will not harm innocent by-standers?

ElkMeadow

Logic of the Coward. In combat, there is always the chance that innocents will be injured. The alternative proposed by spineless weasels like yourself, is to do nothing while your fellow citizens get gunned down and passively await your turn to be executed. Bad guys are easy to identify: they're the ones trying to maim or kill needlessly. Those who shoot in self defense or to protect others are the good guys. You don't need a college degree to figure it out.

to legaleus - you are right !

It is our responsiblilty and obligation to protect ourselves and our familes.

Please see the very first post above on top from Victor-1384988.

@legaleus...very well stated and spot on.

Legaleus -

Your comment ticks off the progressives. They like to dictate to others how to speak (PC), eat (no meat) and think (PC again). Like all fascists they like to dictate to others what the parameters of their individual rights are as well the right to protect yourself.

Kudos to you Legaleus!

legaleus,

If you did have a gun, you would have had to have it in your hand at the time with your finger on the trigger in order for it to be of any use. Otherwise, you would have said "Can you hold on, robber, I have to get my gun."

Costas hasn't been right a day in his life. When he was born, he came out of his mama and drifted left and they dropped him on his left ear.......he's never been the same.

BobW, I doubt you have ever traveled outside of the US or you would know that it is safe to freely walk around unarmed in other countries because people don't carry guns.

sam adams

It's safe to freely walk around in America if you do carry a gun. You would probably rather carry knee pads and mouthwash.