They aren't going to ban assault rifles, they are going to ban rifles that "look" like assault rifles. Assault rifles, by definition have the capability to fire more than 1 shot per trigger pull. If you're familiar with firearms, you know that a civilian AR-15 is just a regular, semi-automatic firearm. There are tons of semi-automatic rifles on the market. Where do they draw the line? By color? By hand grip style? By what the next loon uses to make the news?

Sorry. I don't buy any of this. Biden's whole committee was nothing more than a ruse to make everyone think he was going to use anyone's ideas. All he's going to do is push Obama's mandate. Hey, go ahead and try it-- but at least don't try to pretend the public is too dumb to figure it out. I'm fine with whatever they put out--provided Congress has to approve it. If it can make it through a Republican Congress, it definitely won't be too harsh.

Maybe after all this nonsense is over, I can find ammo for my AR-15 again. Everyone has been out for weeks.

More murders are committed with baseball bats annually than so called "assault rifles" but hey, its important to make a quick, thoughtless, unchecked historical decision on banning weapons because its cheaper, easier and less effective then a mental health reform. Brains always lose out when we rush to do something "now".

No, they are coming for everything, one of the new proposed laws they did not list is from Connecticut, one of their reps just introduced a law to make it a felony to posess any gun capeable of firing more than 1 shot without being reloaded without any grandfathering.

They are not after "reasionable restrictions" they are after a complete ban.

The vast majority of people panicking don't own assault rifles or high capacity magazines nor any intent to buy them. They panic because those like the NRA tell them anti gun advocates want to take all guns and each step puts them closer to that day. Total nonsense and they know it. There are large numbers of gun owners among liberals and democrats the same as conservatives and republicans. This isn't an issue of one party it's simply common sense. Surface to air missiles, machine guns and hand grenades are already illegal because they serve no purpose for hunting or self defense. Neither do assault rifles and high capacity magazines.

Hey riley, if someone is in a crowd and starts swinging a baseball bat, someone in that crowd is going to knock his ass out before he bashes in the heads of 20 people. Now, if he's in a crowd firing a semi- automatic assault rifle, no one in that crowd is going to challenge him while he's firing 25 + rounds from high capacity magazine into the crowd. That's the difference .

Benjamin Franklin: "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

James Madison: The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

Thomas Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

----------------------------------------------

I wonder if it will be one law after another (I don't mean all at the same time, we will be like the frog in the boiling water) and then we will finally end up like Canada, where they are not even allowed to carry pepper spray, where a guy gets arrested for holding an intruder at gun point.

I wish the medias would publish more stories about all the people who were able to defend themselves with their guns, there is thousands of them every year, but I guess it is not interesting enough. I guess the lives of the people the armed off-duty officer in a San Antonio TX theatre probably saved (only a few weeks ago), the life of a woman who shot an intruder, and the lives of her 9 year old twins, the life of Judy, a woman who carried a gun, and the lives of her sister and her sister-in-law, don't matter.

By the way, we went through the same discussion, with people wanting to disarm the population, before the War of Independence. If our ancestors had listened to the anti-guns crowd, we would still be a British colony.

With anti-gun laws, only criminals will have guns. Mexico is proof of that, and the genocide in Rwanda, where thousands of people have been murdered with machetes, is also proof that murderers don't need guns to kill.

CinUSA

Assault type rifles are used in less then 2% of all gun crimes, less then 1% of all gun murders. Makes sense I guess to ban them all doesn't it?

Yes it does make sense. People have no need for assault riffle's to begin with. The only purpose for a high magazine assault riffle is to kill people in mass quantities.

As for the rest of the guns, I feel they should be registered to the owner as a car is and if you sell it to someone, you have to go down to the Department of Gun Control (DGC) and transfer title. If someone uses a gun that you own in a killing and you have not reported it stolen, then you are responsible. There should also be a maximum of guns a owner can have at any given time. You don't need 50 guns to go hunting or to protect your home. If you do have more then you should be registered as a collector.

Agreed. They should also place a restrictions on how many guns and ammo you can but at any given time. The Aurora killer bought and arsenal of weapons in a short period of time, and yet that did not alert the authorities.

They need to register all gunsales, make people renew those registries yearly and limit the amount of guns and ammo people buy at once. Also, ban the sale of body armor to the civilian population.

If someone wants to go on a killing spree, they need to be less armored than the authorities.

So let me get this straight Brenda. You want to completely ban the guns that cause the least murders but allow all the others, including handguns which cause the most, alone with the exception of registration which btw would still leave about 100 million guns or more unregistered? Is this what you are saying and if so please repeat yourself because it just sounds so darn funny.

Assult weapons are already banned. So what they are gonna ban is semi automatic riffles that look like assult weapons.

Vegastar If he was in a crowd that was a GUN FREE zone that may be true. If he wernt he wouldnt be shooting anyone cause they dont go to where there are guns.

o loves o is it easier to go after criminals or law abiding citizens. law makers will go the easy way instead of enforcing the laws on the books and keeping the nuts locked up. remember even if your scrwed up in the head you have rights too!

Amendments are not absoute, which means there can be limitations. The gun law is not to take away all the weapons it is to place limitations on gun owership. Why can't people understand that?

To compare killing with a baseball bat or a knife is just ridiculous. How many people can you kill with a bat or knife? This argument does not sell.

Yes it does make sense. People have no need for assault riffle's to begin with.

Says someone who doesn't know the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. It's not for self defense, or hunting, or sport shooting...it's to create a deterent for govt so it won't be tempted to become tyrannical, and if it does become tyrannical, to overthrow it. And if you think that can't happen, then re-legalize fully autos so it can...because that certainly isn't an argument that helps you further limit our rights.

BTW, when this will only save, AT MOST, 2% of the lives taken by gun murder annually, why aren't you trying to expand rights and get rid of the cause of 40-70% of all gun murders - the Drug War? Some liberals you are. It seems your agenda is NOT to save lives, but to take rights.

Amendments are not absoute, which means there can be limitations.

Apparently you don't get the concept of natural individual unalienable rights. The govt didn't grant them, they acknowledged them. They are sacrosanct...not able to be limited. The word "unalienable" literally means "not subject to law or border".

We were told in the early 1900s the only limits ever would be an fully autos...but here we are being told to take more incrimentalism. Not this time.

"Civilian gun nuts" assume that their society, their nation, their lives or their little world, and in projected extension, all of civilization is decayed, corrupt, a tyranny. Therefore, its easy for them to DEVALUE the lives of ANYONE that doesn't see things their way. So they adopt a SIEGE MENTALITY and assume that anyone can be a threat to their freedom, or even, "the enemy," and so they stock up on weapons and ammo with the belief that by doing so, they will survive and win a war TO THE DEATH, once a figure in authority -- such as law enforcement -- comes knocking on their door, questioning them of threatening enough people.

Their knee-jerk defense is to wrap the flag amongst themselves and start quoting the Founding Fathers outside of their historical context, and saying the 2nd Amendment and its defense is the ONLY Amendment in the entire U.S. Constitution that really matters. Or worse, they will (mis)quote scriptures to seek instant validity for their assumptions and actions from God. Sometimes, they will also demand their 1rst Amendment rights to freedom of speech, to spread bifurcated hyperbole, misleading narratives, non-fact-checked statements, and persuasive hate-mongering be respected, so long as they don't have to respect what you have to say ...and that anything you say is further justification for them to become even more entrenched into their 'siege mentality.'

This gives themselves a justifying rationalization for pointing loaded and chambered weapons in innocent people's faces, as these gun nuts image themselves as, "the good guys," and in their uncompromising, conspiracy-filled, black-and-white view of the world, everyone else -- like you, me, your family and friends, fellow classmates and co-workers -- are all, "the bad guys," or, "the sheep." And all non-conservatives -- particular those that aren't Caucasion and Christian -- must be (as Rush Limbaugh once put it on his radio show), "liberal, leftist, socialist, tree-hugging, illegal immigrant, communist criminals," that they believe are in need of re-education, or be jailed, driven out, or violently eliminated -- in order to preserve and build upon their very narrow, right-wing version of America.

As one commenter on the NewsVine remarked, that its possible a significant proportion of these 'civilian gun nuts' may be diagnosed as, "Schizophrenia, Paranoid, Chronic, as defined in the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 295.32, DSM IV."

Focus needs to be on ammunition as well as guns. Tax the living daylights out of ammunition- just like tobacco. Regulate ammunition- just like tobacco. Register everyone who buys ammunition- bullets are made and meant to kill. Period. Make people show ID and sign their names every time bullets are purchased for ANY gun. That way, if another massacre happens, it will be very easy to track who's ultimately responsible.

CinUSA

So let me get this straight Brenda. You want to completely ban the guns that cause the least murders but allow all the others, including handguns which cause the most, alone with the exception of registration which btw would still leave about 100 million guns or more unregistered? Is this what you are saying and if so please repeat yourself because it just sounds so darn funny.

Yes, and as far as your fictitious number of 100 million guns that you made up I would require them to be registered too. If you get caught using an unregistered gun or owning an unregistered gun, then it is an immediate jail sentence of no less then 10 years with no early out for good behavior.

"Civilian gun nuts" assume that their society, their nation, their lives or their little world, and in projected extension, all of civilization is decayed, corrupt, a tyranny. Therefore, its easy for them to DEVALUE the lives of ANYONE that doesn't see things their way.

You start off with name calling and think we should even entertain your opinions as logical? Sorry, informal logical fallacies at the outset make you unable to be taken seriously.

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is
the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an
idea, rather than the idea itself.

And guns, even by the lowest estimates, save more lives than they take every year. Look up the facts and stop being immune to logic and reason because you hate gun rights and who knows how many more unalienable (not subject to law or border) individual rights.

Their knee-jerk defense is to wrap the flag amongst themselves and start quoting the Founding Fathers outside of their historical context

You mean IN CONTEXT...and we can qute them IN CONTEXT all damn day on this subject. Your revisionist nonsense has no historical basis in the time of the Founders or Framers, let alone their contemporaries.

The intent of the 2nd Amendment was to arm individual citizens, not just members of militias, so they could overthrow a tyrannical government. Every Founder said this and only this, except Adams (who still wanted individuals armed, but only for self defense, and he thought militias must follow the orders of tyrants regardless because he was a law fetishist as opposed to someone more agianst tyranny and for liberty even if it meant breaking tyrannical laws). Some people have suggested to me other false revisionist history nonsense, and so I leave this link full of other links and facts to prove the case. If further necessary I will start quoting the Founders and challenging them to match me quote for quote (which they can't).

http://guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

The most important links on that site are these ones:

"Is there Contrary Evidence of an Individual Right?"

http://guncite.com/gc2ndcont.html

"Quotes from the Founding Fathers and Their Contemporaries"

http://guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html

Good luck defeating that with some semantical trick about the wording or puncuation of the 2nd Amendment. They mispelled words in the Constitution too...I suppose next you'll argue we have somehow mistakenly mispelled words all these years and the Constitution had them right all these years? Enough with the illogic and irrationale...non sequiturs are not logical arguments.

vegastar

Hey riley, if someone is in a crowd and starts swinging a baseball bat, someone in that crowd is going to knock his ass out before he bashes in the heads of 20 people. Now, if he's in a crowd firing a semi- automatic assault rifle, no one in that crowd is going to challenge him while he's firing 25 + rounds from high capacity magazine into the crowd. That's the difference .

HEY vegastar. You posture your argument with B.S. facts about an AR15 which has been used in less than 2% violent crimes nationwide, yet more deaths have been attributed to baseball bats. Lets look at some facts that work against your little theory.

FACT - anyone who is semi proficient can reload an AR15 with 10 round mags (providing 30 round or what you libs call "high capacity" mags) in less than 4 seconds so your little concern about them really doesnt change much if one were to be used in a shooting.

FACT- 9mm handguns with hollow point ammunition does twice the damage to a human body than the AR15 223/556 NATO round which will often "pass through" a torso without causing cavitation or immediate damage. I shot Madhi army insurgents in Iraq during the war. One insurgent took 13 rounds from multiple Colt M4s before finally collapsing.

FACT -The three shootings which had an AR15 component in them were done in "gun free zones" specifically selected by the shooter so no one could shoot back.

FACT - You and all your liberal cohorts dislike the weapon simply for its appearance, nothing more.

FACT- Of the 500 murders in Chicago, 435 were committed with handguns or sub machine guns and not AR15s. Most of these were funneled through cartel connections in Mexico to gang organizations. How will this AR15 ban you support so much ban help this crisis again?

ProIndividual-3906907

Yes it does make sense. People have no need for assault riffle's to begin with.

Says someone who doesn't know the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. It's not for self defense, or hunting, or sport shooting...it's to create a deterent for govt so it won't be tempted to become tyrannical, and if it does become tyrannical, to overthrow it. And if you think that can't happen, then re-legalize fully autos so it can...because that certainly isn't an argument that helps you further limit our rights.

BTW, when this will only save, AT MOST, 2% of the lives taken by gun murder annually, why aren't you trying to expand rights and get rid of the cause of 40-70% of all gun murders - the Drug War? Some liberals you are. It seems your agenda is NOT to save lives, but to take rights.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Why is it that people who want guns forget the part that says "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" They always just go for the second half of the sentence, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." If you actually understood the whole sentence then you would realize that it is within a well regulated militia that you have the right to bear arms for the security of a free state. Says nothing about you being able to own a gun just because you feel you want to own a gun. Regardless of what the Supreme Court said, you should be a part of a well regulated militia. Hence Police force, army, navy, air force, coast guard, and such. So don't tell me about something you only read half a sentence of.

Only in America-2604171

"To compare killing with a baseball bat or a knife is just ridiculous. How many people can you kill with a bat or knife?"

Ask Britain how it's going for them hedi. By the way hedi, do you know what an assult weapon really is? It's any object you can pick up with your hands and attack another person with. So, yes, baseball bats and knives can and have been used to kill with. But that's ridiculous, right?

If you had asked you would have known that only 35 gun related crimes happened in Great Britain last year compared to over 11,000 gun related crimes in the United States.

Bush took away way more rights in his first year in office than Obama will in his entire 2 years.

First time I've seen a Liberal admit in writing that Obama took away my rights. And I agree, Bush, via the Patriot Act DID restrict our rights and it should be abolished.

The biggest problem with this whole issue is what the pro-gun jackoff from North Carolina said....'no compromise'. Yeah...that is really a mature stance. Why don't these guys think straight. Compromising on this issue will help difuse an already tense situation and show the anti-gun people that they are willing and able to do something from their side. This brickwall approach is counter-productive and this time, I don't belive they will win...thankfully!

OBAMA Loves OBAMA

Why aren't GANG BANGERS being harassed as "hate groups"?

They are not being harassed, they are being prosecuted under the federal RICO act, as well as violations of state & local laws.

-Anna-

Thanks for the quotes you posted by all those great men. What they would have to say on the subject in the here and now would be a different thing.

The Constitution was written in a way that it could be amended in the first place, to reflect the here and now as our country grows.

For every self defense story you can come up with there is the other side of it......A 7 year old picks up his fathers gun and kills his sister.....A young man comes home late, the father thinks it to be an intruder, shoots and kills his son.It goes on and on.

Our country is too large and we have checks and balances within our government. My guess is that the US supreme court will be involved at some point. In any event NO ONE IS TAKING AWAY ANY ONES RIGHTS.

ProIndividual-3906907

Please use the full text it is "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness ."

This is part of the Constitution & it was granted by the founders as basic freedom. It had nothing to do with the context in which you are trying to frame it.

I suggest you read and notice when the NFA was done as well. It contains limits on type & sizes of guns as well as other weapons. (Dated & passed with NRA support 1934).

OnlyinAmerca....please stop using that stupid, time-worn comparison of knives and baseball bats until you can honestly answer this question. Who would you rather face at 20 yards....a guy with a baseball bat or a guy with an assault rifle? If you're not stupid, then I will guess that your response will be the baseball bat.

Nukeman....in case you weren't aware....we've already compromised the Constitution on this issue. You sir, are not allowed to own just ANY arms you want. You can't own anything ground-to-air, any nuclear weapons, or tanks. There is a line drawn on your 'rights' now. All we are asking is to move the line back a little. What the heck is wrong with that??

i still do not understand why they dlon't just make semi auto's just like the auto's, you can get them, you go through a Federal check and buy a tax stamp. I think there should be psych evaluations for people to have guns. I also think all those suburbian brats on antu psychotics should be institutionalized. Until asylums are open and housing the mentally ill little brats we are going to have this. We as a nation also must become more tolerant of everyone. We call each other names because of a difference in opinion. Our kids learn this, our media is horrible by oversenationalizing this crap, we have morons like Hannity and Sharpton spewing their nonsense. I am sick of this crap!

Hence why trial rights and speech rights are extended to non-citizens..because where you are born, what citizenship you have or not, and what your tyrannical govt does or does not do to you abroad, are NOT criteria for your unalienable rights. We also violate these rights (like GITMO, for example)...but the intent was clear.*

heidi you ask: How many people can you kill with a bat or knife? easy 30 in china in a school with a knife before You walk out and get shot. Or if you go Bundy 6 with a baseball bat before you leave. Or how about 30 with a car in france if one uses the gas pedal for a brake? And let's not forget good ole England where cricket bats are used to kill. so now i ask you. Are all these assualt weapons that should be banned, taxed to high heaven, have a criminal background check to have, or use? possibly we should consider trees, rope, oh I know VETERANS! (government trained assualt weapons of which i am one) should they be banned and put down after use? look at at the horrible thing they become? KEEPERS OF THEIR OATH such a horrid thing i tell You, who in thier right mind would would be willing to pledge to DEFEND THIS CONSTITUTION AGAINST ALL ENEMIES FORIGN OR DOMESTIC! Go any where, any time, be willing to give one life for the freedom of many. Yup i agree with with each and every one of you posting here as well as Ed refusing to answer my e-mails. Make Your calls to trade guns for peace, Thomas Payne warned you once. Greater Men and Women than I Have Paid for Your freedom to give away for false hope. The two States with the toughest gun laws on the books testify against bans and for tougher gang control. You dare post on here " if bubba had a school then things would change" guess what? us bubba's had Jonesboro, Arkansas it was the first school shooting. It could be possible that because it was in the south, and because it was bubba msnbc chose not to cover it!

All I am saying is Think before You speak.
Sgt Ben Simmons
U.S. Army RET.

Brenda, the phrase "the right of the people" speaks of an individual right every place it is used in the Constitution, why then does it become a goup right in the 2nd Amendment? Do you lose your right to peaceably assemble or petition the Government or be secure in your person, house, papers and effects just because you do not belong to a "proper" group? All of those are individual rights as is the right to keep and bear arms. The Bill of Rights, where all of these are contained, was written by the same people at the same time, if they had meant to make the right to keep and bear arms a group right they would have used diferent language. And besides, the militia of the United States of America is every male citizen in good health over the age of 17 and up through the age of 45 with certain exceptions and additions (10USC ch13).

The root cause of the problem is probably that we have an increasing number of young male psychopaths. The vast majority, if not the entirety, of mass murderers in the past 30 years have been young men without positive male role models. For one reason or another these young men have grown up without a father or a father figure who would have guided them into a better state of mental health.

"Proud 2B Liberal," And "ProIndividual"

Proud 2b, why are you echoing what Rush Limbaugh says? Believe in him, much?

And for both of you, when I commented about the 'Civilian gun nut' mentality, that description came straight from a doctor of psychiatry that used to work for the judiciary system in the State of California, and his job was to assess the mental condition of defendants as ordered by the judges in civil and criminal courts there. Dr. K. Brown, MD, published a paper about overworked and abused ex-employees in the U.S. Postal Service committing mass homicides by the use of firearms -- and the news press thus coined the term, "going postal," back in the early 1980's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Going_postal

rradiko

Your facts are nonsense. You look at only rich nations even while you ignore poverty causes murder, not guns. You also look at "homocides' which includes suicides, legal self defenses, and accidental deaths. Anyone can cherry pick stats. If you only look at murder there is no correlation at all with gun ownership rates and murder rates.

A study done by the Harvard Jounal of Law and Public Policy reports some interesting statistics.

The study, which appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:

Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).

For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns. As the study's authors write in the report:

If the mantra "more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death" were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

When you decide to stop skewing stats to fit your nonsense, and quit quoting bad studies with worse methodology, let me know.

Furthermore, white people (and I'm not white, BTW) own more guns per capita than people who are non-white...and they have a lower murder rate and violent crime rate. The same is true for richer vs poorer, and rural vs urban. Where you have higher gun ownership rates you have lower murder rates...and the same is true of suicide rates, BTW.

The problem is that no amount of arguing between citizens is going to stop our current system of government which can enact laws without the majority of people in the United States agreeing. Once you vote in representatives and your state becomes blue or red (Republican or Democrat) you have forfeited your right to disagree. We the people do not have the ability to veto the Executive branch. Lest we not forget that we have no say in Executive Orders, which I believe go against the principles of our Constitution and at the least are never mentioned there. Nonetheless, we have to trust that our representatives will do what is in our best interest as citizens, their supposed constituents even though we may not have voted them into office. If you're like me you're not ok with that. I've got to the point where I cannot tolerate it anymore.

Let's face it, our system of government is archaic, ineffective and policies have become lopsided every time that a party establishes a majority in the Congress or Senate. We need something to override partisan politics. It's time for an update. It's time to say no more to the misrepresentation and the legislation that a majority of Americans disagree with.

Want to stop the shenanigans? Well, I only see one way to overrule the insanity that has become our two party system of government. Read my petition...

www# .change# .org/petitions/congress-house-of-representatives-senate-and-presidential-administration-create-a-fourth-impartial-branch-of-government
(copy the link to your address bar and remove the 2 # and spaces afterward, then hit enter)

Proud 2b, why are you echoing what Rush Limbaugh says?

Guilt by assocation, a logical fallacy. You are on a roll with the logical fallacies today.

