lol

Perhaps mandatory training should come with the right have guns.

Another "law-abiding, responsible" gun-owner.

well he was doing the right thing and selling it, because its painfully obvious he is an idiot.. most all gun owners know not to transport loaded weapons because of this exact thing happening !

this what gives the rest of us a bad name...

So the gun show feels it's too dangerous to have private gun owners carrying weapons? Or maybe they were afraid they might get mixed up with a gun for sale? Or what is the logic there?

And maybe if the news had always reported shootings we might have a better idea of the reality of the situation. It's happened for years, but we didn't hear much about it. Good thing he was a licensed, trained gun owner so everyone would be safe and no one would get shot...oh, wait.

WOW In a southern state don't he know to unload a weapon before going into a building!! Was he one of these persons new to guns.???

That's right Richard, EVERYONE should treat a gun as if it's loaded even if they KNOW it's not! Never point the muzzle towards anyone no matter what. My guns are checked BEFORE they go into the safe and they're checked AGAIN as they come out of the safe to make sure the chamber is empty and no rounds are in it and STILL I treat the gun as if it were loaded at all times!

When I was 11 yrs old I went to a NRA gun safety class.

Until the NRA was taken over by right wing extremists in the 70s, it was an organization dedicated to responsible gun ownership and sportsmanship. It's not like that now, sadly...

Mr. Rogers: "Hey, kids, can you say 'Irony'?"

Hi Ram,

I agree we should be told about all shootings or misuses of a firearm. I think we'd get tired of it after a while since people are imperfect and there are many accidents/mistakes with them. But we might also hear about the tens/hundreds of thousands of criminal acts which are thwarted every year by the proper use of a firearm too (in the hands of a non-LEO), and so maybe it's worth it to hear it all.

Wait...you probably didn't mean you wanted to hear about the positive uses of firearms. Am I right? My bad.

JohnnyOnTheSpot-3794903 wrote:

"Why is this a story? We never use to see stories on accidental shootings in the national press before. Can you say liberal agenda?"

Um, can you say "inability to see the obvious"?

What was Dick Cheney doing at a gun show in NC ?

JohnnyOnTheSpot-3794903

Why is this a story? We never use to see stories on accidental shootings in the national press before. Can you say liberal agenda?

I knew the moment I saw the title that evrey anti gun nut in the country would be all over it. NBC never airs stories about guns saving the day...it's ALWAYS negative....who is paying you guys off anyway???

Now we see the LaPierre principle in practice. When a shot is heard coming from what might potentially be a bad guy with a gun, the good guys run away with their guns! Illustrating once and for all the giant distance that exists between fantasy and reality. :)

Hi Robert,

When leftists lecture gun owners about how too many people are irresponsible, and how stories like this are yet another reason why guns should be controlled (how would you control for an accident like this with legislation?), do you think gun owners might properly conclude that leftists, maybe you are one, have as their ulterior motive the abolition of guns in private, law-abiding, hands? People might say this is paranoia talking, but what other logical conclusion can be drawn from these kinds of arguments?

JohnnyOnTheSpot-3894903 Can you say.... the end of NRA cover ups? Please everyone check out this link and see how the NRA makes sure that Americans stay ignorant of the true cost of the proliferation of guns in the US.

Illustrating once and for all the giant distance that exists between fantasy and reality.

Well said, Brian.

This guy broke one of the cardinal rules of proper gun handling and he will pay the price for not following it. I remember a handful of stories reported this past year of cops having this similar problem because they had their shotguns in their trunks, loaded and "ready to go". They would grab them and would have an accidental discharge. Then there's this guy: Cop accidentally shoots himself {Funny as hell because after he shoots himself, he goes to show the class a rifle and almost everyone in the classroom scatters! There's even one on firearm negligence video where it shows military personnel firing a vehicle mounted, high powered rifle and the barrel falls off on the first shot. Unfortunately, accidents happen.}

Fortunately, it appears those involved at the gun show injured will recover. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

I don't get it. All these people with guns for protection and the minute they hear a shot THEY RUN! Too weird.

Because contrary to the belief of some, sane people try to avoid unnecessary confrontations. It's kind of like martial arts. You learn it so you don't have to use it. ~_o {Escape THEN assess.}

My question is why did the gun go off if the trigger wasn't pulled.