And for both of you, when I commented about the 'Civilian gun nut' mentality, that description came straight from a doctor of psychiatry

Yeah, he soundsl ike a REAL professional guy. Hence we won't be allowing any psych exams for gun onwership eithert. Thanks for showing why we have reason to deny that too. Oh...and do you know what an appeal tot authority is?

Yeah, he sounds like a REAL professional guy. Hence we won't be allowing any psych exams for gun onwership either. Thanks for showing why we have reason to deny that too. Oh...and do you know what an appeal to authority is?*

Proindividual....I don't give a crap about stats from other countries, or even within our own states. People are different in each country and even between our states. What I object to is the idea that nothing can be done. When there was a rise in drunken driving deaths in the 70s, we changed the laws considerably in order to decrease the number of DUI accidents. And no, we didn't take away automobiles, but we did change the laws enough to decrease the number of deaths by 200 percent. If we start with regulating gun shows a bit more, that is at least a start. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that says we can't do those things. Why fight it? A person that can't wait 3 days for the purchase of a gun is EXACTLY the guy that should wait 3 days to buy a gun!

Glad to seee an uncompromising appproach by the NRA crowd. My study of Historty tellls me this is a losing strategy when pursued in opppoisition to the willl of the majority. Welll, I've got to go feeed the spider monkey army President OPbama is training to scamper down the chimney of all republicans next CHristmas Eve to confiscate their guns. THere is nothing that man willl not to deprive AMericans of their right to killl each other!!!

If you had asked you would have known that only 35 gun related crimes happened in Great Britain last year compared to over 11,000 gun related crimes in the United States.

1st of all it isn't gun crimes, it's gun murders.

2nd of all, that isn't a good comparison becuase they have so fw guns. Gun murder isn't the only type of murder.

3rd of all they are #1 in violent crime in the EU with a rate much higher than we have here. They are #4 in the EU in total murder rate.

4th of all, what you are saying is that we should have less shot-dead criminals (like 70% of all gun murders here are criminals who are killed by other criminals) and more victims instead.

It's a choice...a society with less guns and lower gun murder rates but with higher violent crime rates and TOTAL murder rates, or a country with higher GUN murder rates but a lower murder rate overall, and a lower violent crime rate.

The USA is 1st in gun ownership rate in the world, 28th in gun murder rate, and 110th in total murder rate. Stop watching Piers Morgan and only reading liberal talking points.

Glad to seee an uncompromising appproach by the NRA crowd.

I'm not in the NRA, nor do I like them. I'm just an informed person who wants to keep what rights this govt (as in the USA govt, not Obama's govt) hasn't taken already (especially since 9/11).

Thanks for another example of the logical fallacy "guilt by association" though. You guys do love logical fallacies though.

ProIndividual-3906907 Who's constitution are we using here? your version or the one written?

Your trying to blend several parts of the constitution and amendments to try and seal your case and justify your stand. You use items out of context. That does not make you look very wise.

It’s too bad this debate is being driven by the craziest of the craziest of the craziest gun crazies. NOBODY is calling for all guns to be taken away from law abiding people. NOBODY is even suggesting you can’t hunt, can’t target shoot, and can’t collect guns. NOBODY is suggesting you can’t carry a gun. Yet to hear these insane whackos talk, the government (the same government they claim can’t do anything right) is only hours away from coming to everyone’s home and taking away every single gun in the nation.

Christopher Cole-2915768

Brenda, the phrase "the right of the people" speaks of an individual right every place it is used in the Constitution, why then does it become a goup right in the 2nd Amendment? Do you lose your right to peaceably assemble or petition the Government or be secure in your person, house, papers and effects just because you do not belong to a "proper" group? All of those are individual rights as is the right to keep and bear arms. The Bill of Rights, where all of these are contained, was written by the same people at the same time, if they had meant to make the right to keep and bear arms a group right they would have used diferent language. And besides, the militia of the United States of America is every male citizen in good health over the age of 17 and up through the age of 45 with certain exceptions and additions (10USC ch13).

Another person who only reads half the sentence and doesn't even mention the well regulated militia part. I ask you, why did they put the well regulated militia part in there instead of just saying we have the right to bear arms. IT'S BECAUSE THEY MEANT FOR IT TO BE DONE IN A WELL REGULATED MILITIA. WAKE UP.

Notice on the sign that they only put half the sentence and not the first part? Way to go Gun wacko's. Only see what you want to see. Thats how Obama won the election, because Republicans only saw what they wanted to see and not the truth.

Proindividual....I don't give a crap about stats from other countries

Then look up the USA county by county...guess what? No correlation there either.

You guys need to educate yourselves on more than just liberal sites....and same for conservatives. Neither side likes to leave their echo chamber long enough to look up facts. There is no transnational or county by county in the USA correlation between gun murder rates and gun ownership rates. It's actually negatively correlated.

But that doesn't fit your preconceived misconceptions based on media hype, so why bother, right?

No one said nothing can be done. What you guys want is gun control...which if you ban all "assault rifles" (semi-autos) and high capacity magazines you'll save TOPS 2% of gun murders a year. Meanwhile, instead of limiting rights you could expand rights, and save 40-70% of gun murder victims a year...by ending the Drug War (an actual liberal cause too). But noooooo....because this isn't about saving lives, it's about limiting rights.

Crime rates in Prohibition rose immediately 78%, 24% in just one year from 1920-1921 (the first year)

http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/00492/Crime_Rate.htm

The murder rate was cut in nearly half (40% decline), from 10 per 100,000 to 6 per 100,000 when Prohibition ended. This was directly caused by the repeal of Prohibition in 1933.

http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/alcohol-prohibition-was-failure

Just keep it real and quit frontin' like it's really about saving lives.

"fight for their lives"? Why, because we sensibly want to eliminate semi-automatic and high capacity round clips from everyday circulation? You can keep your handgun and hunting rifles- no argument there.

Fuc&^%ing losers- my grandfather fought in WWII and and I lost an uncle in the Vietnam war- i spent 8 years in the marines with 2 tours of Iraq - these people are un american and traitors and NONE of them are constitutional experts. My 4th grader understands that the 2nd amendment was put in place to defend against a tyrannical govt takeover.......it was never intended for billy bob to stockpile AR-15's.

The Constitution was written by men that, at the time, owned other human beings as slaves. Why are we taking what they wrote as gospel and not thinking....they might have been wrong? The Constitution has been a living breathing document for over 200 years...why is this part of the Constitution above reproach?? That is really what I don't understand.

Here just and FYI on the second amendment:

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.^[1]

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia^[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment.^[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.^[4]

The NRA and their backers MIGHT actually be in trouble this time. In the last election, the Far right finally showed their true stripes with their hysterical rants and raves and the electorate grew very tired of listening to it. Even in the primaries, the borderline wackos were the first to go. Many Americans who may have been on the fence on many key issues finally looked at what these people represented and how they thought, and said to themselves, "I don't want nuts like this running our country!" Now read some of these posts with their paranoid histrionics, and you realize that this is the same crowd,so you have to ask yourself the same question; "do I want these people deciding policy for us?" Especially since this is, by far, the most heavily armed segment of our population.

When we bring mental illness into the discussion, and after reading the ravings of these guys who truly believe the gubmit is coming for their guns, and realize that they feed off each other at their gun clubs, gun stores, and gun shows, and that the NRA and other groups continue to whip their fear into more and more of a frenzy, you have to wonder when some of them might decide the time is here for them to "fulfill their destiny to turn on the tyrannical communistic, socialistic gubmit and take to the streets." Frankly, I believe this is the group that presents the greatest threat to peace and tranquility in our country (also guaranteed by the founders) than any other, including foreign governments.

If you want to hear some REALLY scary answers, ask them how all their hysterical predictions will play out, and exactly who they think will show up on their doorstep to forcibly remove their guns, and what will happen after that. So if the majority of the people, including the gun-rights groups, believe in keeping mentally ill people away from guns, then we have to include a long look at the very people who own the most firepower.

ProIndividual....did you not see the rest of my statement about stats....I said, I don't care about stats from other countries or even within our own states. I said that because I know it varies within our own state borders, even cities. You're making the assumption that assault weapons is the only thing on the agenda. It's not. Gunshow regulations are a huge part of what is being examined, and the fact that the NRA doesn't want to even bend there is ridiculous. They are clinging to the concept that ANY change would not work. I'm saying....it's time to try something....anything. But, to say that their group is going with a 'No compromise' solution is downright ignorant.

Who's constitution are we using here? your version or the one written?

Your trying to blend several parts of the constitution and amendments to try and seal your case and justify your stand. You use items out of context. That does not make you look very wise.

I'm using the Constitution of the United States and its original intent. Care to point out where you THINK I'm misrepresenting it so I can prove you wrong with in-tcontext quotes from our Founders and Framers, and their legal contemporary scholars? Everything I said is totally verifiable.

The Second Amendment re-interpreted? Read this and then tell us how:

American Usage and Style: The Consensus. Here's what he has to say:

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' only to 'a well-educated electorate' — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

Read more here:

ProIndividual....how the heck do YOU personally know what the intent was for the original second amendment? You were not there. You've interpreted the phrase well regulated militia to mean one person. I, on the other hand, don't interpret it that way. What makes you right??

Second Amendment:

The whole premise was not to have standing armies that could be used for nefarious purpose by unscrupulous leaders in pursuit of political ideals or financial gain. Aristocratic, Communist, and totalitarian societies have the regulations you seek. When you fear your countrymen you have no country. Instruments do not cause death. People do. That is the problem. The terrorists didn't even use semi-automatic weapons, most serial killers and mass murderers also do not use high capacity magazines. Look elsewhere for your remedy.

ProIndividual....did you not see the rest of my statement about stats....I said, I don't care about stats from other countries or even within our own states.

If you reject facts, reason, and logic it is not my problem...it's yours.

Gunshow regulations are a huge part of what is being examined, and the fact that the NRA doesn't want to even bend there is ridiculous. They are clinging to the concept that ANY change would not work. I'm saying....it's time to try something....anything. But, to say that their group is going with a 'No compromise' solution is downright ignorant.

And gun show regulations? You mean where less tan 13% of criminals get guns, while 80% come from friends and family? Have at it...again, you are saving so few lives instead of expanding rights and saving a massive amount. You are attacking the wrong thing. And NRA are wrong about video games and movies too.

Guns, high capacity magazines, "assault rifles", permits to carry, violent and sexualized movies, TV, music, and video games have never been more pervasive...meanwhile murder rates and crime rates are down by half in the last 20 years, and 50 years overall. There can no causation where there is no correlation....so why keep acting like there is?

The correlation, and causation, is with the drug war. Where are you saying anything about that? It would save 40-70% of those lives.

Again...this isn't about rational or logical thought. It's not about saving lives. It's about a pre-established agenda (based on willful ignorance) to limit a right you guys irrationally fear. It's ridiculous...no wonder the majority supports it (they supported slavery and subjugation of women, along with many other atrocities and tyrannies).

Check yourself on who is not compromising. I'm not compromising on BS that's flatly wrong...it's time to be grown-ups and admit the problem isn't guns here...it's the Drug War. And it's time to be adults and admit no matter how many bans we put in place there wil be mass murder (albeit a lower rate every year like it has been since 1929 - w/o bans). There is no utopia, and freedom comes with risks. You can be plenty safe if you kneel before tyrannical govt...but then it is what you'll need being made safe from.

Remember Patrick Henry? How about this guy?

The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission.
John F. Kennedy

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government, lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."--Patrick Henry---1736-1799 ---- "The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."-- Thomas Jefferson -

ProIndividual....how the heck do YOU personally know what the intent was for the original second amendment?

Via this thing called reading:

The intent of the 2nd Amendment was to arm individual citizens, not just members of militias, so they could overthrow a tyrannical government. Every Founder said this and only this, except Adams (who still wanted individuals armed, but only for self defense, and he thought militias must follow the orders of tyrants regardless because he was a law fetishist as opposed to someone more agianst tyranny and for liberty even if it meant breaking tyrannical laws). Some people have suggested to me other false revisionist history nonsense, and so I leave this link full of other links and facts to prove the case. If further necessary I will start quoting the Founders and challenging them to match me quote for quote (which they can't).

http://guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

The most important links on that site are these ones:

"Is there Contrary Evidence of an Individual Right?"

http://guncite.com/gc2ndcont.html

"Quotes from the Founding Fathers and Their Contemporaries"

http://guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html

The Meaning of the Words in the Second Amendment

http://guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html#wr

Good luck defeating that with some semantical trick about the wording or puncuation of the 2nd Amendment. They mispelled words in the Constitution too...I suppose next you'll argue we have somehow mistakenly mispelled words all these years and the Constitution had them right all these years? Enough with the illogic and irrationale...non sequiturs are not logical arguments.

It's amazing how many people have the internet but remain willfully ignorant to avoid shattering their worldview and therefore egos and opinions about history, economics, and philosophy generally. If you have the internet there is no excuse for believing in revisionist history or just not knowing. Asking that question shows a character flaw.

ProIndividual...talking about an irrational fear?? Do you or any of those nuts REALLY think that our government would try to overthrow the citizenry of the United States? Those people are the crazy ones. And, I don't think I got my point across correctly before. I do care about stats and logic is the only thing I deal with. In the U.S, there were over 3 people murdered per 100,000. In Canada, there were less than .5. There are more guns in Canada than the U.S. Those are facts as well. Yes, many of those are gang and drug related and something should be done there as well. Two states have already done something by legalizing marijuana. It needs to be done Federally. But....in the meantime, why not start where we can....with gunshows. I don't care if it only saves one life...it has to be worth it. It's not too much to ask!

In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment

You mean the same COTUS that upheld Dred Scott? That gave corporations individual rtights of humans? That allowed a owman to be fined millions of dollars for dowloading music? Need I go on with all the BS rulings they've made? Again...what has that to do with original intent? NOTHING. 20th and 21st century rulings haven o bearing on original intent even if you get enough statsists on the court to re-interpret things the way you like. All these interpretations you love come via 20th and 21st century jursists....and one of the links I left shows this. There is no pre-20th century proof of any of this AT ALL. It's revisionism....and doesn't change original intent which has tons of evidence to back.

You guys got the fully autos and all other arms besides guns. That's far enough. You may even win here (tyrany wins a lot), but I won't be abiding these new laws (and either will millions of us). Look up Civil Disobedience via Henry David Thoreau (who MLKjr credited with the concept, and who predates Gandhi) for the moral justifications of breaking tyrannical laws.

what the hell is obama trying to do? cause a civil war ? take your guns before America goes bankrupt ? so the riots in the streets will be less deadly? ........shall not be infringed.

ProIndividual....it's amazing to my that blowhards such as yourself continue to try to belittle people with differing opinions as yours because you put your interpretations ahead of any other interpretation. What you quoted by your use of 'reading' was an interpretation of what was meant by the second amendment. Again...it was an interpretation...not what was exactly written. If every interpretation of the laws were exact, every Supreme Court decision would be 9 - 0. So...go back to your interpretive reading and your feeble attempts at stroking your own ego by trying to make others look ignorant of the facts and let the big boys talk here. You aren't fooling anybody.

ProIndividual...talking about an irrational fear?? Do you or any of those nuts REALLY think that our government would try to overthrow the citizenry of the United States?

Do you even read history? Do you know how many Republics make it 400 years without that happening? It's real close to zero. It is inevitable the state will collapse...they all spend themselves into oblivion via too expansive of an empire with their militayr, debasment of currency, and incrimental taking of rights until anomie occurs. Look up anomie if you don't know what that is (Durkheim, sociology).

You guys have an irrational fear of firearms when crime rates, violent crime rates, mass murder rates, and murder rates are all down while those firearms have never been more numerous....meanwhile we're being diligent about a totally inevitable and predictable thing. WOW.

You have, as an American, a .0041% chance of being murdered by a gun (4 in 100,000). The flu is nearly 3 times morel ikely to kill you, and your car is nearly 4 times more likely. If you're not more afraid of your car or the flu than of guns, you are being irrational. If you're not worried your grandkids or great grandkids will see a collpase of the state into tyranny, you are being willfully ignorant.

Good! Have they been blindfolded before their execution? Take the assault weapons out of their hands and off the streets where they never should be in the first place. You can take all the rest of the guns too as far as I'm concerned and rewrite the 2nd amendment!

I say screw it and drop all restrictions we've put on cars and driving and have it match the current restrictions on guns. No more registrations, no more driving tests, no more safety inspections, and no more insurance. Tie guns and cars together.

Then when automobile deaths go from 31,000 in 2012 to the hundreds of thousands in the next 5 years, if you want them regs back, guns regs come with.

Gun nuts seem to adhere to the Perfect Solution Fallacy. That until a perfect solution can be found to prevent gun violence, NOTHING should be done. Which is the biggest crock of @!$%# ever.

ProIndividual,

If you know history, which you don't, they collapse from within. Not from lack of ownership of weapons!

Chris, but cars don't have bullet clips or scopes. You can't make the comparison when it doesn't apply.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790)

Chris, I just thought also! You can't conceal and carry a car!

ProIndividual....it's amazing to my that blowhards such as yourself continue to try to belittle people with differing opinions as yours because you put your interpretations ahead of any other interpretation.

There can only be one correct historical interpretation. It's a fact, not a faith. The evidence is there, read it, and stop acting like you can get a different intent. The Founders and Framers couldn't have been more clear. You guys don't read them and then let Ed Schultz or some other propagandist sophist tell you what you should believe. You're no better than than people who watch Bill O'Reilly for the same reason.

ProIndividual....you are just the smartest guy ever!! Oh, and that was sarcasm, in case you didn't realize it. You can look up 'sarcasm' in the dictionary if you are unsure of what I meant. I think you have been watching 'Red Dawn' too much. If this govt's military ever decided to turn on it's own people, we wouldn't stand a chance, even with assault weapons. The real irony is....the RWNJ's seem intent on bulking up the funds for the military while thinking that one day they may have to end up fighting them. That makes no sense.

Gun owners are sick in the head. Period. Bunch of paranoid, antigovernment, antisocial white trash, and angry minorities. Own a gun, go to the electric chair. Problem solved.

You mean like the people who founded this country? Thanks for making no logical arguments at all but insulting people because you have nothing oft any intellectual value to add. Oh, and you're tyrant...the exact people we need guns to defend against. Please tell me, what office are you running for?

ProIndividual....you are wrong....plain and simple. It is not a fact, it is an interpretation. The Supreme Court made the interpretation that the founding fathers meant 'an individual' when they wrote 'a well regulated militia'. Again...just an interpretation, albeit, the law of the land now, but still...just an interpretation.

you guys are clueless....

even if all firearm were made illegall today, do you really think that criminals will not carry them or kill other people?

you could pass an encyclopedia worth of new laws, it will not stop any criminals to do what they want.

isnt murder illegal ? or rape or illegal use of drugs or drunk driving, speeding how about cheating on your taxes????

stevef00

ProIndividual....you are just the smartest guy ever!! Oh, and that was sarcasm, in case you didn't realize it. You can look up 'sarcasm' in the dictionary if you are unsure of what I meant.

Are you ready to read the facts now? Or are you going to endlessly spout nonsense?

ProIndividual-3906907

Did you not read my post (1.60) That is the direct quote from the source. Care to share any of your own that backs up your tripe?

If you also read what whiskey eye (1.64) posted you will have a better understanding of the words your trying to twist to fit your agenda.

Brenda1964: Do you understand what a militia is? It is a citizen army...now I don't know how you distinguish personal gun ownership from a citizen army but your comment about a ficitious number of guns indicates that you are woefully ignorant...there are actually over 300 million guns in this country.

Also I find it alarming that the people who would cry out at any limitations on flag burning or protesting or cartoons of religious leaders cannot see the hipocracy in their actions to ban guns...they must be idiots or else (more likely) the average gun owner is that much more intelligent then the average 20 to 30 something...

stevefoo- Iraq and Afghanistan doing a good job at it with improvised weapons

What criminal has ever been found to say the didn't commit a crime with a gun because it would be against the law?

@stevefoo

Nukeman....in case you weren't aware....we've already compromised the Constitution on this issue. You sir, are not allowed to own just ANY arms you want. You can't own anything ground-to-air, any nuclear weapons, or tanks. There is a line drawn on your 'rights' now. All we are asking is to move the line back a little. What the heck is wrong with that??

Ah the classic disinformation tactic. Use examples so extreme and bizarre that the original argument is obfuscated. Nicely done, but still BS.

ProIndividual,

If you know history, which you don't, they collapse from within. Not from lack of ownership of weapons!

What are you talking about? Do you know what democide is? It's prevented one way: by having an armed populace. You act as ift we're actively planning an overthrow of the state. You act as if that internal collapse you reference is not via armed people within the state (like Syria and Libya for example, or like the Colonies when they seceded from England, or like France in their Revolution, etc., etc.). You act as if when it collapses the state doesn't go into death throws and murder everything in its way to keep power until the last possible moment.

You guys make no sense, don't know your history, and pretend to have logical points. I'm wasting my time with you people. Good luck in life, you'll need it.

ProIndividual-3906907

I noticed that you use guncite as your source.....Might I suggest you use google or some other search engine to find facts.

ProIndividual, really. I'm running for SANE NORMAL person, and I'm about to be elected by a landslide when all those new gun control laws get passed. Now get back on your damn meds and go jck off in the corner of your little homemade bunker looking at your guns magazines, dreaming of being a general in the next revolution.

Brenda-

Another person who only reads half the sentence and doesn't even mention the well regulated militia part. I ask you, why did they put the well regulated militia part in there instead of just saying we have the right to bear arms. IT'S BECAUSE THEY MEANT FOR IT TO BE DONE IN A WELL REGULATED MILITIA. WAKE UP.

Notice on the sign that they only put half the sentence and not the first part? Way to go Gun wacko's. Only see what you want to see. Thats how Obama won the election, because Republicans only saw what they wanted to see and not the truth.

Okay, then I ask you to read Article 1 Section 8 on the powers of Congress:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Note here that the Constitution calls for congress to raise and support ARMIES (not militias)

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Note here that congress has the authority to organize, arm and dispcipline the Militia when they are employed in the Service of the United States, leaving all other control to the States. Where in this do you find the authority of the United States to DISarm the States or the people?

You also like to point out that others are leaving out parts of the second amendment, but fail to capitalize the word State as the amendment itself does. Therein lies your fault, this power belongs to the States and the people, not the federal government.

ProIndividual....I already stated the facts. You just want to ignore them....like all people of your ilk that want to try to make their point. And...my point is, and still will be....that the second amendment uses the words 'well regulated militia'. There is NOTHING else in that amendment that makes any other statement. The Supreme Court made the interpretation (see post 1.60). That is the fact. You can't dispute that regardless of the amount of smoke and mirrors you try to use. It is an interpretation of the law. Much like we interpret the first amendment to mean you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre.

I read about how Americans were guaranteed the right to own slaves through the constitution and they were with the Supreme Court decisions and interpretations. That changed.

Phusi- In response to your comment. I betcha 10-1 that the LEFT/DEMOCRATS have huge stock in these gun companies and making out like a bandit $$$$$$$$$$$$$. That's why the LEFT is making a huge stink about this issue to bring their own profits up. Maybe someone needs to look at the LEFT'S portfolio.

happy42xxx

A well armed militia....go back and see what the US Supreme court had to say about that, and how that applies to us today. Back when that was written we did not have a military, as we do now.

Gun owners are sick in the head. Period. Bunch of paranoid, antigovernment, antisocial white trash, and angry minorities. Own a gun, go to the electric chair. Problem solved.

Please tell me you haven't reproduced. America has been dumbed down enough with the likes of you and your nonsensical krap.

Uh....Nukeman....what about my statement is not true? Are you guys now allowed to own surface-to-air missles? I'm sorry....I really thought they were illegal, even though they are classified as 'arms'.

ProIndividual...when I read your posts, I think of a quote from the late George Carlin that said 'when you are driving, how come everybody going slower than you is a moron and anybody driving faster is an idiot?' You are a pretty pompous blowhard for thinking that only you know what is right. Actually, I fear a$$wipes like you far more than a gun-toting crazy in the woods.

Nukeman-837193

Please read the NFA (National Firearms Act). stevefoo is right.

we will see what happens, I am going out on a limb here but i would guess there are more supporters of the 2nd amendment than there are screaming liberals. And the liberals on here always like to forecast that they are going to vote out all republicans come November 14th, well lets just see what happens if Obama passes a law without congressional approval. I forecast a lot of liberal democrats being replaced. And another thing . any clip over ten round sucks ass, always jamb up, i'm not 100% sure but i think thats what happened to guy in Colorado, his devastation come from a shotgun.

Did you not read my post (1.60) That is the direct quote from the source. Care to share any of your own that backs up your tripe?

I did read and comment on it. With links I've provided you have all the evidence you need. The SCOTUS is an appeal to authority, precisely because they re-interpret crap falsely according to original intent all the time (like they don't know what they're doing). They said Dred Scott was the right decision. They said corporations are persons. They say SS and welfare are Constituional. You do realize NO FOUNDER or FRAMER would have agreed, right? Their own words via quotes prove that. The 20th and 21st Century jurists cannot change original intent, all they can do is re-interpret it. Their interpretation does not change what the Founders and Framers said, logically. You can appeal to authority all you like, but ethics in philosophy don't base themselves on laws...laws are supposed to be extrapolated from ethical theory. I already linked you to the Founders' words...you can't combat them so you drop 20th and 21st century re-interpretations via SCOTUS. Meanwhile you understand SCOTUS is often wrong. You use cognitive dissonance to avoid this conflict.

And call it "tripe" when someone won't go along with your Orwelian doublethink (doublespeak).

I'm sorry, Heller only got it partially right. As usual the SCOTUS upheld the individual aspect and took a giant dump on the unalienable part. It's not knew. They also uphold the Drug War when they know full well there was an Amendment required for the federal war on alcohol, and another Amendment to repeal it. I don't know about you, but I haven't seen a Amendment to add to the powers of the federal govt the ability to illegalize controlled substances like drugs. So wy does SCOTUS uphold the federal drug war?

Because they are as bad as they've ever been at allowing clearly unconstitutional crap and claiming it is in fact constitutional. And people like you who derive ethics from law as opposed to having their own ethical code from which they deduce logically a legal theory, so you go along with it, and appeal to their authority in debate.

If they made it legal to own a slave again, would you call it constitutional just because they said so? Or like Lysander Spooner (abolitionist), would you argue slavery is inherently unconstitutional because it violates the unaliebale rights of man? I'd be with Spooner...by your current (il)logic you'd be with the slave owners...because afterall, SCOTUS deemed it so from on high.

The govt is not my god. They can't change history by simply falsely reinterpreting it.

Meanwhile Hollywood launches two new big budget "shoot them up cause I'm mad" movies this week... But hey Hollywood paid for Obama so no restrictions on their "Freedom of Speech" rights. We'll just selectively restrict others "who didn't contribute to my campaign's" rights.

Oh and yes we'll threaten to do this with out due process of the Constitution. The sin of it all is the Democrats in Congress will not even fight for their Constitutional right to govern the country... Sad sad days for Amerrica. Our forefathers and all those who fought and those who died for our Constitution are rolling over in their graves.

ProIndividual...when I read your posts, I think of a quote from the late George Carlin that said 'when you are driving, how come everybody going slower than you is a moron and anybody driving faster is an idiot?' You are a pretty pompous blowhard for thinking that only you know what is right. Actually, I fear a$$wipes like you far more than a gun-toting crazy in the woods.

Do you know what an ad hominem is?

More second amendment FYI:

On May 8, 1792, Congress passed "[a]n act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States" requiring:

[E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack

I read about how Americans were guaranteed the right to own slaves through the constitution and they were with the Supreme Court decisions and interpretations. That changed.

The Tawney Court did NOT solve it because they were cowards tat feared reprisal. It was solved with a war. BTW...if one doesn't get their ethics from law, but instead gets their ethics from a philosophy, they know ALL men have individual rights. People back then did argue that unalienable rights were sacrosanct....and in doing so argued slavery was always unconstitutional.

I'm arguing for unalienable ritghts. You guys are are arguing for laws Unalienable means "not subject to laws or borders". Time doesn't change that. I'm with the abolitionists who argued slavery was never right....you guys are with the law, and however it's unterpreted at the time. It just happens to fit your arguments right now. All that proves is you don't bleieve in unalienable rights.

As with the Tawney Court, misinterpreation and laws provide tyranny over men. That's why unalienable rights can NEVER be justly subject to laws or borders. It's classical liberalism 101.

Steve-3564331

More second amendment FYI:

On May 8, 1792, Congress passed "[a]n act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States" requiring:

And how exactly does that help your argument that the right is not unalienable?

I give up...just revise history and forget what unalienable means. I'll laugh when the 1st Amendment is not unalienable either....then you'll decry the tyranny of such interpretations. And don't dare whine about search and seizure rights, due process rights, etc. I don't want to hear a word about the PATRIOT Act or NDAA (which I'm very much against) from you. It's all free game since rights that are natural rights are no longer unalienable (with the exception of property, which is the only alienable natural right).

ProIndividual-3906907

They call what your trying to do here mental masturbation.

You can not pick and choose which parts of the amended Constitution you wish to try and make your case. Use current law & amendments as they are what apply to us here and now and try not to use them out of context.

You people that wish to tear the Constitution apart, piece by piece, should be very ashamed. You completely discount ALL the lives that we lost by those who served to protect it. You make it all in vein and for nothing.

Americans proud of their country? I don't think so. YOU fail to acknowledge the moral decline of society - people having kids they cannot afford - poor parenting, or just lack of parents. Then turn around and blame guns. Really? Well, there is NO future in being stupid.

Where is YOUR outrage over the economy? Are you not outraged that there will be no future for the generation below us with the out of control spending by this government, with no stopping in sight?

Your priorities are completely MISPLACED!

Renee - Northern CA

ALL THOSE SUBJECTS ARE COVERED IN DIFFERENT FORMS.....MAYBE YOU SHOULD STICK TO THE TOPIC.

Those that say, "We don't want to take your guns" are just playing smoke and mirrors, of course they want to take all guns, that is their agenda. Try to go buy a semi automatic, or a big magazine, they are all 'out of stock', order now and you might get on a waiting list. Don't believe me? Google AR15, or 30rd magazines, see for yourself, just about every dealer is out of stock, or has increased price because of demand, they know they can charge what the market will bear. Manufacturers are at full production for an extended period of time. Once people come to their senses, and let this pass, deciding to address the problems, and not the symptoms, then demand will come down, and firearm manufacturers will be begging for business again, but for now, expect to pay a premium.

This has nothing to do with gun control.

This is all about registrations, licensing and submitting to some convoluted psychological examination.

It’s simply to create more revenue for the criminal government under the guise of protecting us. All this will do is create more massive bureaucracy costing billions of dollars and the problems won’t be solved.

According to the CDC we average over 31 gun deaths EVERY DAY as a function of gun violence. Since Columbine in 1999 we have had 293 people killed in “mass murders”. In the past 4 years over 4,000 people age 21 or younger have been shot in Chicago. In California, in 2009, 81.6% of the firearms used in homicides were handguns, 8.8% were rifles, 7.5% were shotguns and 2% were machine guns. 2000 to 2002 showed the highest use of assault weapons, this during the assault weapons ban era of 1994-2004.

In the past 10 days more people have been killed by firearms than all the mass murders in the past 14 years. Chicago and California have some of the strictest gun laws in our country yet they are among the most violent. The assault weapons ban of 1994-2004 showed no appreciable effect on gun violence.

We don’t have a gun problem, we have an education problem.

Our criminal government run public education system produces illiteracy. This leads to increased crime, drug abuse, poverty and mental health issues. Dozens of murders occur daily on our streets because of gangs, turf battles, drug distribution, prostitution and other criminal activities. Most of these are a result of illiteracy creating desperation to survive at any means.

The Dept. of Education system has been an abject failure. We spend more on education than any other country, except for Switzerland. Most Americans read at an 8th grade level. We consistently rank in the bottom 1/3 to 1/2 in science, math and reading when compared with other OECD nations. Last year the Chicago Public School teachers went on strike demanding more pay, less working days and less teacher competency testing.

In 2011 these were theChicago Public Schools 11th Graders Meeting College Readiness Benchmarks: 21% in Reading, 19% in Math, 11% in Science, 38% in English.

What future is there for these children other than a statistic in the national homicide data base?

Since the 1950’s, in an effort to decrease costs, we have deinstitutionalized our mental health problems. Evidently the advent of new medications were the driving force for eliminating many institutions. Trying to get into a mental health ward today is near impossible. From our ridiculous obsession with political correctness to our complicit criminal justice system, more and more mentally unstable people walk our streets. If you don’t believe me, just take a leisurely stroll down the inner city streets in Detroit, Chicago or L.A.

More importantly is the lack of involvement the public has within its own families and peers of identifying potential problems. Many of the recent mass murderers had obvious signs of dysfunctional thoughts or intentions. Many while under parental supervision. If our education system was more concerned with actually teaching instead of teachers stomping on the American flag, making abortions easier to get for underage students and worrying how many times God is mentioned in a book, maybe, just maybe, our society could become functional again.

Of course protecting our schools with armed guards will be discounted simply because the Liberal/Progressive ideology doesn’t allow agreeing with their biggest bogeymen, the NRA.

It’s amusing to listen to the Libbies squirm when this is suggested and their convoluted excuses. But when they’re reminded of the security force at a certain “Sidwell Friends School” in D.C. which encompasses 11 armed guards protecting the school 24/7 the response is typical of Liberals.

<crickets>

BTW, Sidwell is the exclusive--$32,000 a year--school Barrack Husseins daughters, Sasha and Malia, attend.

This week Joe “Bite Me” Biden will recommend another useless “assault weapons ban”, some convoluted increased registration and licensing system and a mental health program that will take years to incorporate and cost tax payers more of our hard earned money.

But the photo-op will be resplendent with back-slapping and glad-handing. The media will swoon in lock-step in support even though nothing significant will result. Our children will continue to lead the world in “applying condoms to cucumbers”, but most still won’t know how to use—there, their or they’re—correctly in a sentence.

But the most important concern most Americans will really have is who will win an Oscar or is Kim Kardashian having a girl or boy?

Stay tuned, film at eleven.

The guy in the photo with the sign gets it wrong. Its "... , the right of the people ..." and not "The right of the people ...". The guy leaves out the part about being "well regulated".

I can without insulting the anti-weapon pundits give example's of far more terrible weapons available or that can be built, that are far more dangerous than a semi-automatic or for that matter fully automatic. Open a history book, Romans once used little dogs with candles to destroy enemies camps. Go figure a candle and a Schnauzer to kill or destroy massively. Just one of thousands of possibilities that have been available to anyone. Look elsewhere for your remedy. P.S. They also had high capacity weapons in 1779, bombs, rockets, and other types of weapons. Fact...

The most telling thing about this entire vine was the failure of even one liberal to agree with me that reducing the drug war would reduce murder, and that we should do that because it is the number one cause of murder in the USA. Not only are liberals supposed to be against the Drug War, but they should jump at chance to end it and save a ton of lives if saving lives is the point here. Instead, they want to take rights.

On one hand you can expand rights and save 40-70% of the lives lost in 11,000 annual gun murders.

On the other hand you can shrink rights and save at most 2% of lives lost to gun murder.

And what do they choose to do? Constinuously go after the 2nd option as oposed to the first. I think we can all see what this gun control crap is really about...it's about CONTROL...not saving lives.

happy, when was the last time a burning flag killed 20 children? or for that matter a cartoon of a religious leader? peaceful protests are constitutionally protected, not violent ones, those are illeagal, which makes them restricted. so i struggle to understand what in the world your saying is there a logical point or just uneducated rambling of a religious right wing zealot?

you know what i find alarming? someone who adheres fiercely to their interpretation of the 2nd amendment as though it was infallible but has no problem trying to restrict the rights of people that disagree with their points of view on other amendments. for example, im assuming you want a constitutional amendment against flag burning, restriction of peaceful protests and restrictions against critiacal speech against religious officials.

I've scanned these posts, and it seems no one posted what the NRA was like back in the days, probably because no one really wants the truth about how hypocritical the NRA jerks, along with their republican supporters are, so here, let me give you a little piece of history, how about a PRO-GUN CONTROL NRA:

While today's NRA takes hardline positions against even the most modest gun control measures, this was not always the case. Throughout its history, the NRA supported gun control, including restrictions on gun ownership, and was not focused on the Second Amendment.

But the organization had a change of heart in the 1970s when the Black Panthers advocated for an individual right to bear arms. Ironically, the Panthers were the founders of the modern-day gun rights movement, which became the purview of predominantly white, rural conservatives.

The ambiguous reading of the Second Amendment notwithstanding, gun control is as old as the Republic, and the amendment was not interpreted as an absolute in the early days of the United States. There was a balance between individual rights and public safety.

For example, slaves and freed blacks were barred from gun ownership, reflecting fears that African-Americans would revolt. At the same time, the founders proscribed gun ownership to many whites, including those who would not swear their loyalty to the Revolution. And contrary to legend, the "Wild, Wild West" had the most severe gun control policies in America.

Meanwhile, the Black Codes of the post-Civil War South were designed to disempower blacks and reestablish white rule.

http://thegrio.com/2013/01/11/nra-was-pro-gun-control-when-it-came-to-black-panthers/

Remember, with research and the internet, it's hard to keep your skeletons in the closets!!

ProIndividual-3906907

" I'm with the abolitionists who argued slavery was never right....you guys are with the law, and however it's unterpreted at the time. It just happens to fit your arguments right now. All that proves is you don't bleieve in unalienable rights.'

That places your understanding in the context of roughly between 1775-1886 in US history.

We are in 2013.

Thank You moshuluu for pointing that out. Not many would even begin to think to go there. I have and do because of my relationship with David Hillard & the Newton Foundation.

Two points:

First: You are wrong. The agenda is federal power. So any step in gun control, is just that, one step.

Second: THE MAIN ISSUE is that the administration has taken an oath to "defend the constitution ..." and is now suggesting a bypass of that constitution, in violation of the president's oath of office. There are procedures for ammending the constitution. A presidential decree is not one of them.

Question: To all, if a representative ran for office, to represent the people and defend the constitution, if the oath is violated (and this president / whom I have voted for twice / has the intent to violate that oath / which he has not even taken yet / has already stated he intends to go against the constitution) *** Should he be allowed to stay in that office, or be removed by impeachment?

Hmmm: Could the justice, giving the oath of office, refuse to issue the oath, since the person accepting and stating the oath, has already stated that it is meaningless, to him or her?

ProIndividual...as I suspect, you must not be reading all my post when I say something. I agreed with you way back in post 1.71 that something should be done about the drug war. I'll repeat it so you don't have to scroll back that far, but I did say that a couple of states have already started by making marijuana legal. We just need to federalize that same thing, which should help immensely. I'm interested in saving lives too...but most of the lives lost in the drug wars are individuals that I am not too concerned about losing.

I find it fascinating that the NRA were all about "gun control" when the Black Panthers were trying to protect their Civil Rights in Oakland in the 1960's.

Pathetic.

I own an AR-15 because I was properly trained to care for and shoot one (actually an M-16) as an infantryman in the Army, and I am confident in my ability to employ it accurately, effectively, and safely.

I own an AR-15 because contrary to popular belief, they are an excellent weapon to use for hunting. It is my preferred rifle to dispatch feral hogs, coyotes, foxes, raccoons and other predators on our property.

I own an AR-15 (with several 30-round magazines) because I enjoy competition shooting and the AR-15 is an outstanding weapon to use in carbine and three-gun competitions. If you enjoy shooting and you've never fired one, I recommend it. They are quite fun to shoot.

I own an AR-15 because it is MY responsibility to protect my family and my property. I cannot, in good conscience, abdicate this responsibility in the hope that local law enforcement will be there when I need them. I own several firearms (all properly secured), each designed with specific uses. My AR-15 is an important part of this collection.

I own an AR-15 because it is my right to do so.

I own an AR-15 because they are a pretty good investment these days!

I own an AR-15 because I love my country, but fear my government. And I can no longer discount the possibility that some day, someone might actually come to my door to confiscate my firearms and property.

Uh Bob....I don't care what they had in 1779....things change as society improves it's thinking. They had slaves in 1779....fact!

1968- NFA amended as a direct result of the BPP & supported by the NRA.

I might add at the time the BPP was not carrying guns illegally. The where exercising their second amendment rights. Huey Newton was very well versed in constitutional rights and would often carry law books containing current constitutional law and recite laws to police that would harass them.

So...whiskey eye....are you saying that if a constitutional amendment was passed that made it illegal to own any firearm (not that it would ever pass), you would go against the new Constitution to keep your guns? That would seem a bit hypocritical.

ProIndividual, Stevefoo and Steve are correct.

ProIndividual, you are, unfortunately, definitely coming across as a pseudo-intellectual that would rather argue details rather than fact-checking your narratives and hyperbole. I know you are better than that, but you are displaying to all that your view of parts of the Constitution appears to be static, unchanging, and worse, selective in your logical inferences. That to me, is the epitome of political naivete and flies in the face of historical changes to our diverse culture and our nation over the centuries.

And if anyone is cherry-picking, it is YOU. Ever heard of not being able to see the forest for the trees?

That is why I say when people like you create formal fallacies to justify the use of judging other people by logical fallacies you arbitrarily choose to falsely accuse them of, WHEN YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW THEM OR PROPERLY UNDERSTAND THEIR MOTIVES. If you worked for the judiciary as I have in one of my contracts as a communications engineer, you would understand this.

And BTW, I was the one that coined the term, "Civilian gun nuts," to make it understandable to people like YOU. The rest of the observations I paraphrased came straight from Dr. Brown. But since you jumped to conclusions so eager to infer that the Doc wasn't valid enough in your attempt to discredit what I had to say as facts, you have demonstrated how emotionally reactive and vindictive you can be to everyone reading your replies, willing to "split hairs" to argue on any technicality that MISSES THE POINT OF WHAT WAS BEING DISCUSSED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam and argumentum ad nauseam LOOK IT UP.

As for me I will retire for the day and get off this commentary stream for now. And from the look of it, I, as well as Stevefoo, aren't the only ones that object to your pointless criticisms and sniping replies.

So I'll part with you with this bit of wisdom: Try to find commonality and agreement with your opponents, otherwise, how will you change their minds by constantly criticizing and dictating to them what you believe is wrong with them? Question what they claim but don't attack them." IN OTHER WORDS, "You can attract flies and bees better with honey and pollen rather than with vinegar."

...Ciao!

How can any legal gun owner be against registering the weapon.

When a gun is sold, by anyone, there should be a paper trail.

"OnlyinAmerca....please stop using that stupid, time-worn comparison of knives and baseball bats until you can honestly answer this question. Who would you rather face at 20 yards....a guy with a baseball bat or a guy with an assault rifle? If you're not stupid, then I will guess that your response will be the baseball bat."

I will answer the question Stevefoo, just as soon as you stop acting like an anti-gun shill and start acting like you had a little common sense. Now, as for who I would rather face? Neither. Why? Because I'm wheelchair bound. You think I can out run a mentally ill person that has a bat, whose intent is killing anyone they can? Now do everyone a big favor stevefoo, the next time you want to use another person to make a stupid point with, just to make them look bad, know something about that person first, before sticking your foot in your mouth, and you end up looking like even more of the agenda puppet that you were before.

rradiko...nicely put....I would have just said he was an obnoxious blowhard, but you put it much better. Thanks.

Stevefoo,

You're welcome.

(sorry, I must go for now...I hear my bedroom pillow calling me to get some Zzzz's...)

Steve

I suggest you read and notice when the NFA was done as well. It contains limits on type & sizes of guns as well as other weapons. (Dated & passed with NRA support 1934).

In 1934 who in their right mind could conceive that Hitler would murder millions of Jew, Stalin murder 20,000,000 Soviets or Mao murdering millions of Chinese? Times change and the weapons available to exterminate a population have greatly improved. The founding fathers realized that technologies would improve and made no distinction between what the government would have and what the citizens could possess. It could be argued that the founders through the citizen militia gave the authority to the people to match the government in arms. A tyrant can raise in any form of government, no peoples or nations are immune. Remember that Hilter was legally elected by the Germans.

OnlyinAmerica....sorry...but my question is still pertinent and the point is still valid. Maybe not to you, but to 99% of the rest of the population. That is not an anti-gun shill, and I could use the same insulting verbiage to describe you by saying you are a right wing, gun nut, but I don't know that for sure, just like you don't know me for sure. So...don't expect me to back off my point just because you are in a wheelchair.

Steve-3564331

ALL THOSE SUBJECTS ARE COVERED IN DIFFERENT FORMS.....MAYBE YOU SHOULD STICK TO THE TOPIC

All those subjects are very pertinent to this topic.

Our Constitution has been trampled on by Liberals for a century and we are all finally seeing the consequences and failures of Progressivism.

Our dysfunctional "wars" on crime, drugs, poverty and illiteracy are absolute failures yet each one of them contributes to all the violence we see on our streets every day. Combine this with our ridiculous obsession with political correctness and the problems are obvious.

Unless we are honest enough and brave enough to admit the rampant failures of Progressivism the results will be same, just more patchwork attempts to fix things while refusing the real solutions.

stevefoo- from my cold dead hands if an executive order

"And BTW, I was the one that coined the term, "Civilian gun nuts,"

rradiko, yeah...that's really something to be proud of, isn't it? I know many civilians who own guns, and you know something? They have, and show a lot more respect for all others compared to the amount that you display.

The obnoxious blowhard here is rradiko. It's seriously people like you that will pass government regulations that we all must undergo "psychological evaluation" before we can exercise our rights or take part in certain spheres of society. That is fascism, rradiko, and you better check yourself.

whiskey eye....not an executive order, but a constitutional amendment, like prohibition. Sorry, but I break laws all the time. I speed constantly, don't come to a complete stop at stop signs all the time, and I sometimes pass cars are the right. The pro-gun coalition hides behind that second amendment as if they were using it as a shield. I would be willing to bet that even you break other laws all the time. I'm sure had I been alive when prohibition was around, I would have drank anyway...Constitution or not! All I'm saying is....if you wouldn't adhere to it if it were changed legally, why try to use it now as a catch all because it fits your ideaology?

For those who think nobody should have a firearm for protection, consider this story – If she didn't have a gun for protection, we can only shudder at what might have happened to her and her two children by the stalker;

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/10/16449815-911-tape-shoot-him-again-husband-tells-wife-hiding-from-home-intruder?lite&lite=obnetwork

Only in America,

I know of one civilian that owned a gun or guns and got running at the mouth at how he was going to protect his property. He went out and got wasted came home, "conceal and carrying" went into the wrong house, my step-sister's, and thought she was a burglar. Shot her 5 times. Died of course. Oh she was in her wheelchair as she had a stroke 10 years ago an that didn't seem to stop him. Gun nuts need to stop.

Here in a local community this morning two guys broke into a house while the people were home. Took 30 some guns from their house. If they weren't there there would have been 30 less guns going onto the streets to rob and kill. Oh, the man who lived in the house was armed and it didn't do a thing to protect his property! Guns don't help! Guns kill!

Roy....I don't think a single person on this thread has promoted the outlawing of all guns (except the extremists, and nobody listens to them on either side of the issue). Some common-sense restrictions are all that is being called for. That is why us anti-gun people are acting so crazy....we're only asking for small changes that probably wouldn't affect law abiding gun enthusiasts at all.

gwerpa,

bush passed 30 some Executive Orders in his 8 years ant eh right never complained then. You are obeying those laws now thank God! Maybe! Obama has yet to pass one and listen to your righties out there! Thoughtful forgetting when your nut president bush isn't passing them!

1.147

A G R E E D

It is quite simple really.

You have a CONSTITUTIONAL right to own and keep guns.

But the remaining citizens of this great country also have a CONSTITUTIONAL right to AMEND the constitution through their duly elected representatives.

You live in a democracy. If enough number of people believe that you should not own assault weapons or high capacity magazines - I regret to inform you - you will not be able to keep them. That is how it works in a democracy. The will of the MAJORITY overrules the MINORITY.

Don't like it ? You are welcome to leave the US and go to say - Somalia - Where you can pretty much do whatever you please.

Hello folks, the bottom line is that the 2nd Amendment is a right and not a privilege. Those who want to debate that premise can follow the process to have the courts alter or eliminate it. You will hear those rebutting stating, "Here you go again with the 2nd Amendment right, that's all you got as an argument".

I say, that's all I need!

This is a Constitutional fight pure and simple. Most of you anti-gun proponents have proven yourselves to be hypocritical. You hear such arguments as the 20 little ones didn't have a say in this argument, while tragic and true if someone had a gun on the scene, those little ones would have had a better chance of surviving. We live in a violent society and getting rid of any type of gun isn't going to stop those deranged people on psychotropic drugs from committing ferocious crimes.

The bottom line, the only way the anti-gun argument has any logical means to an end is to eliminate all guns. The first thing the anti-gun lobby will go after is rifles which have been involved in a small percentage of the crimes. Then handguns will be next as the argument will be that they are involved in a higher percentage of crimes. Those that understand the anti-gun agenda sees where this is going.

If you give the government an inch they will take a mile. Despite the rhetoric, this fight is about maintaining our 2nd Amendment rights. People who want to kill will find a way and a weapon. A person armed at least will have a fighting chance.

Let me ask you a simple question, if someone is kicking in your door would you rather have a six shooter or a weapon with a little more capability and capacity? That folks, is a no-brainer.

To all the paranoid/schizophrenics who think the government is going to come take away your guns someday:

Do you really think your cache of weapons has any chance against the military might of the USA? Seriously???

If we get to the point of tyranny in government, you're gonna need alot more than a few guns.

Gun control is not about taking away your guns. It's about trying to prevent those who should not have them from getting them. It will never be perfect. But it will be better than it is now.

commonsense53

If you would have read any of my earlier posts, you would have noticed that I have referred to the NFA 1934 many times. The suggestion and discussion was on second amendment rights in the 60's with the BPP. I know that the NFA has been updated since 1968. It was pointed out that the NRA had no problem getting behind amending the NFA when it came to the BPP which is true.

JimSpence

"Our Constitution has been trampled on by Liberals for a century and we are all finally seeing the consequences and failures of Progressivism."

Really? How can that be so when the US supreme court is the most conservative we have seen in a century. We have this thing called checks and balances with each branch of the federal government, meaning no one body has power absolute.

BTW progress is what you get when you live in a modern society.....If ya don't like it....move some where else.

I'm disappointed at the gun groups who are so upset, and I'm thoroughly amused by the anti gun wackos who think any laws they get passed will do any good. Pass all of the laws that you want to...they'll just be ignored like the present ones are. This is the only issue that cuts across all political parties and philosophies. The only ones who stand to lose here are the loudmouths like Obama, Biden, and Bloomberg who stand to alienate their liberal gunowner voters.

By the way, the rapidly developing 3-D printers will soon be able to reproduce any gun right in the comfort of your own home; good luck with stopping that, anti-gun wackos!

whiskey eye, do you think you earned your property legitimately? Of course you do. How about a lobbyist, one who's job it is to corrupt the government for money. Did they earn their property legitimately? How about a corrupt politician? How about a banker, one who profited from the corruption? Did they earn their property legitimately? Are you saying they are correct in murdering government officials who may come to confiscate their illegal property? We are all corrupted by having participated in our corrupt economy.

This isn't the wild west anymore on the frontier where a gun is the most powerful force and a man protects his family in his enclave against the heathen Indians and wild beasts. The fox, raccoon and whatever else aren't "predators", sorry. Stop playing make-believe that you are protecting your family with your assault rifle.

Stevefoo,

I would love the outlawing of all guns and the confiscation of those already owned. Just get the registrations lists and a search warrant. Ransack the house looking for them

stevefoo- the government once outlawed gold but i bet your great grandmother hid her wedding ring. do you think the Jews would have been disarmed if they knew what Hitler had in mind

"OnlyinAmerica....sorry...but my question is still pertinent and the point is still valid."

No, not really. Why? Because your treating it as though people such as myself don't count. Why is that? We are still human.

"Maybe not to you, but to 99% of the rest of the population."

See? As I stated above, your treating it, as though we don't count, or don't exist. Again, why is that?

"That is not an anti-gun shill, and I could use the same insulting verbiage to describe you by saying you are a right wing, gun nut, but I don't know that for sure,"

If you don't like being called that name, then don't use that demeanor towards people who collect guns. In other words, if you show no respect, then don't expect any in return.

"So...don't expect me to back off my point just because you are in a wheelchair."

That's ok, because I've already proven my point.

The Constitution was written as a living document. It's provisions are left deliberately vague so that they could be interpreted to suit the unknown circumstances in the future. It was made in a way that could be changed. It is not written in stone.

whiskey eye

I'm going to assume that you're a responsible gun owner. As someone who has enjoyed firearms in the past, but doesn't currently own one, I want to ask you, honestly, what you and other responsible gun owners are going to do here. Something has to happen. You have a public that is demanding action. Each violent incident galvanizes support for tougher laws. While it's true that our murder rate has declined steadily for 15 years or so, the public spectacle of these massacres outweighs that fact in the political realm.

Other posters are suggesting things as varied as overhauling our mental health system and legal system. But these are enormously expensive ideas, in time and money. Would you support the billions in spending it would take to really fix our mental health apparatus (for instance)?

Personally, I support a national registry. Imagine if, when Adam Lanza was being psychologically evaluated, they had been aware he had access to weapons? Maybe they would have actually treated him. I don't think this means taking anyone's guns. Let's compare to another right-the vote. We require people to register in exchange for exercising this right, so that we can prevent fraud. A national register of owners would reduce illegal sales (it would, by definition, reveal the responsible party). It means you keep all of your guns. and the rest of us get something that might actually help. Are you, as gun owners willing to accept this compromise?

whiskey eye...so, it sounds like you agree with my point then. That you don't care what the Constitution says...the way it is now, or if they change it...you intend on keeping your guns. Which is exactly my point. You are using the Constitution as your right to own a gun, but would go against the Constitution if they changed the law. Exactly supports my point. Stop throwing the second amendment up in our face if you would just ignore the 42nd amendment (or whatever number it would be) that outlaws guns! And, by the way, entire countries couldn't stop Hitler....do you think the Jews would have been any match for that military?

We live in a democracy. That means the majority rules. Let the people decide. Clearly, the overwheming majority favor sensible common sense gun laws. Even most gun owners favor them.

Background checks should include a psychological exam. But some gun owners, like that raving lunatic Alex Jones, would probably fail that test.

Only responsible sane poeple should be allowed to own guns.

Ed.

Then after 230+ years the Constitution needs to be rewritten . At least the 2nd Amendment!

I own an AR-15 because I love my country, but fear my government. And I can no longer discount the possibility that some day, someone might actually come to my door to confiscate my firearms and property.

And that boys and girls effectively sums up what the @!$%# is wrong with this country. Loonies with delusions of self importance who actually believe that: #1 The US will EVER become like that. And #2 That they would get into a firefight with government troops at their home.

This is why there will never be a rational debate about gun control...

OnlyinAmerica...nope...you haven't proven your point at all. My question still is, and will be until someone who uses that stupid, stupid argument that bats kill people too, so they should be regulated, would you rather face a nut with a baseball bat or an assault weapon. It's a simple question, really, and is not predicated on the fact that I am either an anti-gun shill or a gun nut. Simple question, really. And, it's not important or relevant to the question at hand if you are in a wheelchair (and human) or not. My response was only to the ignorant point that baseball bats carry the same killing power that assault rifles do, which they absolutely do not. They were also not made exclusively to kill. They were created for a game. Wheelchair or not, as long as your brain is still intact, you must be able to see that point. If not, I feel sorry for you.

at qwerpa -how do you know where the hell my land is at ?it could be in Florida with gators around , or Tennessee with bears around or north Dakota with mountain lions around or Chicago with gang banging druggies around it doesn't matter it is my right to have and all you anti gun Libbie's cant stand it . i have to put up with gay marriage ,legalized marijuana , and abortion . you have to put up with the pro gun majority .it will never happen you wont take them.IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT THERE IS ALWAYS Canada dont let the door hit you in the ass

Let me preface my comments by stating that I'm a political atheist, I don't care what political religion one wants to attach themselves to.

Why don't the the presstitutes report all the murders we perpetrate on other countries and where are the progressives regarding the hundreds of thousands of children killed by our country in our name?

Consider the Sandy Hook school shooting. This shooting serves as an excuse for anti gun lobbyists to express their hatred of guns and the NRA and to advance their gun control agenda. Few if any of those hyperventilating over the tragedy know any of the parents of the murdered children. They have shown no similar response to the US government’s murder of countless thousands of Muslim children. You anti-gun lobbyists/posters are hypocrites! The Clinton regime alone killed 500,000 Iraqi children with illegal sanctions, and Clinton’s immoral secretary of state Madeleine Albright, a feminist hero, said that she thought the sanctions were worth the cost of one half million dead Iraqi children. The Bush regime is just as guilty.

Suddenly, 20 US children become of massive importance to “progressives.” Why? Because the deaths foster their agenda–gun control in the US. Rifles first then handguns.

When I hear people talk about “gun violence,” I wonder what has happened to language. A gun is an inanimate object. An inanimate object cannot cause violence. Humans cause violence. The relevant question is: why do humans cause violence? This obvious question seldom gets asked. Instead, inanimate objects are blamed for the actions of humans.

Stevefoo

Do you or any of those nuts REALLY think that our government would try to overthrow the citizenry of the United States?

Did you think that the Germans when they elected Hilter thought that he would order the murder millions of Jews or the Soviets thought that any person would be capable of murdering twenty million of their own citizens or Mao would exterminate any opposition to his authority? What makes you think that we are immune to a tyrannical leader? Maybe the reason that we have not had to deal with this type of person in our country is because the citizens are well armed and can defend itself against a would be tyrant.

I neither owner a gun nor am I a member of the NRA but as a citizen I will defend their right to bear arms. The only ones that should fear the right to bare arms are those that would deprive the citizens of any of their rights. That type should always worry that the people will rise up a against any tyrannical power. Rocks and stones are a poor substitute against a well armed tyrannical leader that is hell bent on control and power. Ask any elderly former Soviet or Jew that lived through those periods.

The right to bare arms is already restricted in many ways, that have been upheld by the Supreme court.

Convicted felons have lost their right. (But if it is a right, it cannot be lost, must be a priviledge.)

Freed slaves were restricted from owning a gun.

Many types of 'arms' are restricted, too many to list here.

The mentally ill are restricted.

It is the right of the militia (now, our standing army) that has never been restricted.

"I know of one civilian that owned a gun or guns and got running at the mouth at how he was going to protect his property. He went out and got wasted came home, "conceal and carrying" went into the wrong house, my step-sister's, and thought she was a burglar. Shot her 5 times. Died of course. Oh she was in her wheelchair as she had a stroke 10 years ago an that didn't seem to stop him. Gun nuts need to stop."

clwyd, I'm sorry for your loss guy, I know it's never easy losing a loved one, I've been there. I know that it's hard for people to understand. You said he was drunk, well, it's like I have stated before, most of this is about the mental issues of those who are doing the killing. This guy proves it. It's just like getting behind the wheel of a car when drunk. You can never tell a drunk that they are doing wrong, not in their state of mind, and it's no different than one with a gun.

Commonsense53....I'll say this one more time, as I have stated it 20 times in previous posts. I am not advocating that ALL guns be removed from the citizenry. All I am asking for is a little common sense (and I hope the irony is not lost on you and your moniker) laws and regulations be put in place, particularly at gun shows, where the purchasing of guns has become quite lax. Common sense tells me that nobody needs to own a gun that can shoot 200 bullets in 60 seconds. I have never heard of 200 people participating in a home invasion. Common sense, really. If the NRA would use their heads and support these small changes, then everybody wouldn't think of them as the total and complete a$$holes that they truly are. I'm not anti-gun....I'm anti-stupidity.

at chris- you are the delusional one that doesn't think the u.s. cant be like that . i can guarantee you have never been in the military to see what your sweet government is capable of doing

Steve-3564331

Really? How can that be so when the US supreme court is the most conservative we have seen in a century. We have this thing called checks and balances with each branch of the federal government, meaning no one body has power absolute.

Go away Steve.

Everyone here should know how our Constitution was denigrated in the early 20th century by Wilson, FDR and LBJ. If you don't understand that it's either because of your indoctrination into Progressivism or ignorance. Neither of which is a good way to go through life.

FDR's usurpation of the Supreme Court during the "Revolution of 1937" is evidence of the criminality of Progressivism. When he couldn't get his "must have" legislation through he had to resort to impinging on those "checks and balances" you so proudly promote. I suppose you feel those were OK because they were intended to help the people. Well, look at how well Progressivism has worked out.

Your delusion of being for "progress" is comical. There's nothing progressive about a $16.4 trillion National Debt and $125 trillion of Unfunded Liabilities. This is the result of Progressivism, what's your solution?

Try to keep up Spanky.

i forgot the first rule of the vine ( don't feed the trolls )

@ Steve-3564331

1.125 - Sat Jan 12, 2013 9:03 AM CST

Thank You moshuluu for pointing that out. Not many would even begin to think to go there. I have and do because of my relationship with David Hillard & the Newton Foundation.

No problem Steve. History is fascinating, but I've always said, you gotta read both sides to get a true understanding. Unfortunately, people today only want to read the "side" that helps them, not teach them.

Good luck in your relationship with the Newton Foundation!

commonsense53

"Did you think that the Germans when they elected Hilter thought that he would order the murder millions of Jews or the Soviets thought that any person would be capable of murdering twenty million of their own citizens or Mao would exterminate any opposition to his authority? What makes you think that we are immune to a tyrannical leader? Maybe the reason that we have not had to deal with this type of person in our country is because the citizens are well armed and can defend itself against a would be tyrant."

The U.S. has something that those countries did not......Our Constitution, Our system of Government & our laws.

If your theory was true then after seeing all those millions of people dying why did the people not stand up against it? No they joined in. Your point make no sense.

Larry-367607, #1.15- EXCELLENT!!!

ProIndividual-3906907, #1.18- Many good and interesting things to say from you, and on many-many other posts that I've seen and read, too! I think they always make One, (at least Myself), have to STOP and Think. BUT, (SORRY, there has to be a BUT, because Nobody can agree with Somebody else "all the time"), or THEY WOULDN'T BE AN "INDIVIDUAL".

"inalienable" is an adjective: Of Self and Self, ONLY, ["NOT to be transferred to another". American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language] and is in broad context, only, in the Declaration of Independence, I believe, in reference to "Umbrella", if you will, Issues such as "Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness" and not, per se, in The Constitution. (which is more "of verb" than "of adjective")

"infringe", as of the 2nd Amendment, is a verb: ["to break or ignore the terms or obligations of" yes, as in an agreement or Law. American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language]

A verb is necessarily, and especially in this situation at hand, more "exacting" than an adjective; whereby, circumspectly, "inalienable" is out of context to this situation, and the actual question at hand, too.

to "prevent gun violence" and "protect responsible gun ownership", as in the Article, is in NO WAY an "Infringement".

The use of the many different quotes that are getting trotted out are very interesting, too!

Chris from Yucaipa

Loonies with delusions of self importance who actually believe that: #1 The US will EVER become like that. And #2 That they would get into a firefight with government troops at their home.

Hmmmm, so first you insist it will never happen and then you admit a firefight is possible.

So which is it?

Consider: If they can pass laws that ban assault style weapons, then it clears pathways for future gun bans.

How could it not? If they can do this, they can do anything. Then the 2nd amendment is... what?

Larry-367607 Comment collapsed by the community

The vast majority of people panicking don't own assault rifles or high capacity magazines nor any intent to buy them. They panic because those like the NRA tell them anti gun advocates want to take all guns and each step puts them closer to that day. Total nonsense and they know it. There are large numbers of gun owners among liberals and democrats the same as conservatives and republicans. This isn't an issue of one party it's simply common sense. Surface to air missiles, machine guns and hand grenades are already illegal because they serve no purpose for hunting or self defense. Neither do assault rifles and high capacity magazines.

#1.5 - Sat Jan 12, 2013 5:44 AM EST

1) It's perfectly legal to own machine guns unless your state has banned them. You simply have a lot more red tape to go through in purchasing one.

2) The 2nd Amendment isn't about just hunting and self-defense. If you think so, then you really are uninformed on the topic. If the meaning of "the right of the people...shall not be infringed" isn't clear enough for you, then try reading the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers relating to the 2nd Amendment (those are the arguments the founders presented over ratifying the Constitution, since you appear unfamiliar with them).

3) Actual "assault rifles" are weapons capable of select-fire between semi-auto and either a 3-round burst or fully automatic fire. The AR-15s being bashed by the anti-gun crowd do NOT have this capability. They are simply semi-auto rifles that LOOK like assault rifles. It really would help if the anti-gun idiots would get a clue about the subject before they spout their nonsense. Now, of the murders committed with a firearm, only a fraction are committed with rifles that look like assault rifles. More murders are committed every year with HAMMERS, than with "assault-style" rifles. Handguns are the most commonly used firearm, not "assault rifles." Think we should ban hammers? I don't. Stop blaming the tool, and blame the individual.

4) High capacity magazines most certainly serve a valid defense purpose. You don't know how many bad guys you'll be dealing with in any given situation, nor are you likely to be a perfect shot each time in a crisis situation, so having more rounds available without having to reload is absolutely beneficial. Of course, switching out magazines takes a practiced individual less than 2 seconds, so the interruption is brief, but still undesirable.

5) Our rights do not come from the government, and government authority comes from the consent of the governed. The government can do only as much as we allow it to do.

6) The deranged actions of an individual is not grounds for abridging/infringing on the rights of everyone else who uses their God-given rights responsibly.

Mystery Rhee

"inalienable" is an adjective: Of Self and Self, ONLY,

You are confusing “inalienable” and “unalienable” rights.

Unalienable rights are rights that can never be surrendered, transferred or sold.

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and cannot under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.

Inalienable rights are rights that cannot be surrendered, transferred or sold without the CONSENT of the one possessing said rights.

You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

Our right to keep and bear arms is unalienable not inalienable as it pertains to our endowed right to the preservation of life. It therefore cannot be infringed upon by man, court or government at any level.

I feel that most gun control proponents do not remember how this country was founded. We, The

People, were the militia. We, The People, were able to defeat the British army because we had

firearms that were equal to the British. Imagine how things might have turned out if our Revolutionary

Army were using anything but firearms. It is not hard to imagine. Just look at what our Government

did to the Indian Nations.

The Second Amendment is a pre-political Right. Meaning that this Right is guaranteed to EVERY person

in the United States and ONLY that person can give up that Right. The Second Amendment exists

to ENSURE All our Rights, as guaranteed by the Constitution. This Country was founded on the

Principle that EVERY person has these Rights. Most importantly, the Second Amendment allows

We, The People, the right to Self Protection, not just from criminals, but also from a Government that

wishes to impose its' RULE ( i.e. saying that the president can circumvent the Legislature by Executive

Order). Gee, i was always told in school that the President can not MAKE the laws. Every police force

in this country, whether it be Federal, State, or Local, has taken an Oath - To uphold and to defend

the Constitution of the United States of America. Not to uphold and defend the Whims of a Socialist

President! Any infringement on the Second Amendment by the Government is surely one step closer

to disarming the citizenry. And with that, closer to being enslaved and at the mercy of the

Government.

The Government wants everyone to believe, that by introducing gun control laws on law abiding

people, it is making society safer for you. Nothing could be farther from the truth! We know that

the police can not be there to protect you from harm. They are there after the fact, to take a report,

or clean up the mess and investigate. I am very curious to know why the same firearm laws do not

apply to law enforcement. One wonders how the police officer might feel if he had to follow the same

regulations as a responsible gun owner does. Example. In California, if i am transporting a legal

firearm in my car, the ammunition can not be with the firearm. If i am walking down the street with

my firearm visible, my firearm can not be loaded.

the Second amendment STOPS THIS I repost again

"

"“I am a witness to history.

“I cannot tell you that Hitler took Austria by tanks and guns; it would distort history.

If you remember the plot of the Sound of Music, the Von Trapp family escaped over the Alps rather than submit to the Nazis. Kitty wasn’t so lucky. Her family chose to stay in her native Austria. She was 10 years old, but bright and aware. And she was watching.

“We elected him by a landslide – 98 percent of the vote,” she recalls.

She wasn’t old enough to vote in 1938 – approaching her 11th birthday. But she remembers.

“Everyone thinks that Hitler just rolled in with his tanks and took Austria by force.”

No so.

Hitler is welcomed to Austria

“In 1938, Austria was in deep Depression. Nearly one-third of our workforce was unemployed. We had 25 percent inflation and 25 percent bank loan interest rates.

Farmers and business people were declaring bankruptcy daily. Young people were going from house to house begging for food. Not that they didn’t want to work; there simply weren’t any jobs.

“My mother was a Christian woman and believed in helping people in need. Every day we cooked a big kettle of soup and baked bread to feed those poor, hungry people – about 30 daily.’

“We looked to our neighbor on the north, Germany, where Hitler had been in power since 1933.” she recalls. “We had been told that they didn’t have unemployment or crime, and they had a high standard of living.

“Nothing was ever said about persecution of any group – Jewish or otherwise. We were led to believe that everyone in Germany was happy. We wanted the same way of life in Austria. We were promised that a vote for Hitler would mean the end of unemployment and help for the family. Hitler also said that businesses would be assisted, and farmers would get their farms back.

“Ninety-eight percent of the population voted to annex Austria to Germany and have Hitler for our ruler.

“We were overjoyed,” remembers Kitty, “and for three days we danced in the streets and had candlelight parades. The new government opened up big field kitchens and
everyone was fed.

“After the election, German officials were appointed, and, like a miracle, we suddenly had law and order. Three or four weeks later, everyone was employed. The government made sure that a lot of work was created through the Public Work Service.

“Hitler decided we should have equal rights for women. Before this, it was a custom that married Austrian women did not work outside the home. An able-bodied husband would be looked down on if he couldn’t support his family. Many women in the teaching profession were elated that they could retain the jobs they previously had been re- quired to give up for marriage.

“Then we lost religious education for kids

“Our education was nationalized. I attended a very good public school.. The population was predominantly Catholic, so we had religion in our schools. The day we elected Hitler (March 13, 1938), I walked into my schoolroom to find the crucifix replaced by Hitler’s picture hanging next to a Nazi flag. Our teacher, a very devout woman, stood up and told the class we wouldn’t pray or have religion anymore. Instead, we sang ‘Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles,’ and had physical education.

“Sunday became National Youth Day with compulsory attendance. Parents were not pleased about the sudden change in curriculum. They were told that if they did not send us, they would receive a stiff letter of warning the first time. The second time they would be fined the equivalent of $300, and the third time they would be subject to jail.”

And then things got worse.

“The first two hours consisted of political indoctrination. The rest of the day we had sports. As time went along, we loved it. Oh, we had so much fun and got our sports equipment free.

“We would go home and gleefully tell our parents about the wonderful time we had.

“My mother was very unhappy,” remembers Kitty. “When the next term started, she took me out of public school and put me in a convent. I told her she couldn’t do that and she told me that someday when I grew up, I would be grateful. There was a very good curriculum, but hardly any fun – no sports, and no political indoctrination.

“I hated it at first but felt I could tolerate it. Every once in a while, on holidays, I went home. I would go back to my old friends and ask what was going on and what they were doing.

“Their loose lifestyle was very alarming to me. They lived without religion. By that time, unwed mothers were glorified for having a baby for Hitler.

“It seemed strange to me that our society changed so suddenly. As time went along, I realized what a great deed my mother did so that I wasn’t exposed to that kind of humanistic philosophy.

“In 1939, the war started, and a food bank was established. All food was rationed and could only be purchased using food stamps. At the same time, a full-employment law was passed which meant if you didn’t work, you didn’t get a ration card, and, if you didn’t have a card, you starved to death.

“Women who stayed home to raise their families didn’t have any marketable skills and often had to take jobs more suited for men.

“Soon after this, the draft was implemented.

“It was compulsory for young people, male and female, to give one year to the labor corps,” remembers Kitty. “During the day, the girls worked on the farms, and at night they returned to their barracks for military training just like the boys.

“They were trained to be anti-aircraft gunners and participated in the signal corps. After the labor corps, they were not discharged but were used in the front lines.

“When I go back to Austria to visit my family and friends, most of these women are emotional cripples because they just were not equipped to handle the horrors of combat.

“Three months before I turned 18, I was severely injured in an air raid attack. I nearly had a leg amputated, so I was spared having to go into the labor corps and into military service.

“When the mothers had to go out into the work force, the government immediately established child care centers.

“You could take your children ages four weeks old to school age and leave them there around-the-clock, seven days a week, under the total care of the government.

“The state raised a whole generation of children. There were no motherly women to take care of the children, just people highly trained in child psychology. By this time, no one talked about equal rights. We knew we had been had.

“Before Hitler, we had very good medical care. Many American doctors trained at the University of Vienna..

“After Hitler, health care was socialized, free for everyone. Doctors were salaried by the government. The problem was, since it was free, the people were going to the doctors for everything.

“When the good doctor arrived at his office at 8 a.m., 40 people were already waiting and, at the same time, the hospitals were full.

“If you needed elective surgery, you had to wait a year or two for your turn. There was no money for research as it was poured into socialized medicine. Research at the medical schools literally stopped, so the best doctors left Austria and emigrated to other countries.

“As for healthcare, our tax rates went up to 80 percent of our income. Newlyweds immediately received a $1,000 loan from the government to establish a household. We had big programs for families.

“All day care and education were free. High schools were taken over by the government and college tuition was subsidized. Everyone was entitled to free handouts, such as food stamps, clothing, and housing.

“We had another agency designed to monitor business. My brother-in-law owned a restaurant that had square tables.

“Government officials told him he had to replace them with round tables because people might bump themselves on the corners. Then they said he had to have additional bathroom facilities. It was just a small dairy business with a snack bar. He couldn’t meet all the demands.

“Soon, he went out of business. If the government owned the large businesses and not many small ones existed, it could be in control.

“We had consumer protection, too

“We were told how to shop and what to buy. Free enterprise was essentially abolished. We had a planning agency specially designed for farmers. The agents would go to the farms, count the livestock, and then tell the farmers what to produce, and how to produce it.

“In 1944, I was a student teacher in a small village in the Alps. The villagers were surrounded by mountain passes which, in the winter, were closed off with snow, causing people to be isolated.

“So people intermarried and offspring were sometimes retarded. When I arrived, I was told there were 15 mentally retarded adults, but they were all useful and did good manual work.

“I knew one, named Vincent, very well. He was a janitor of the school. One day I looked out the window and saw Vincent and others getting into a van.

“I asked my superior where they were going. She said to an institution where the State Health Department would teach them a trade, and to read and write. The families were required to sign papers with a little clause that they could not visit for 6 months.

“They were told visits would interfere with the program and might cause homesickness.

“As time passed, letters started to dribble back saying these people died a natural, merciful death. The villagers were not fooled. We suspected what was happening. Those people left in excellent physical health and all died within 6 months. We called this euthanasia.

“Next came gun registration. People were getting injured by guns. Hitler said that the real way to catch criminals (we still had a few) was by matching serial numbers on guns. Most citizens were law-abiding and dutifully marched to the police station to register their firearms. Not long afterwards, the police said that it was best for everyone to turn in their guns. The authorities already knew who had them, so it was futile not to comply voluntarily.

“No more freedom of speech. Anyone who said something against the government was taken away. We knew many people who were arrested, not only Jews, but also priests and ministers who spoke up.

“Totalitarianism didn’t come quickly, it took 5 years from 1938 until 1943, to realize full dictatorship in Austria. Had it happened overnight, my countrymen would have fought to the last breath. Instead, we had creeping gradualism. Now, our only weapons were broom handles. The whole idea sounds almost unbelievable that the state, little by little eroded our freedom.”

“This is my eyewitness account.

“It’s true. Those of us who sailed past the Statue of Liberty came to a country of unbelievable freedom and opportunity.

“America is truly is the greatest country in the world. “Don’t let freedom slip away.

“After America, there is no place to go.”

Kitty Werthmann

In post 1.50 you claim that a change in DUI laws in the 70's reduced deaths from DUI 200% so you are saying that the new laws brought people back to life who died in a DUI accident. If it is reduced by 100% then no one died. Basic math is all you need to not look like an idiot.

Quote: "

GungaDin

It is quite simple really.

You have a CONSTITUTIONAL right to own and keep guns.

But the remaining citizens of this great country also have a CONSTITUTIONAL right to AMEND the constitution through their duly elected representatives.

You live in a democracy. If enough number of people believe that you should not own assault weapons or high capacity magazines - I regret to inform you - you will not be able to keep them. That is how it works in a democracy. The will of the MAJORITY overrules the MINORITY.

Don't like it ? You are welcome to leave the US and go to say - Somalia - Where you can pretty much do whatever you please."

FOR THE LAST TIME: The United States is a REPUBLIC, NOT a DEMOCRACY.

Back away from your GameBoy, go BACK to school (that you obviously flunked out of the first time) and learn real history about the Foundation of America.

Chad....don't be so f@cking stupid! If there were 100 deaths in 1971 from DUI accidents, and in 1983 there were 25 deaths from DUI accidents, the percentage of amount of deaths from DUI accidents DECREASED 200%. Either you knew exactly what I meant and are just an a$$hole, or you are just an a$$hole. Which is it?

JimSpence

Chris from Yucaipa

Loonies with delusions of self importance who actually believe that: #1 The US will EVER become like that. And #2 That they would get into a firefight with government troops at their home.

Hmmmm, so first you insist it will never happen and then you admit a firefight is possible.

So which is it?

My statement admits at no time that it will happen, it's a response to his belief that it will.

Sigh this is so sad, most of you who know the second amendment don't know that its meaning was modified and clarified by the supreme court in 2008. There in lies the right to keep your arms. Removing a small fraction of guns doesn't help the situation it addresses a symptom not the cause, mental health and neglect. In fact by continuing to slowly remove some guns most people drop their guard like its ok its just those, till eventually text is modified so perfectly in each amendment of a bill (even ones not relating to the subject such as the health care bill appropriations) that owning any kind of weaponry that releases even a bb is against the law. If the National Defense Authorization act can slip past everyone to include the indefinite detention of citizens for however long... Even the media itself didnt report this, then I wonder how long till something else outrageous pops in. Obama himself supports the patriot act so im inclined to still press for gun rights. The 2nd amendment doesn't mean what most think it literally means. And by modern translation from the surpreme court it doesn't address militia, it addresses everyone's individual right to bare arms.

Banning a small fraction of weapons doesn't solve the problem, that's easy to see unless you just fear guns. I don't own a gun, but I do like the right to purchase them if need be. That's America.

Jim5769, #1.180- Thanks for correcting my above post from #1.15 to #1.5. (even if inadvertantly having done so, for me)

Since I've got you here, what do you think the meaning of "the right of the people....shall not be infringed" is? And can you keep that answer, specifcally, "in context" to the 2nd Amendment?

And since we're talking about The Constitution, here, can you possibly make a "legal" argument, as your answer? (if you do answer) You know, beginning with a broad argument and then definitively narrowing it down, somewhat like I tried to do in my above post, going from Declaration of Independence to the foundational nuts and bolts or nails and hammers of The Constitution.

@Brenda

First of all, a "well-regulated" militia means well SUPPLIED. It does NOT mean regulated by the Gov. The intent was for the citizenry to be ARMED and DANGEROUS by themselves. Understand? ARMED and DANGEROUS to help protect the country. If these guys had just finished a bloody mass-exodus from Great Britain, why in the hell would they want the Gov to be regulating everything? Think about it.

However, things were indeed as you had said, very different in that age. Back then, men were men and women were women. You had to work hard to survive. You had to have something called courage and integrity to be apart of society. You had to prove your worth and life was short. Nowadays, the population has grown along with technology to the point where times have changed and people can marry their dog and do crazy @!$%# and it's all ok. I understand that.

The thing is, some things never change ok? People have not changed. We still commit murder and then we revisit all of the crimes on our children. With all of this knowledge we supposedly posses, people are still f*cked up. Not to mention all the racial tension and the bad seed walking around here with no one to raise it and the young entitlement crowd who don't want to work or contribute.

No, we still need guns. And we need Assault Weapons you know... to protect us from our neighbors and our Gov. We still need these things. You and Larry and the rest can argue ALL DAY about statistics and what have you, however, a pistol will only do so much good and can't break thru body armor. Assault Rifle can. Get it? We still need guns, we don't need a larger Gov. Although I voted for Obama to protect social security, but that's a different story.

I'm not about this.

Well, this was fun. Go, Gun Nuts, GO! Amuse me. Your time has come and gone, and it is my hope that this nation purges itself of all guns, not just assault-style guns. The masses are sick and tired of your perverted views of the 2nd Amendment, and we're sick and tired of living in fear that our children will be killed in schools or in movie theaters. In the absence of a total abolition, I pray every gun owner and would-be gun owner will have to undergo extensive psychiatric evals, background checks, credit checks, pay exorbidant taxes and fees for guns and ammo, be unable to purchase caches of weapons and ammo, and be required to be renew their gun licenses every year. Those are but a few ways to make sure gun owners are help accountable for the weapons they own. Close the gun show and Internet loopholes as well, and throw in random home inspections while we're at it. Responsibility ain't cheap!

No matter what the constitution says or what laws are passed criminals will still use firearms because there is no way to completely get rid of all the guns on the face of the Earth. The only people that will be disarmed/restricated are law abiding citizens. If someone is willing to risk death or going to jail for life by going crazy and murdering off a bunch of people what do they care if they are breaking the gun laws? A 10 year sentence for illegal gun ownership doesn't make a difference if you're already getting a life sentence for 1st degree murder. Slavery, murder, drug sale/use, assault/battery, etc ALL of these are completely illegal yet every day women are sold as sex slaves, someone is murdered (with or without a gun), someone is hitting a crack rock, someone is physically attacking someone else. Just because it is illegal doesn't mean that it will not happen.

The root of the problem isn't the gun, the bat, the drug, or any other device... It is the decay of the moral fabric of society. We as a country have been producing broken families for generations now. The majority of these tragic events have been committed by angry young men and there are more and more being made everyday. 10 - 15 year old boys that are becoming men with no father figures to guide them and a mother that can't handle their son's actions because she is becoming more physically outmatched day by day and her only option is to seek help from the government. Then law enforcement does nothing to help... usually when they get involved the problem is handled temporarily, but it just makes the child that much more angry with his life and society as a whole.

JimSpence, #1.181- Thank you so much for the reply. I still have to go back and re-read it (and will), but first I just wanted to put this out here:

unalienable: Archaic "not to be separated"; "inalienable" (then the usage as in the cited Declaration of Independence" [American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, large red hardcover, page 1393]

@asknreceive1-1054310

And I would say anyone who would try and "forcibly remove" someone else's CONSTITUTIONAL and GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS just because they're opinion differs is criminally insane and is grossly un-american.

And you must be crazy if you think you're going take my guns away from me just because I am a responsible gun owner w/ no criminal record and a veteran of 6yrs.

Nazis took away people's guns too and look what they did in the Concentration camps and tying pregnant Jewish women's legs together to see what would happen along with their other "experiments".

The crazy people are the ones who are not sane or stable enough to own a gun. And it seems you are one of these people.

You guys hate on us Run and Gun folks right now, but... ask yourself this... Tomorrow they come for us, so, what will you do the day when they come for you? Who will protect you? Who will stand in the way to buy time for you to run out the back? Who will take up the cause for your freedom? For the preservation of you and you family?

Dark One....first of all, do you really think that god gave you the right to own a gun?? Really? And, if it is a god-given and Constitutional right, why do we not allow criminals and the legally insane to own guns? Seems to me we are restricting their rights to own a gun, and since you probably agree with that, by your definition above, that would make you crimanally insane and un-american. I asked the question way back, but I'll ask it again. If the government decides to change the Constitution and make it illegal to own any gun, much like they did with prohibition, would you as adamantly support that law as you do the second amendment now?

For all of you arguing your "inalienable rights" ... and implying that's part of the constitution (or just plain stating that) ... PLEASE GO BACK TO SCHOOL.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That's NOT in the Constitution. It's in the Declaration of Independence. Note it also says that "all men are created equal" and we know how THAT worked out, right? (Remember slavery?). The Delcaration is a wonderful document ... but it's NOT the law of the land. The Constitution is.

Also, rghts guaranteed in the Constitution have NOTHING to do with God. So please, don't try to tell us that gun ownership, free speech or anything else is a "God given right". God is NOT in the Constitution.

The Constitution can also be amended. It specifies JUST how to do that. In fact, the 2nd Amendment itself is just that -- an amendment or change to the original document. We've made lots of changes over the past couple hundred years as people realized that the situation that existed in this country when the Constitution was written has also changed. Isn't it nice that the writers were smart enough to give us the ability to do that ... without making it too easy?

mj899 (#1.183)

Excellent post.

It’s a shame so many aren’t taught the real history of our nation and the world, for that matter.

No more proof of the need to keep as many arms as possible against an oppressive government is needed than your post. It's a shame so many Americans have become so brainwashed into believing the government actually wants to help them. Its purpose is delineated in the Constitution and its function is mandated fully in Article 1, Section 8.

It's a shame we have a statist instead of a president trespassing in our White House. When Barrack Hussein admits he doesn't believe the Constitution is a Charter of Negative Liberties the Peoples only defense is to arm ourselves as fully as possible.

A president ignoring the most important feature of the Constitution should outrage every real American.

Hey pro when did the drug war become a solely liberal agenda? when you decided you don't agree with it? Fact is politicians on both sides push it and have been for years.

The state on Illinois is giving 250,000 Drivers Licenses to Illegal Aliens. That means that there are at least 250,000 Illegal aliens in Illinois. The licenses will be a different color and cannot be used for IDs.

More people are killed each year by an Illegal Alien with a car in their hands than with any type of gun.

The Illegals will probably claim that they are being victims of Racial Profiling, and Obama will most likely send a U.S. Attorney to the illinois supreme Court fight against the Different colof of the licenses.

In Milwaukee there were 32 incidents in 2012, of Illegal Aliens who were driving the wrong way on the expressway and over 40 innocent people died. There were Babies and Women and Children who died at the hands of Illegal aliens. There were also 7 incidents of american citizens who were drunk and driving and got in collisions on the expressway while driving the wrong way.

Do the Math.

The "Biden-Feinstein Columbine Massacre" happened During the Biden-Feinstein assault weapons ban. No gun ban is going to stop these mentally unstable people from "Going Postal" and killing innocent people.

the people who really nee a psychological evaluation are Dianne Feinstein, Joe "Drunken Uncle Biden, Harry Reid, Nancy pelosi, and others who are acting like they have dimentia and onset senility.

Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi and joe Biden's hands shake like they are beginning to show signs of Alsheimers Disease. They exhibit other signs also, like losing their train of thought and head shaking uncontrollably. and the signs of Dementia is exhibeted by uncontrollable anger for no reason.

Harry Reid has trouble doing his job as evidensed by the fact that there are over 200 bills on his "desk" waiting to be brought up for a vote. And there has been no budget passed in the last 3 years.

The current administration seems unable to do it's job for mental health reasons and I believe that this is a state of Emergency.

And a state of Emergency exhists at the southern border, because Obama* is not capable to stop the flow on insurgents and illegal trafficking in human beings.

The Repeatedly Unanswered calls for help from the Ambassador and other public employees at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi are clear evidense of Obama* and Hillary "mrs. Impeached Clinton's incompetance.

If they this administration cannot defend the U.S. Border, and a U.S. Consulate and Embassys in other countrys, what makes you think that they can live up to their oaths of office to defend The Constitution of The United states of America From all Enemies, Foreign and Domestic ?

Face it ! they are not capable of doing their jobs.

stevef00: When there was a rise in drunken driving deaths in the 70s, we changed the laws considerably in order to decrease the number of DUI accidents...we did change the laws enough to decrease the number of deaths by 200 percent.

We went 200% in the other direction? That would imply we either raised the dead, or the drunk drivers hopped in the back seat and... well,... we ended up with twice as many people than those that were killed.

Just wondering.

We're not trying to take away anyone's right to bear arms, we're only trying to take away certain types of arms that no one has any business with anyway.

We're not trying to take away anyone's right to free speech, we're only trying to take away certain types of speech that no has any business with anyway.

We're not trying to take away anyone's right to religion, we're only trying to take away certain types of religion that no has any business with anyway.

We're not trying to take away anyone's right to a free press, we're only trying to take away certain types of free press that no has any business with anyway.

You know? It sounds really goddamn weird when you try to make these anti-second amendment arguments apply to the first.

And you know, I don't hear anyone complaining about the subversion and erosion of our 4th amendment rights. Our good ol' government recently renewed the warrantless surveillance act. Where's the outrage?

http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/technolog/senate-renews-warrantless-surveillance-act-1C7753034

Guns aren't what kills people in droves. The subscription to malevolent dogmas is. Like the Jonestown massacre: 918 lives lost, or 9/11: nearly 3,000 lives lost to radical Islam. And eventually an oppressive government will outdo all of these.

and what the F does "republic not a democracy" mean anyway ?

Any which way you swing it, bottamline is that in this country we vote on issues and the outcome dictates what happens and what does not happen.

So if you think you live in a republic - fine - as long as you understand that if enough people vote for curtailing gun rights - that is how it will be.

@steve

Why yes, I do think God gave us the right to own guns. This is called private property.

"Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and give to God the things that are Gods" Not to get too religious, but the state has it's place and God has his place.

The state should represent the people. A representative Gov is best not a Democracy. It's not going to be perfect. However, the Lord or well... hmmm... at least my God is a God of freewill.

Just because you own a gun does not make you criminally insane. Trying to force someone and break them down to what you think and what you want is criminal and it is crazy. This would other types of arguments, not just about guns.

Aaaaand as we see here, I am not trying to force others to go my way or force anything on anyone but everyone is trying to force themselves on me. If you hardcore lefties want to give up your guns, fine. Give it up b*tch. They can take mine when they pick them up from my lifeless corpse. Because the Gov is the solution to some things.

And as I have stated above, even Jesus knew this, the Gov is not the answer to everything. Sooner or later it comes down to the husband and wife to defend their family and take care of what's theirs. You may disagree, but behind the shallow wallpaper in the society is the real world.

There may come a day and indeed for some has already come where they are living in the real world and know the price of freedom. It may be God giving but it is not for free and not everyone wants it.

@Beth

Just saw your post, hey so... who really cares what is or isn't in the Constitution? Big deal, the right to bear arms was implied. In other words, for the "founders" it was a given to have firearms.

Again, here we see the same sh*t. You hate God, ok fine. Maybe you have a reason for it, I dunno. But I don't hate God and I don't hate guns.

You guys are sooo mad at the church(s) for being oppressive, well I am too come think of it, however, if this is the case then you're becoming like them by forcing what you think is best on everyone.

No one is trying to force freedom on you if you don't want it. But some of do want it and we will have it.

whiskey eye

at chris- you are the delusional one that doesn't think the u.s. cant be like that . i can guarantee you have never been in the military to see what your sweet government is capable of doing

Sorry chump, but I've got 13 years active duty. But nice try. What the @!$%# have you done?

The whole concept of the Second Amendment is that We The People will ALWAYS be Armed against ANY and EVERY form of Tyranny.

How can I make a statement like that? Because of the second part, “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Notice that NONE of the other Amendments has this peculiar rider…SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Shall Not Be Infringed means CAN NEVER BE VIOLATED, it means, CAN NEVER BE LEGISLATED AGAINST, it means CAN NEVER BE REMOVED.

“Shall not be Infringed” means that ANY Politician who tries to take away the guns of American Citizens is a Traitor, and Traitors get…(surprise, surprise) SHOT.

Read some quotes from the Men who WROTE the Second Amendment as to its purpose and priority:

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

The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. ~ Thomas Jefferson

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good. ~ George Washington

The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. ~ Samuel Adams

So, the next time you hear a smug self-righteous Liberal/Progressive declare that “Semi-Automatic Weapons are dangerous and should be banned.”…give ‘em Both Barrels! Just remember that Truth is as unknown to the Tyrant as Snow is unknown in the Sahara.

Know guns, know peace, know safety....No guns, no peace, no safety.

@ chris - i was at Ia Drang Valley BRAVO COMPANY, 1ST BATTALION, 22 INFANTRY REGIMENT ,4TH INFANTRY DIVISION . i will post my DD214 IF YOU WILL YOURS

Mystery Rhee

Jim5769, #1.180- Thanks for correcting my above post from #1.15 to #1.5. (even if inadvertantly having done so, for me)

Since I've got you here, what do you think the meaning of "the right of the people....shall not be infringed" is? And can you keep that answer, specifcally, "in context" to the 2nd Amendment?

And since we're talking about The Constitution, here, can you possibly make a "legal" argument, as your answer? (if you do answer) You know, beginning with a broad argument and then definitively narrowing it down, somewhat like I tried to do in my above post, going from Declaration of Independence to the foundational nuts and bolts or nails and hammers of The Constitution.

#1.189 - Sat Jan 12, 2013 1:07 PM EST

You seem to be confusing me with JimSpence, because my post wasn't a response to anything from you (and you also seem to be confused about which posts are yours, unless you're posting under multiple user names--posts #1.5, #1.15, and even #1.115 aren't from you).

Jim5769

Mystery Rhee

Jim5769, #1.180- Thanks for correcting my above post from #1.15 to #1.5. (even if inadvertantly having done so, for me)

Since I've got you here, what do you think the meaning of "the right of the people....shall not be infringed" is? And can you keep that answer, specifcally, "in context" to the 2nd Amendment?

And since we're talking about The Constitution, here, can you possibly make a "legal" argument, as your answer? (if you do answer) You know, beginning with a broad argument and then definitively narrowing it down, somewhat like I tried to do in my above post, going from Declaration of Independence to the foundational nuts and bolts or nails and hammers of The Constitution.

#1.189 - Sat Jan 12, 2013 1:07 PM EST

You seem to be confusing me with JimSpence, because my post wasn't a response to anything from you (and you also seem to be confused about which posts are yours, unless you're posting under multiple user names--posts #1.5, #1.15, and even #1.115 aren't from you).

#1.209 - Sat Jan 12, 2013 11:38 PM EST

I should have dug through the discussion thread some more before responding. You seem to have been under the impression that I'd read your post #1.177, in which you cited (incorrectly) post "#1.15"--I hadn't.

As for what you asked, if you think it means something other than precisely what it says, then you really should be explaining YOUR thought process. If the fact that the people are the militia, and that the people's individually-owned weapons are expected to serve them as military weapons (and fully adequate to protect them against crime, foreign invasion, and domestic oppression), manage to escape anyone who has read the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, and other writings of the founders related to this topic, then that person is being deliberately obtuse. As a side note, I personally find it somewhat amusing that so much of the current discussion revolves around firearms, when "arms" actually means weapons of any type. I think of bans on certain knives, etc., being just as un-Constitutional infringements of the 2nd Amendment as gun bans.

If you have a substantive question or comment on something that was in my post, then have at it. But I'm not going to pretend there is any valid dispute over the intent and meaning of the 2nd Amendment. You could try reading Andrew Napolitano's article if you're still not sure what I think the 2nd Amendment means (he summed it up pretty well): http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/10/the-right-to-shoot-tyrants-not-deer/

whiskey eye

@ chris - i was at Ia Drang Valley BRAVO COMPANY, 1ST BATTALION, 22 INFANTRY REGIMENT ,4TH INFANTRY DIVISION . i will post my DD214 IF YOU WILL YOURS

Ah so Vietnam era vet. Thus your issues with the government.

USS Ingersoll DD-990 during the 1st Gulf War. E-6. Along with Instructor in San Diego, Recruiter in San Francisco, and Lead Tech in the IT Dept at Balboa Naval Hospital.

i was getting shot at while you where chasing nurses . go figure

Don't be jealous :)

@ Dark one

Just saw your post, hey so... who really cares what is or isn't in the Constitution? Big deal, the right to bear arms was implied. In other words, for the "founders" it was a given to have firearms.

Who really cares about the Constitution? Frankly, I do. I raised my hand and put on a uniform to defend it. So I care. And yes, what's in the Constitution IS a "a big deal".

(And of" course it was a "given" to have guns back in that time .. no guns, no food on the table. But, nowhere in my post did I advocate against guns.)

Again, here we see the same sh*t. You hate God, ok fine. Maybe you have a reason for it, I dunno. But I don't hate God and I don't hate guns.

Where did I say I hated God or hated guns? I just pointed out God was not in the Constitution. That was done for the protection of ALL religions. Therefore, our RIGHTS are not granted by God, but by the founders who wrote the Constitution (and ratified it). Maybe you should study that Constitution a bit more ... oh wait, you don't care what 's in it.

You guys are sooo mad at the church(s) for being oppressive, well I am too come think of it, however, if this is the case then you're becoming like them by forcing what you think is beston everyone.

Really? Who is the "you guys" that I'm supposed to be part of?

No one is trying to force freedom on you if you don't want it. But some of do want it and we will have it.

Sorry, where did my post indicate that I was opposed to freedom? I'm opposed to ignorance. But, I think mayhaps the in the (paraphrased) words of the immortal bard "Methinks he doth protest too much."

heidi-6712632Restored

Amendments are not absoute, which means there can be limitations. The gun law is not to take away all the weapons it is to place limitations on gun owership. Why can't people understand that?

To compare killing with a baseball bat or a knife is just ridiculous. How many people can you kill with a bat or knife? This argument does not sell.

And what did McVeigh use? A truck bomb!

What did the terrorists in 9-11 use? Airplanes!

Both those events killed men, women and children in far greater numbers than Sandy Hook.

So much for your argument.

WAKE UP!!!!!-I'm reposting this from earlier to EXPOSE this FACT, and HOPEFULLY get some more debate on the SOURCE of the PROBLEM:

In 1957 there were over 500,000+ institutionalized in State Mental Institutions and we had reasonable involuntary commitment laws. We had no modern "gun control" laws, could buy your M1 Carbine through the mail along with all the 30 round magazines you wanted- yet mass random shootings NEVER HAPPENED!!! Was 1957 America a police state? Doctors and judges made the decision who to keep in the loony bin, and they could not get out until they were no longer a threat to self or a public threat. You still
had the rights to a lawyer and judge to prove your sanity and get out if there was no basis for the decision.

Today we have emptied and closed the State Mental Institutions, created the homeless population, made involuntary commitment impossible until AFTER you commit a crime- and then try and blame guns for the actions of the mental patients!!! Jared Laughner parents tried to get him help at least twice but were turned down for lack insurance, neighbors said he would ride around on his bike talking to himself, school said he was unbalanced- in the PAST he would have been institutionalized long before he shot Gabby based on his obvious illness!

Virginia Tech- School teachers said he was unbalanced- in the PAST he would have been
institutionalized based on his obvious behavior!!!

Colorado- His college psychiatrist was so alarmed by Holmes that she had him banned from the campus, but nothing else. Colorado media, including the Denver Post, reported last month that Fenton rejected a law enforcement offer to involuntarily confine Holmes for 72 hours after he told her six weeks before the shooting that he fantasized about killing "a lot of people." In the PAST- she could have had him involuntarily committed BEFORE he hurt anyone, you didn't have to wait until they were an imminent threat to themselves or others!!! What was even the POINT of him trying to get help from the psychiatrist when all she did was ban him from the school???!!!

Even Charles Whitman in 1966, the first of these crazed mass shooters warned authorities before hand by seeking help from Texas University's school psychiatrist- repeatedly! He had severe migraine headaches and extreme anger that HE knew was irrational, turned out he had a BRAIN TUMOR- discovered AFTER his death!!! He even told his psychiatrist he was fantasizing about shooting people from the tower!!! If his school psychiatrist had remotely done his job he would have gotten the help he sought.

To this day Texas University won't release all of Whitman's medical records, claiming the deceased right to privacy"- so the school won't be SUED!!!!

Newtown CT-Mother was so scared of her son she told sitters not to turn their backs on him even if they went to the bathroom, but with him not having committed a crime involuntary commitment is virtually impossible and there is no where to send him. 40 years ago he would have been institutionalized in a State Mental Institution based on his behavior.

You know where the largest State Mental Institution in Connecticut is?

NEWTOWN, CT- And it’s been CLOSED for DECADES! This is NOT a "gun control" issue!

I am tired of hearing the living document arguement...The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon....pretty simple sentence, no way around it. It says the right to posses and carry a weapon shall not be limited....key word being limited (that is what infringed upon means, limited, changed). The constitution is not a living document. It is as literal as any other legally binding document. next time i dont want to pay my bills or taxes i should just tell them the contracts and laws are living documents, and that I intepret them to mean other things now...sounds stupid doesn't it? Well thats exactly what the supreme court has done and what all you living document advocates are doing. The problem is when you open that door for one thing, it opens it for others...what will you do if the government deems that women do not have the right to vote because times have changed, or that slavery would be beneficial again and that since times changed the constitution changed? The fact is, the second amendment states you cannot limit the ownership or ability to carry a weapon in the US without first amending the constitution and bill of rights. To say anything else is a bold faced lie and in fact quiet ignorant and childish.The living document arguement is the equivalent to all the people trying to find loopholes (birth certificate, impeachment) to get rid of Obama because they didnt agree with him or get their way in the election. The living Document arguement is jusu a bunch of people trying to create a loophole where there isn't one so they can have their way. Just like most of you anti-gun nazis tell the GOP about Obama being re-elected....that's the law that's the way it is...shut up and get over it.

Steve-3564331

ProIndividual-3906907

...

If you also read what whiskey eye (1.64) posted you will have a better understanding of the words your trying to twist to fit your agenda.

#1.90 - Sat Jan 12, 2013 9:04 AM EST

Steve, what whiskey eye posted in #1.64 actually supports what ProIndividual said, so I'm not sure why you're suggesting it contradicts him. I have to wonder whether YOU read post #1.64 based on some of your arguments.

I don't want to "grab guns". But I am for more gun and ammunition regulation. I am also for tracking all guns and ammunition sales via some kind of national database. Bullets and guns are meant to kill. Period. More regulation is needed. Way to much blood on the streets now, way way too much. Something needs to happen now.

Guns and bullets are meant to defend too Casual but you seem to ignore this one.

wrong on alll count CINUSA/ A lot of noise doesn't mean there's a lot of votes. You've got the noise but not the votes. WHo are the gun=grabbbers, anywsay? Phantasms you torture yourself with. Or are you referrring to the army of Islamic SPider MOnkeys the Pre4sident is training to go down your chimney necxt CHristmas eve to steal your automatic weapons?Your fear and emotional apppeal only goes so far when face to face with reality. By the way, I keeep a .22 to shoot vARMINTS AND IT WORKS PRETTTY GOOD.

Yay more of the dumbass "the negro is coming for my guns" rhetoric. Hysterical fear-mongering is about all you gun nuts can produce. I'm amused because I can sit here and mentally picture some slob clutching a 30 round mag in both hands crying and screaming "nononononono!"

Two things. very few want to be gun grabbers. Vice President Biden is looking for solutions, every one that was discussed will be used. Try to calm down and see that people want solutions to gun violence, not to take your guns away.

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

There are two ways to
conquer & enslave a nation.

One is by the
sword.

The other is by debt."
John Adams 1826

Bless your silence.

For those who think nobody should have a firearm for protection, consider this story – If she didn't have a gun for protection, we can only shudder at what the stalker might have done to her and her two children;

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/10/16449815-911-tape-shoot-him-again-husband-tells-wife-hiding-from-home-intruder?lite&lite=obnetwork

Let me preface my comments by stating that I'm a political atheist, I don't care what political religion one wants to attach themselves to.

Why don't the the presstitutes report all the murders we perpetrate on other countries and where are the progressives regarding the hundreds of thousands of children killed by our country in our name?

Consider the Sandy Hook school shooting. This shooting serves as an excuse for anti gun lobbyists to express their hatred of guns and the NRA and to advance their gun control agenda. Few if any of those hyperventilating over the tragedy know any of the parents of the murdered children. They have shown no similar response to the US government’s murder of countless thousands of Muslim children. You anti-gun lobbyists/posters are hypocrites! The Clinton regime alone killed 500,000 Iraqi children with illegal sanctions, and Clinton’s immoral secretary of state Madeleine Albright, a feminist hero, said that she thought the sanctions were worth the cost of one half million dead Iraqi children. The Bush regime is just as guilty.

Suddenly, 20 US children become of massive importance to “progressives.” Why? Because the deaths foster their agenda–gun control in the US. Rifles first then handguns.

When I hear people talk about “gun violence,” I wonder what has happened to language. A gun is an inanimate object. An inanimate object cannot cause violence. Humans cause violence. The relevant question is: why do humans cause violence? This obvious question seldom gets asked. Instead, inanimate objects are blamed for the actions of humans.

I don't know letsgoblues, I've heard those worried about the government taking their guns here called paranoid-schizophrenics, but, isn't Obama now considering just that?? Isn't that what we're discussing here? Maybe not so paranoid, eh.

I live in Northern California in the foothills of the mountains, and I own a shotgun and a rifle. No one said anything about taking our guns away. Why is everyone panicking? I am not worried, but I sure as heck don't need an assault rifle. I don't need an armored vehicle or tank, I don't need bombs or weapons of mass destruction. What are you worried about? Nothing has been said about taking gun rights away or changing the second amendment. Just limiting military style weapons.

Hello folks, to all the lemmings that would and will stand by while their civil liberties are taken away you can thank us later. You call people who speak truth to power paranoid. You go to the airports and allow the TSA to molest you. You allow the Patriot Act, FISA, NDAA, NDRP to get enacted and you don't even know what's in those liberty stripping laws. You allow your government to use armed spy drones in American skies! You've given the government the authority to surveill you through any number of Federal agencies, have your phone and computer tapped, bank, medical, and private records accessed. You have given the government the authority to arrest you without gaining access to an attorney or a trial (NDAA). This isn't paranoia this is fact! What's next sheeple, if the MSM reports there is a suppository bomber will you all line up to bend over at the airports or any public place? What about what is going on in Texas?

In San Antonio, Texas the Northside Independent School District is now experimenting with "locator" chips in student ID badges on two campuses, allowing administrators to track the whereabouts of 4,200 students with GPS-like precision. If you don't believe me look it up!

Administrators say the chips make students safer and will help boost attendance records that are used to calculate badly needed state funding.

A student, Hernandez, has filed a law suit against Northside – the fourth-largest school district in Texas – argues that the ID rule violates her religious beliefs. Her family says the badge is a "mark of the beast" that goes against their religion. As a result of her refusal, the school is transferring her which will put an undue hardship on her and her family. This also sends a clear message to anyone who doesn't conform to this civil liberties violation.

But U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia on Tuesday denied a request to stop her from being transferred, saying the badge requirement "has an incidental effect, if any, on (Hernandez's) religious beliefs."

It is starting folks, first a GPS chip in your ID then a RFID chip under your skin. I'm just waiting to hear the sheeple say, IT'S FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY. The sheeple will fall to their knees in support and call anybody a tinfoil paranoid schizophrenic who doesn't allow this to happen to their child. Let's see how the propaganda disinformation trolls spin this one!

Those that have the intestinal fortitude to see what is happening knows why it is so important that we not allow our government to tamper with our 2^nd Amendment rights. The evidence doesn't get any clearer. To the cowardly sheeple, no one has the illusion that they would win a battle against the military, it's not about winning or losing, it's about self respect. I would rather die standing then serving on my knees. People should not fear their government, the government should fear the people!

You sheeple have the gall to call us Patriots fearful, who are the ones standing up for our rights and who are the ones handing over their civil liberties for a little perceived security?

When Benjamin Franklin left Independence Hall just after the second drafting he was approached by a woman on the street and she asked what manner of government have you bequeathed us? And Franklin said a Republic Mam, if you can keep it. The responsibility of a country is not in the hands of a privileged few. We are strong and we are free from tyranny as long as each one of us remembers his or her duty as a citizen whether it is to report a pot hole at the top of your street or lies at a State of the Union Address or standing up for your Constitutional rights. Speak out ask those questions, demand that truth. Democracy is not a free ride but this is where we live and if we do our job this is where our children will live.

America used to be Land of the Free and Home of the Brave now we are Land of the Detained and Home of the Cowards! Wake up before you allow more of your civil liberties to be stolen! Give the government an inch and they will take a mile. Rifles first then handguns!

TrustVerify, I tend to agree but let me slightly play devil's advocate here and say I think humans have always cared more about the death of their own. Their tribe, as it were.

And, guns are items of violence. There is no other reason they exist except to inflict violence. Target-shooting is merely practice for shooting living beings. We're not exactly talking about cupcakes here. I don't think you'd want to give all Americans access to nuclear launch codes and say it's not the nuclear launch codes that are the problem, it's the people. Gun control is a matter of practicality, not philosophy.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials. — George Mason

An instance within the memory of some of this house will show us how our militia may be destroyed. Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliment was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia. — George Mason

Chicago has strict gun laws, enough said. Very few deaths have been attributed to legal gun owners, the criminals will always find a way to get guns.

What bothers me about the whole debate is the fact that in all of these cases the guns being used are NOT Assault rifles with large capacity magazines. and yet thats what ppl seem to be focusing on. the problem isnt the guns.. its the ppl using them. I am very much a pro-rights person. IF any legislation should be passed I would hope it to be the type that requires gun registrations rather than restrictions

The Constitution was written as a living document. It's provisions are left deliberately vague so that they could be interpreted to suit the unknown circumstances in the future. It was made in a way that could be changed. It is not written in stone.

The right to bare arms is already restricted in many ways, that have been upheld by the Supreme court.

Convicted felons have lost their right. (But if it is a right, it cannot be lost, must be a priviledge.)

Freed slaves were restricted from owning a gun.

Many types of 'arms' are restricted, too many to list here.

The mentally ill are restricted.

It is the right of the militia (now, our standing army) that has never been restricted.

What does that indicate about the interpretation of the second ammendment?

No legal, sane gun owner should object to psychological testing before being granted the right to own a firearm.

No firearm should be operated while under the influence of alcohol.

Hello qwerpa, launch codes, really? No, I'm talking about understanding that we live in a violent society and our government leads the way on that front by example. We are a product of our environment and until our government changes the way it treats the rest of the world our society will merely be a reflection.

In our short history we have bombed over 65 countries. We have been at war for 217 of our 236 year history. The Sandy Hook killings while tragic doesn't even compare to the hundreds of thousand of children our government has killed in our name. What makes you think if our government is so non-chalant about killing innocent men, women and children all around the world that we are immune if they set their sites on us?

We have lost most of our civil liberties through the passage of the Patriot Act, the Foreign Investigation Surveillance Act (FISA), the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the new National Defense Resources Preparedness (NDRP)! They have authorized the use of spy drones in American skies! You can be surveilled by any number of Federal agencies, have your phone and computer tapped, bank, medical, and private records accessed! You can be arrested without gaining access to an attorney or a trial. We are molested at the airports or radiated for “security”. And just recently added National Defense Resources Preparedness Act (NDRP) which comes on the heels of NDAA. This Executive Order allows the government to take pretty much whatever it wants including crops, farm equipment, vehicles, boats, aircraft and fuel to “prepare” for the national defense. This includes making people work for free. You think I’m kidding about the free labor? Here’s a line straight from the EO that says, “. . . to employ persons of outstanding experience and ability without compensation. . .” This is authorized even in peace time!

To the anti's go look up the FBI crime data. We have a murder rate half of what is was 20 years ago. The murder rate per 100,000 is down over half also. In 2011 the last year for collected data the murder rate with ALL rifles was @3.5% and this is for all model of rifles semi-auto(such as AR-15s) bolt action, lever action, single shot. So WHY are they looking at the AR-15? And by the way if you READ the police report from the Conn. shooting the AR-15 was found IN THE CAR...but the media isn't pointing out that inconvienient fact are they....WHY? How do you anti's feel if they do disarm us ? Will you feel like the folks who disarmed the Germans before Hitlers evil deeds huh? There are more. 170 million people have been killed by there own governments in the last 100 years, but you think it absolutley can't happen here, why are you so sure?

@TV...

Well stated.

And I believe the majority of Americans agree with that sentiment.

The unprecedented maneuvering "around" legal and constitutional requirements by the President have only gotten worst, as has his rhetoric. From recess appointments, to now talk about minting a $1,000,000,000,000 COIN to bypass Congress's authority to control the debt, to talk about Executive Orders on gun control...

WE SHOULD ALL be very concerned...

When it's asked "why does anyone need a 30 round magazine", as a gun owner- and owner of a gun-related business- I respond that it has everything to do with the 2nd Amendment, and our right to defend ourselves against an oppressive government.

Just a few years ago, the thought had NEVER occurred to me that, and actual, ARMED revolution/resistance could occur in our Republic.

I am fearful, that may be in our future.

I will never succumb as they did in Nazi Germany, and have my weapons confiscated. Regardless of their armament, I will fight to the death.

The Constitution went into effect in 1789, it is now 2013.
Do ya think theirs a difference from then and now?
Nobody is taking our handgun or rife away.
If you need an assault rifle, I gotta ask. What for?
If you need 20-50 what ever round clip, again. What for?
If you need to hide behind the NRA or the old Constitution then I gotta ask,
what are you hiding that’s so important?
Be proud we have the right to bear arms.

Never owned a gun until this.....My skin crawls with the fact that they're dismantalling the constitution..this president is the worst most anti american i've ever seen...from socializing healthcare to government owned banks....now I own 4 guns and am getting more....when they go after the 1st I'll be buying pens and paper like no tomorrow

Hahaha "backs against the wall"? Wow talk about MSNBC and the rest of the Corporate Media attempting to build False Consciousness and spread Disinformation and Propaganda

Wait an minute and why isn't MSNBC covering the story about No employees of NBC will face criminal charges over the display of a high-capacity ammunition magazine on a "Meet the Press" program in violation of local law in Washington, prosecutors told the network on Friday.

Yet if you or I had committed this "Crime" we would have been prosecuted to the "Full Extent of the Law" yet a Corporate News Minion spewing Anti Gun Propaganda can get by with it on the National News?

See once again it is blatantly shown in the New Plutocratic Amerika what is good for the "Kings Man" will get a "Peasant" Hung!

Now is the time to stand up to Corporate Tyrants and honor the Oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies both foreign (like Piers Morgan) and domestic (like Barrack Obama and his corporate Masters on Wall Street)!

If these Corporate Political Minions want Our Guns let US demand "Investigations" into their Corruption!

Rise up Peasants Peons and Slave their "Masters" once again want to Disarm US and send US to the Wall.......

The Constitution shall never be construed … to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. – Samuel Adams

TrustVerify- Why do humans cause violence? It is in our nature. When I was younger most arguments where settled with a loud discussion, a fist fight, a machete fight or someone getting stabbed with a knife. Nowadays guns are so easily available and transferable that the same argument ends with a coward pulling a gun and murdering his opponent, many times their own spouses and children. Then there are the mentally ill, who suddenly got tired of living and decides to take the lives of dozens before shooting himself or committing himself to life in prison or mental institution. How did they get the guns? Very easy. He was not mentally ill all his life (thus not recorded anywhere). Once you put a gun in somebody's hand it stops being inanimate, its moving parts become alive. How do criminals get hold of firearms? Very easy. Somebody buys a bunch of them in gun shows and resells them to drug gang leaders who distributes them to his soldiers. And they all make money with the blood of all the victims of "GUN VIOLENCE". Control the proliferation of guns and violent humans will return to fist fights and knife stabbing where very few will end up dead. Your "agenda" issue is nothing but a cope out, generated by the Old Wild West mentality of cowboys protecting themselves from the uncivilized Indians (who BTW ended up in reservations because their arrows were no match for the white men's violent guns).

On gang violence:

If the profit is removed from gang culture, the gang loses power and members. See the influence of the end of prohibition. The murder rate dropped sharply.

The 'war' on drugs is a looting of the treasury. All agencies involved try to protect and expand their fiefdoms. There is no motivation th win the war, only to prolong and expand it forever. How stupid is that?

People who want to take drugs will get them and take them weather it is illegal or not. Why futilely try to restrict their freedom, wait... because the drug control industry makes a lot of money out of it. From the Sherriff to the private prisons, a large part of their income is dependant on a never ending 'war' paid for by hundreds of billions of your tax dollars. Time to stop this lunacy.

Make drugs legal and tax them. Gangs will lose their power, crime will drop, murder will drop. It is the easy way to balance the budget.

Junkies will be junkies. If they choose to destroy thier lives, let them. The high crime/murder rate punishes the rest of us.

Are the assault rifles that have been legally purchased prior to this going to be confiscated, and if so, what sort of weapons will the government bring to the doors of those otherwise law-abiding citizens in order to take them if they refuse to turn them over as ordered? If we believe that the second amendment is about the ability of the citizenry to defend itself against a tyrannical government, which there is evidence was the framers' intentions, then shouldn't the citizenry have the right to weapons that give them a fighting chance? The way some of these conversations swing to extremes, I have to ask just what good is my musket supposed to be against the governments' AR15s?

As far as needs for things like AR15s go, most people don't need them for anything at all outside of sport (just like we don't need porn or football or MMA or beer or so many other things that we enjoy, but may or may not be very good for us), but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be allowed to have them. SUVs aren't needed by most either, yet we aren't banning people who don't need them from having them, and cars kill people every second of every day, and especially so when an SUV is involved. There are laws that regulate drivers and how people drive, but there are no laws determining what one may drive, and cars aren't made so that they can't go above the speed limit or so that they can't be driven by someone who is drunk, or so that you can only purchase enough gas to get you to your destination, and when someone speeds, the cop doesn't blame the car, and when someone drives drunk, the family of his victim doesn't say he shouldn't have had access to a Ford Expedition.

These conversations are reactionary and are serving to make villains of decent people who certainly aren't out to do anyone any harm.

lu-1328 etc. and others, a little education is in order.

Your argument started off pretty good but then you blew it. There are no amendments in the constitution that protect your right (that does not exist) to drink beer, watch porn, or drive an SUV nor any of the other examples you mentioned. In fact the commerce clause may actually be used at some time in the future to deny you those privileges.

There is however a second amendment but even that amendment does not grant you the right to own a gun because the government does not have the power under the constitution to give nor take away rights. What the second amendment says is that your God given right to own a gun shall not be infringed by your government. That is entirely different than what most people state as the meaning behind the second amendment.

All of the rights in the bill of rights are much stronger than most realize, but especially for the second amendment because it is the second amendment that guarantees all the others.

So again, the government can not give you the right to own a gun because a government that has the power to give you a right, also has the power to take that right away. Our founding fathers were far more intelligent than most people give them credit.

The beauty of the second amendment, other than being the most important, is that it very carefully states the not so obvious that giving or taking away your right to own a gun is not and never was within the scope of the power of this republic nor its elected representatives, nor the president, nor the judicial branch of this government to do. So long as the republic and the rule of law exists, that will remain constant.

And if the government ever decides otherwise through an unconstitutional power grab, then your right goes further than to simply own a gun. You then have a duty as a free citizen to use that gun to kill the enemies of the constitution that are trying to take away your rights. Got it?

The other argument that needs to be put to rest is the second amendment is limited to allowing the ownership of deer hinting rifles. What gibberish from the gun banners this is. Again, that is not true. Your right to bare arms shall not be infringed which means you can own whatever you want. The purpose of the second amendment is not to control the population of deer in this country. It is to control the population of enemies of the constitution. Nothing more. Nothing less.

As thomas Jefferson so eloquently stated "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriotes and tyrants".. Got it?

Go ahead and ban guns, Go ahead and take them away from the law abiding citizens. That will satisfy the masses. They will finally feel secure and safer. Then the following year when violent crime hits an all time high not seen in 50 years, and armed robbery and gun murders are through the roof, these same people will be shaking their heads wondering what went wrong. Us smart people will know exactly what went wrong. They forgot to get the criminals to turn in their weapons. Since criminals do not obey the law, they kept theirs and will use them on the now weaponless society. The law abiding citizens wil not be able to stop 2.5 milliion violent crimes a year they now stop. Just think, 2.5 million more crimes and probably more since the criminals will be the only ones with guns. Like shooting fish in a barrel. People will say they only want to do away with Assault Rifles and large magazines. Number one there are no Asasult Rifles being sold. That is a fully automatic weapon used by the military. If you take away large clips, the shooter can just use more clips. If they want to curb the use of the weapons, then make it a capital offence to use them by felons or if more than 2 people are injured or killed. Make use of a weapon by a felon a capital offence and execute them within a year of conviction. Period. You bleeding hearts have been keeping these felons alive so there is no incentive for them to not commit these crimes. If these same people would spend the same time and money on the victims rights and push for harsher and quicker punishment of the criminals, then maybe they would comit less crimes but atleast we cam insure it never happens again.

To address you living document advocates once again...The constitution was not written as a living document. It was plainly worded in English. A language you all seem to speak. The wording was not difficult to understand (for the time period...society as a whole is a tad more ignorant these days it seems). It is ink and parchment, nothing EVER changes on it. The living document arguement that the supreme court made, was an attempt to create a loophole where ther was none to further their political agenda. Which is exactly what it is being used to do now. The militia, if you go back and read and research, is the people of each state, not the Federal Army. The right to keep and bear arms was not dependent upon the militia even existing. The militia part is in there to guarantee the rights to raise their own militias if need be. The Federal Government "giving" the states the ntional guard was a way of pacifying them so that they would not raise up a militia to defend states rights against the federal government. However the NG is still ultimately federally, not state controlled. The second amendment is simple in its wording. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon. Infringed-verb-: to break terms of, to limit or undermine. So hence, the right to posses and carry weapons shall not be limited, undermined, or taken away. To say it means anything else is rediculous. Any law including those passed already that limits what someone can and cannot carry, or where they can carry it, is in direct violation of the second amendment. However politicians are too lazy to perform their duties and amend the constitution to add limitation to the second amendment, such as people not owning nuclear wepons, so they create the living document rhetoric because it is the easy way out. the only problem is every political advocate will use it to further their cause and strip away more and more of the American peoples liberties and powers over the Federal Government, as has already happend. I doubt this will get through to any of you because you are to blinded by polititcal envy and hate that you will not take the time to mentally mull it over, you will just see that it disagrees with your parties political agenda and argue against it. Unfortunately for you it is not an arguable matter, however unfortunately for America, people like you and politicians (including supreme court, they are politically driven instead of unbiased like the constitution calls for) have allowed it to be argued and the constitution to be side stepped and illegal loopholes to be created so much, that there is no longer hope for America to survive and be the everlasting empire that our forefathers invisioned and strived for.

just like "well regulated militia" gets left out by the gun zealots.

"well regulated militia" means a body of citizens. Body means a single or group of people. Care to try again culheath?

Definition of MILITIA

1
a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency

b: a body of citizens organized for military service

2
: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

Pretty impressive of a "well regulated militia" to shoot children, the elderly, cars, houses, animals.... Seems like they need help because they do not appear to be very well regulated... and as far as being infringed well, I would say there are thirty thousand families, yearly, who have had their lives infringed by members of this "well regulated militia". It's time for the "well regulated militia" to take some responsibility for the damage they are causing. If anyone's backs against the wall, I would say it would be the innocents who just want to breathe air without bullets in it.

MILITIA

military force composed of ordinary citizens.

A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government.

Then your right to possess surface to air missiles and machine guns are protected as well? Having a right to bear arms doesn't mean there can't be restrictions.

Cin - nah, just wait and see. Add up all the gun deaths over the past ten years and you will find that more Americans died than all the wars we were in in the past sixty years put together. If you, as an advocate, had any control over diminishing guns deaths, then you need to do something besides propagate more guns. I haven't seen any proof of this, though, so the rest of us Americans are going to step up to help you. Don't worry Cin, we are here to help... even though you don't realize it.

Good try. To get the correct perspective on the Bill of Rights, you really first have to read at the very least the preamble. Then, it probably would be a good idea to understand the complete definition of the word "militia". After that try reading works from around the time the constitution was written and the subtle differences in language and syntax. If you understand this, in todays syntax it would read more with the last sentence becoming the lead sentence and then the main reasons following instead of preceding the clause. If you have a difficult time with that, you have to go back to the writings to find the intent of the 2nd amendment. If all of that doesn't work for you, then just by definition a militia is first raised from among the general population and then becomes regulated. If you read the full definition regulated points back to regulation and then to organization and back to organized. Not making that up. In other words, every citizen is part of the current militia at all times whether it is in defense of the country, fraction-ed off in defense of personal liberties, or in defense of the person. Kind of more to think about than part of a complete phrase to make a point. There is a lot more, but hey, this is a comment board for fun opinions. But I would take a look at that preamble before starting to contemplate the Bill of Rights at the very least. Good luck.

All of you folks trying to give definitions of the word "militia", sorry, really need to check out a dictionary that

never mind.

Off to work.

Charlie-295522 you make no sense at all. I find that reason and logic (and facts) are on the side of the people trying to preserve freedom and emotions are all the left has. It's tragic that we even listen too them at all. I think really tough times are coming for this country and it may end up a country torn in two.

oh, and no, "arms" does not mean tanks, cannons, missles... Back to that old dictionary and definition thing again.

culheath

just like "well regulated militia" gets left out by the gun zealots.

And this is always left out by the anti-gun zealots:

John Adams: “Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion… in private self defence.”

Then your right to possess surface to air missiles and machine guns are protected as well?

The original intent? YES. The Founders and Framers intended, and said so specifically, for us to have whatever any temporarily standing army had (because we aren't supposed to have a standing army for more than 2 years unless in an ongoing conflict in the Constitution, Article 1 Section 8, and we never amended it to change that). In the early 19th century private citizens held every weapon legally that the army did....including canons. But see, who can afford tanks, stealth bombers, and surface to air missles today? Almost no one. And it is impossible for the richest man in the world to afford nukes by themselves...it takes a collective capital accumulation like a state to achieve that level of cash to buy and maintain nukes.

So you have no fears even if we returned to the REAL original intent of our 2nd Amendment. But I know, I know, you have a gun paranoia and can't understand how there is NO correlation between arms and murder rates. You don't realize the past 20 years the murder rate has decreased 49% while guns, "assault" rifles, large capacity magazines, and permits to carry have proliferated to historic levels. No correlation equals no causation...but why think about logic, rational thought, critical thought, and facts. Let's all just appeal to emotion and fear.

Times are different now than they were when the second amendment was written. OUR FOREFATHERS WOULD NEVER HAVE ENVISIONED SCHOOL MASSACRES. They would have modified the second amendment if they did. More gun and ammunition regulation is needed now. Enough blood has been shed and our forefathers would agree. This stupid strawman argument about people worrying that the government will take over and "come git my guns" is just an excuse by the dozen or so NRA members who post here. Go live somewhere else. We are tired of the bloodshed.

OUR FOREFATHERS WOULD NEVER HAVE ENVISIONED SCHOOL MASSACRES.

And yet gun proliferaton has no correlation to that. Look up the facts. Mass murder rates peaked in 1929, and have been falling ever since. The media has you cinvinced it's happening more and more when in fact it is happening less and less. The Founders WOULD NOT see that as a convenient excuse to limit an unalienable (not subject to law or border) individual right, sorry. Those tragedies are horrible, but they are not correlated to gun ownership....so they cannot be viewed as causal despite irrational fears.

And let me also remind you that freedom comes with risks. Move to another safer, more tyrannical, country if you like safety over freedom. I and my family will take my chances here. The chance any of us will be murdered by a gn is .0041%...4 in 100,000....same as yours.

CasualUSTaxpayer

OUR FOREFATHERS WOULD NEVER HAVE ENVISIONED SCHOOL MASSACRES.

You are kidding right? There was school shootings even in the 1700s. And before and after that there has been plenty of entire villages massacred.

Yeah, that's the definition of "militia"; Yall are still skipping over the "well-regulated" part, though.

No wet aren't. You think regulate means something it didn't back then.

In Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, which has never been Amended to be changed, it says we may have no standing armies. We were to have standing Navy, and to have militias, which were the Army for all intents and purposes. The militias were there so we didn't have permanent standing army in peace time, as the Founders feared that. If war broke out, the militia would be called up, and the could be funded for no more than 2 years in peace time (and only longer in war time).

To regulate the militia meant to supply, train, and cooridinate them...not govern their members' individual unalienable (not subject to law or border) individual rights to bear arms. It was to be done just a couple times a year.

So what you should be arguing for is that we start following the Constitution and dismiss our standing Army in peace time, or Amend the Constitution finally to reflect the illegal standing army we already have. If you go for the former we can re-assemble all of age males with arms (which legally had to be ALL males of age) for militia duty a couple times a year. If a war breaks out, they ARE the army. If you do the latter you have no reason to regulate them at all. Eithert way, you do not get to infringe upon their right to keep and bear arms.

Repeating some points I posted earlier, the phrase "right of the people" is used in the Bill of Rights exclusively as meaning an individual right not a collective right. And the militia is defined in Federal Law (10USC ch13) as being the entire male citizen population over the age of 17 and up through the age of 45 with certain listed exceptions and additions. The state governments are required to train the militia according to the standards set by Congress, notice that for over 100 years both have been derelict in that duty.

Mass homicides / mass murder rates by the use of firearms have gone up steeply after the federal ban on assault weapons for civilians, ended in 2004.

A few days after the mass shooting in Connecticut, Dr. A. Charles Catania sent us a graph of the 12 deadliest mass shootings in the United States. He showed their effects cumulatively, over time, so that you could see how steep the slope has become in recent years. Since then, a number you have asked whether there is any conclusion to be drawn from the long break in points on the curve, which is to say, the long break in the list of America's deadliest shootings.

By way of an answer, Dr. Catania, a behavioral and experimental psychologist, updated his chart to show the period covered by the federal ban on assault weapons -- 1994 to 2004. He writes:

Here is a new version of my earlier graph on cumulative deaths in mass shootings. In a cumulative display, each data point always includes the total of all the previous entries. The advantage of this kind of display is that the steepness of the line gives a rate, so if one portion is fairly flat and another is fairly steep, the rate for the first part is low and the rate for the second part is high.

The graph is similar to the one I presented before, but now the added shaded area shows the automatic weapons ban. The rate was increasing (the graph was getting steeper) until the ban went into effect. Then it flattened out, but after the ban ended the rate became steeper still. If it keeps going that way, 2013 will not be a good year.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/12/26/16169576-chart-before-and-after-the-assault-weapons-ban?lite

The Unabridged Second Amendment
by J. Neil Schulman
If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers — who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.

A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:

"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."

My letter framed several questions about the test of the Second Amendment, then concluded:

"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' only to 'a well-educated electorate' — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.

And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms — all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.

And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.

It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?

Or will be simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortuned, and our sacred honor?

(C) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About the Author
J. Neil Schulman is the award-winning author of novels endorsed by Anthony Burgess and Nobel-economist Milton Friedman, and writer of the CBS Twilight Zone episode in which a time-traveling historian prevents the JFK assassination. He's also the founder and president of SoftServ Publishing, the first publishing company to distribute "paperless books" via personal computers and modems.

Most recently, Schulman has founded the Committee to Enforce the Second Amendment (CESA), through which he intends to see the individual's right to keep and bear arms recognized as a constitutional protection equal to those afforded in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth amendments.

J. Neil Schulman may be reached through:

The SoftServ Paperless Bookstore, 24-hour bbs: 213-827-3160 (up to 9600 baud).
Mail address:

In spite of all that our Government still has the right to regulate arms.

For all those arguing about regulated militia's...

The United States came to being by overthrowing the King's army. The citizens of the colonies took up arms against the King. They formed a militia. One would be a fool not to realize that the citizens (individuals) had the arms first.

I am a strong proponent of civilian armaments. Which sadly most anti-gun advocates have very little knowledge of. Names of weapons only are a description of that weapon. Weapons cannot do anything by themselves and that is the crust of the whole argument. There are many laws and restrictions in place concerning weapons. Unless you can monitor every individual that plans out attacks against others before they have the instruments seems improbable. That leaves the probability gun restrictions are an attempt at disarmament.

Someone mentioned above that our fore fathers never envisioned mass shootings when penning the constitution. Well if you look back through history there weren't many mass shootings of un-armed people in America. Thats because everyone was armed.

Let me preface my comments by stating that I'm a political atheist, I don't care what political religion one wants to attach themselves to.

Why don't the the presstitutes report all the murders we perpetrate on other countries and where are the progressives regarding the hundreds of thousands of children killed by our country in our name?

Consider the Sandy Hook school shooting. This shooting serves as an excuse for anti gun lobbyists to express their hatred of guns and the NRA and to advance their gun control agenda. Few if any of those hyperventilating over the tragedy know any of the parents of the murdered children. They have shown no similar response to the US government’s murder of countless thousands of Muslim children. You anti-gun lobbyists/posters are hypocrites! The Clinton regime alone killed 500,000 Iraqi children with illegal sanctions, and Clinton’s immoral secretary of state Madeleine Albright, a feminist hero, said that she thought the sanctions were worth the cost of one half million dead Iraqi children. The Bush regime is just as guilty.

Suddenly, 20 US children become of massive importance to “progressives.” Why? Because the deaths foster their agenda–gun control in the US. Rifles first then handguns.

When I hear people talk about “gun violence,” I wonder what has happened to language. A gun is an inanimate object. An inanimate object cannot cause violence. Humans cause violence. The relevant question is: why do humans cause violence? This obvious question seldom gets asked. Instead, inanimate objects are blamed for the actions of humans.

An inanimate object in the hands of some peaceful people can make then violent from the power that they hold!

Trust verify,

I have never read or found a site where they said the Clinton killed 500,000 Iraq children. Could you please tell me where I could find your assertion?

WSU Cong.

You have to remember that our Founding Father's thought that the total number of American deaths in the American Revolution of 5,000 lies was a lot!

The Constitution was written as a living document. It's provisions are left deliberately vague so that they could be interpreted to suit the unknown circumstances in the future. It was made in a way that could be changed. It is not written in stone.

The right to bare arms is already restricted in many ways, that have been upheld by the Supreme court.

Convicted felons have lost their right. (But if it is a right, it cannot be lost, must be a priviledge.)

Freed slaves were restricted from owning a gun.

Many types of 'arms' are restricted, too many to list here.

The mentally ill are restricted.

It is the right of the militia (now, our standing army) that has never been restricted.

What does that indicate about the interpretation of the second ammendment?

No legal, sane gun owner should object to psychological testing before being granted the right to own a firearm.

No firearm should be operated while under the influence of alcohol.

On gang violence:

If the profit is removed from gang culture, the gang loses power and members. See the influence of the end of prohibition. The murder rate dropped sharply.

The 'war' on drugs is a looting of the treasury. All agencies involved try to protect and expand their fiefdoms. There is no motivation th win the war, only to prolong and expand it forever. How stupid is that?

People who want to take drugs will get them and take them weather it is illegal or not. Why futilely try to restrict their freedom, wait... because the drug control industry makes a lot of money out of it. From the Sherriff to the private prisons, a large part of their income is dependant on a never ending 'war' paid for by hundreds of billions of your tax dollars. Time to stop this lunacy.

Make drugs legal and tax them. Gangs will lose their power, crime will drop, murder will drop. It is the easy way to balance the budget.

Junkies will be junkies. If they choose to destroy thier lives, let them. The high crime/murder rate punishes the rest of us.

If they can pass laws that ban assault style weapons, high capacity clips, etc. then it clears pathways for future gun bans. How could it not? If they can do this, they can do anything.

Then what will the 2nd amendment be? Like cheese with a lot of holes in it.

It's comin'!

Since the Corporate Plutocratic Robo Collapsers are out hard at work defending only their "Free Speech" this morning please allow me once again.......

Hahaha "backs against the wall"? Wow talk about MSNBC and the rest of the Corporate Media attempting to build False Consciousness and spread Disinformation and Propaganda

Wait an minute and why isn't MSNBC covering the story about No employees of NBC will face criminal charges over the display of a high-capacity ammunition magazine on a "Meet the Press" program in violation of local law in Washington, prosecutors told the network on Friday.

Yet if you or I had committed this "Crime" we would have been prosecuted to the "Full Extent of the Law" yet a Corporate News Minion spewing Anti Gun Propaganda can get by with it on the National News?

See once again it is blatantly shown in the New Plutocratic Amerika what is good for the "Kings Man" will get a "Peasant" Hung!

Now is the time to stand up to Corporate Tyrants and honor the Oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies both foreign (like Piers Morgan) and domestic (like Barrack Obama and his corporate Masters on Wall Street)!

If these Corporate Political Minions want Our Guns let US demand "Investigations" into their Corruption!

Rise up Peasants Peons and Slave their "Masters" once again want to Disarm US and send US to the Wall.......Street

The Constitution shall never be construed … to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. – Samuel Adams

Hello clwyd, enclosed is a video of an interview with Madeleine Albright (Clinton's Secretary of State) discussing this issue where she states that the sanctions on Iraq that were responsible for the deaths of 500,000 children were worth it. You can view more in depth pieces of the interview as there are many articles and videos on this subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4PgpbQfxgo

I wonder if Colorado is going to let people who use POT also shoot guns, that should be interesting.

Assult weapons are implicated in only 2% of the MURDERS nation wide. 90% of the murders were drug related, NOW WHICH ONE ARE WE GOING TO BAN?????

I think Colorado has it backwards.

The kings clothes are sooo beautiful said the crowd: but he is naked said the boy!!!

Gun-rights groups: Our 'backs are against the wall'

Blindfold? Cigarette?

The sentence for the party that has chosen to live by the sword; your credibility dies by the sword:

Ready... aim...

And the lunatics of the gun rights groups show they are missing a few brain cells - which is WHY they shouldn't have assault weapons and large ammo clips. At what point do they admit they are the problem. Oh right - that would be NEVER!

And, we wonder how we ever got to this point? It's because the crazies think the more guns out there - the better!

Well Regulate Melita at the time it was written means the group be well supplied.

The total purpose of the 2nd Amendment (even though we use it for hunting, security, and target practice) was specifically, for us, to remove the TYRANT out of OUR GOVERNMENT.

It was written with the idea of breaking away from a TYRANT (BRITAIN) of the time. By the way the British Americans were enjoying more freedom and less taxes than we are being hit with today.

So Yes they wanted us citizens to have every weapon known to mankind at that time and is for anytime in history.

Same as the 1st Amendment Freedom to speak you mind.

YOU SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHTS TO CARRY ANY WEAPON

and it should NOT BE INFRINGED

Dav1bg

I wonder if Colorado is going to let people who use POT also shoot guns, that should be interesting.

I'll bet you've never smoked a joint in your life; and if you have and you still feel angry enough to want to shoot people, then you're smoking some lousy ass @!$%#.

So, given framers' statements on the matter, it would not be impossible to interpret the second amendment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed;

as such:

The well regulated militia is necessary to keep the security of the free state, therefore the un-infringed right of the people to keep and bare arms must be guaranteed, in part for them to serve in the militia and in part in order to keep the security of the free people specifically in the face of the potential tyranny of the state, because that well regulated militia is necessary and can be (and historically was) called to arms against the populace. Notice in the language the militia is well regulated, but the right of the people is un-infringed. The two are separate, not one.

This country used to be a great nation and its greatness was based on the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The decay and deterioration has come about because the Supreme Court has NOT upheld these documents. The more we move away from them the more we will become a third world country. We must be vigilant against the psychiatric industry and the Socialists. Both of these groups would like nothing better than to see this country go down.

Our President is taking out this country just as fast as he can. I imagine there is nothing he would like better than to burn the documents this country is founded on because he is certainly trying to negate their principles.

Dav1,

As I have stated, it is not the drugs themselves that lead to murder, (unlike alcohol), it is the massive profit from inflated prices due to the illegality of the drugs. Take away the profit, and the problem goes away.

@hillbilly-genius

Hands down that is the best post regarding the second amendment I've ever seen posted here. I'd give you 99 votes if I could. there's nothing more refreshing to me than reading a well composed analysis.

Every time reasonable people ask for rational gun laws, they are shouted down, villified, mocked, and bullied by the NRA and its fanatic supporters.

When will the NRA stop violating our FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH?

Suddenly, 20 US children become of massive importance to "progressives." Why? Because the deaths foster their agenda–gun control in the US. Rifles first then handguns.

It's funny; when progressives were speaking out against laws designed to cut down on our freedoms, you were silent. Right after 911, we got a bunch of wiretapping laws and extraordinary rendition and restraint laws that can be used to curtail our freedom. Where were you then? Why did you not speak out? All we heard from the regressives were "if you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about." Right.

You were silent. Why? Because it's all about protecting the rights of unpopular minorities. Hypocrisy on your part, plain and simple.

Now you are speaking out when guns are the issue - guns that can never be used to protect you against the tyranny of a rogue US President. All he has to do it press a button and you and everyone within 10 miles of you disappears in a fireball - along with your guns.

It's really disgusting how the gun lobby tries to pretend that they are all about protecting our freedom. In today's day and age, guns are not about freedom from tyranny and never can be. Not against a nuclear-armed state.

The best discussion I have seen on this Constitutional issue is, "A Well Regulated Militia", the Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Contro in America, by Saul Cornell. Those interested in a comprehensive history on this issue are well advised to read it. Amongst many well-reasoned and well-researched points Cornell makes, are (1) arms do not mean firearms specifically. "Arms" in those days included spears, pikes, swords, and the like, which were also carried into BATTLE. In most jurisdictions, those arms were held in a central armory, and were distributed on "muster" day or on a central "call to arms" if there was a threat to the town. Most people (except those on the "wild frontier" - which no longer exists) did not keep firearms or ammunition in their homes because they cooked by fire and gunpower EXPLODES. Additionally, muskets took 15 seconds to load by a skilled user, and rifles took much longer. Therefore, the paradigm of our founding fathers, with regard to "arms" themselves and how they were kept and used, was VERY different than today; (2) the advocacy of a "well-regulated militia" from the citizenry (free able-bodied white male, per the Uniform Militia Act of 1792) was promoted because while the drafters of the Constitution could not agree on anything, the ALL agreed that they did NOT want a "standing army" - which obviously has changed with the establishment of our Federal military; (3) even with the establishment of a Federal "standing" military, the states still kept their "citizen militias" up until those were replaced by the NATIONAL GUARD. (Ever wondered where that came from, or why it is separate from our Federal armed forces?) In short, our country, our world, our military, and our "arms" have very obviously changed since the Second Amendment "right to bear arms" was intitiated. NO ONE ever envisioned semi-automatic assault rifles being kept in the home and available to chilren to use on other children. Our Founding Fathers are likely rolling in their graves at how the purpose of the Second Amendment has been twisted and distorted to allow this kind of thing. We do not live on the "wild frontier," and we DO have "standing army" with our Federal military AND our National Guard. Moral of the story: If those firearms proponents want to adhere to the spirit of the Second Amendment to "bear arms," then go join the National Guard and make a career of it. Placing firearms in every home and armed guards on every corner is only going down that "slippery slope" toward the kind of armed "police state" our Founding Fathers so abhorred and attempted to avoid in the first place.

In some states like Virginia, you can be mentally insane and have a criminal record, and walk into any gun show and buy an assault weapon or two (complete with ammo), without having a background check. You may be required to flash a driver's license or some sort of ID, just so the seller can say he checked you out. But, otherwise, all you need is cash in hand and off you go, armed to the teeth!

Then, as an armed insane criminal, you can stop on your way home and buy some bullet-proof garments to complement your wardrobe.

ANYBODY ELSE THINK WE OUGHT TO CHANGE THIS?

Who and the f*** cares about "English" when it is the MATH that matters? Gee lets ban ALL rifles and save less then 400 lives a year on average WHEN 18,000 commit suicide with guns. If we got those 18,000 mental help then there would only be around 12,000 gun deaths each year instead of 30,000. If we legalized drugs then that number would be cut in half at least, and we would be down to 6,000 or so guns deaths each year.

Gee I did not change any laws that pertain to "guns", yet I can save 24,000 lives each year compared to your measly 400. I wonder why we cannot have a reasonable logical discussion about guns... Talk about emotional, paranoid, knee jerk, overreacting, etc. you sound just like a...

Why are so many women afraid of guns? How else are you going to defend yourself versus a man that is twice your size? Please explain to me how? Women should "love" guns since they make them more equal to men and take away the physical advantage most men have over most women. The fun a man could have with you for 12 minutes even if you managed to call 911 first, or someone heard you scream. But once again logic fails and emotions rule...be a victim if you want to be. If only you did not live in a fantasy land where only "nice" things happen, if only.

Please explain to me how ANY of these mass shootings/killings could not have happened with handguns, shotguns, swords, machetes, knives, etc. What was to stop the school killer from hacking little kids to bits with a sword or machete for 8 minutes? I wonder what seeing your friends decapitated and dismembered does for your mental health/psychology? At what point is it better to be shot versus hacked to death? Banning certain types of guns and "trying" to limit the amount of ammo they can carry WILL NOT PREVENT THESE TYPES OF INCIDENTS.

I have a reason for having an assault rifle and that is looters. When the power goes out for weeks at a time due to hurricanes the looters come out. The phone lines are backed up and since the power is out none of the traffic lights work so traffic is backed up too. Some of the police may even be directing traffic at some busy intersections. Even if you could get a call through to 911 you are still going to be waiting even longer then the average of 12 minutes since the police are stretched so thin.

The other reason I own one is for packs of wild/feral hogs that roam the woods. There are also packs of wild dogs too. Home invasions, gangs, revolutions, etc. are some other good reasons to own one for home defense since I only paid $100 more for my rifle compared to my handgun, and I can still hunt with my rifle if I "needed" to. It is more accurate, more powerful, holds more ammo, has less bullet drop, a shorter time of flight, etc. and was why I bought it since I only intended on buying ONE gun at first. I wanted the "best" overall gun. It was only after I started to shot more that I bought my .22 LR rifle for smaller game/target practice, and finally my compact 9mm handgun (which is 25 times more likely to kill someone versus my rifles).

Canada tries to track its guns and how are they doing with that? How much money is it costing them to run and mange that database? Has the crime rate went down? Not just with guns, but all murders, rapes, assaults, etc. since where there is a will there is a way. If not Briton and Australia would have a lower crime rates, but criminals still get guns in those countries. The reason for the lower assault rates in many countries are the social safety nets and mental health care they have, NOT THE GUN LAWS. 24,000 versus 400, simple math.

All the rhetoric about Obama using these shootings as cover to pass his long desired anti-gun agenda has become pretty much general knowledge. It seems, however, that Obama and his cronies don't even bother to deny this anymore because they figure they can simply ignore any opposition and can violate the constitution without consequence.

Resistance to his unconstitutional actions is building at the state level in a number of states that say they will not only reject any anti-gun laws he passes but arrest and prosecute any federal agents that attempt to enforce them within their respective states.

Additionally, there numerous law enforcement members that have quietly banded together to vow to not enforce any anti-gun laws passed by Obama.

What's he going to do then? Order the military to occupy a number of states? Is he certain all components of the military will be on board with his actions?

Obama is ripping the country apart.

Perhaps this is what Jefferson meant when he said: The roots of the liberty tree must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots alike.

I think over these next few years this country will experience a turmoil the likes of which we have never seen since the civil war.

"The right of the People to keep and bear Arms ... *snip*" is not being infringed upon.

Get over yourselves and stop acting like victims. The only victims here are the people that get slaughtered by gun tutting maniacs with ever increasing frequency.

Wet Willie,

Actually, the only reason the President is pressing the gun issue right now is because after the recent massacre of 20 children and their teachers in Newtown, millions of American citizens have asked the President to please do something about gun control.

So, don't blame the President. He is doing what the majority of Americans are asking him to do.

The NRA and its fanatic followers are in the minority, thank goodness, and cannot bully us anymore.

Reading through these posts I get the impression that it is not the anti-gun lobby that is over-reacting, as one writer put it, hyperventilating, but rather it is the virulently myopic gun owners who are wetting their pants in fear that someone is going to come and take their guns away.

Nothing I have heard or read from the supporters of reasonable gun restriction suggest or advocates any such thing. Quite the opposite, many reasonable people clearly state that keeping a weapon for self-defense is a right protected under the second amendment.

However, there appear to be many rabid and mentally challenged gun owners who feel that without an arsenal of artillery and a warehouse of ammunition they are at risk of having their wives and daughters raped, and their families massacred. This attitude borders on hysterical paranoia and yet they accuse others, who suggest reasonable measures to ensure public safety, of being panic-stricken fear mongers.

I think it's the other way around. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state or imply that the enumerated powers and bill of rights are absolute, and not subject to regulation. "Shall not be infringed" does not absolve the citizens of personal responsibility. In fact, the right protected by the second amendment is to ensure a 'well-regulated' militia. Regulation is a key word in this amendment.

To argue that assault weapons and unlimited firepower are not subject to regulation because the second amendment says 'shall not be infringed' is taking liberties with a phrase that is meant to give liberty and peace of mind to every citizen, not just a few who manage to acquire the most powerful and lethal arsenal of weapons.

fyte4justice,

Very well said and the absolute truth.

Thank you.

hillbilly-genius

And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it

If I say your vine name is an oxymoron, are you going to accuse me of calling you an oxy? Because General Schwarzkopf died December 27th of last year. No question about it. His advice to you, if he could have taken your call, would likely have been something like "ask the living, genius". Norman was always direct.

You cannot argue with Gun Nuts....so don't even try.

THere are responsible sane gun owners out there...and they are likely the majority. It is the gun loving freaks who yell the loudest,

NOBODY needs assault weapons (And you know the gun nuts really want machine guns etc)

NOBODY needs dozens of guns

THis is not the wild west anymore

Diane-2118570 - Bravo on your post! To Hillbilly genius - I believe that your post is junk science. You can get any expert to twist words.

Some say that the right to bear arms gave us our country in 1776. I would also like to point out that in 1860 the Confederacy took up arms and seceded from the Union and Mr. Lincoln said no. So what ensued was the bloodiest war our nation has known because both sides were Americans and for the population it was devastating. Do extremists today think we've reached the point where armed insurrection is necessary? It seems like conservatives of the 50's were worried about those with left of center views and were deluded into thinking that they would violently over throw the government, but they never advocated such a thing, but extremists today are justified?

Trust verify,

I saw the video and all I heard was a reporter saying, "We have heard!" Albright says the price was worth it and never says anything about that many children being killed. Where is the proof.

I've heard people say bush was a great president and yet I'd say ,"He was the Worst President Ever!' Neither of us have proof, but the World Court in the Hague has a warrant out for his arrest for War Crimes should lean in my direction more!

Watch this short video. Its Adam Lanza's Doctor. She tells you what caused the Conn. school attack.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHlQlWhHg2c

The right to keep and bear arms was intended as a guarantee the people themselves could represent the ultimate check a balance over a tyrannic government if all others failed.

When James Madison and colleagues were contemplating the wording for the second amendment to guarantee the people their liberty, John Langdon of New Hampshire spoke up and said, "Gentlemen, history has taught us a document alone cannot guarantee peace nor liberty, peace and liberty can only be guaranteed by a force equal or superior to the threat."

While limits on high capacity magazines and minors or mentally disturbed people possessing guns is a reasonable sacrifice, registration or an outright ban is not. Through back ground checks, the federal government already knows where most of the legal guns are, and that is not good.....When Hitler assumed power, the first things he did was ban western literature and require all firearms be registered, then he sent the Gestapos door to door to collect all the guns. We all know what happened next.

For those who think tyranny is a thing of the past, just look around the world and you will see there are still those who lust for power, and there are some in America too.

Definition of "gun nut": Anyone who supports the 2nd Ammendment.