He was unzipping his 12-gauge shotgun's case when it accidentally fired...

Exactly 2Little! All the stories of gun saving lives or thrawting crimes are never mentioned in the left sided media. Though you see them all the time in local newspapers or TV stations. But never in the mainstream media. I don't care if you love or hate guns, but what is clearly the fact here is that the liberal media only wants to report one side of an issue. Yepp, that is fair.

Such a sad sad news agency... If this isn't evidence to soaking up ratings I don't know what else to say to you.

2nd Amendment cannot and will not be infringed upon; and if you get the idea to tell me youre not infringing by calling for an Assault rifles ban then here's the definition of Infringe

Infringe: Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".

wait a minute! The gun show is going to prohibit people from bringing their own guns?!! They're infringing on constitutional rights!!!

Brian, if you are going to bash us liberals about firearms, you should know that shotguns do not fire bullets - your knowledge of firearms sort of disarms your bashing - pun intended.

There are 3 people with birdshot in them that are sure appreciating something, and I doubt it's a gun.

Hey Robert in Oregon, I see we have two sheriffs that are refusing to enforce new Federal laws on gun ownership. Funny, last I checked a law enforcement person has an oath of office to uphold the laws of the state and country. The decision of whether laws are constitutional is a decision for the courts. So can we file charges with the FBI if this does take place?

One is Line county, I am not sure which the other is from. Heck, we already have the most open gun laws in the state and they worry about some minor issues of tracking and enforcement.

Trent-3873964,

Sorry, but all rights can be and are limited. The Constitution gives federal courts and ultimately the SCOTUS the authority to interpret it and they have found time and time again that all rights can be limited, even those under the 2nd Amendment. Check out the 2nd Amendment SCOTUS rulings in Miller and Heller. Here's a summarization:

http://www.lawnix.com/cases/dc-heller.html

2nd Amendment cannot and will not be infringed upon; and if you get the idea to tell me youre not infringing by calling for an Assault rifles ban then here's the definition of Infringe

See, that fancy little thing you like to quote from, the US Constitution. has many other parts to it, other than just the 2nd Amendment. Like that part establishing the Supreme Court as the final arbiter on what's constitutional and what's not. So until an actual law is passed, then challenged and then RULED UPON, your rights have not been infringed, no matter how much whining you do.

Rich-281385 wrote:

"Hi Robert,

When leftists lecture gun owners about how too many people are irresponsible, and how stories like this are yet another reason why guns should be controlled (how would you control for an accident like this with legislation?), do you think gun owners might properly conclude that leftists, maybe you are one, have as their ulterior motive the abolition of guns in private, law-abiding, hands? People might say this is paranoia talking, but what other logical conclusion can be drawn from these kinds of arguments?"

I don't know if your questions are directed to me, but since my name is Robert, I'll respond.

If an individual argues ("lectures" was your word) to gun owners about how too many people are irresponsible, that argument does not make that person a "leftist."

If an individual argues that stories like this are yet another reason why guns should be controlled, that argument does not make that person a "leftist."

If a gun owner concludes that "leftists," (presumably, by "leftist" you mean anyone who disagrees with you?) have as their ulterior motive the abolition of guns in private, law-abiding, hands ... then yes, I would conclude, "that is your paranoia talking."

.

Your paranoia aside, "the logical conclusion" which SHOULD be drawn from these kinds of arguments: Is that many millions of Americans of every political stripe, affiliation, persuasion and socio-economic demographic in America -- many of them such as myself with an incident of gun violence which has taken the life of a member of their own family, or someone they know -- have individually concluded that in a country of approx. 310 million people, having more than 320 million guns of all description and lethality in the private possession of individuals ...is absolute insanity.

Millions of us have individually concluded that this massive, and virtually unregulated and fast growing arsenal held in private hands, make us all less safe.

Millions of us have individually concluded that we do not fear our own government, and because of our magnificent American armed forces we do not fear an outside invader, but we do fear some of our fellow citizens who are armed with guns, ...and who appear to have the inability to differentiate between a dissenting opinion and the mark of "a leftist", and who see threats in every corner and shadow and are by all appearances (especially in their rhetoric) itching for an excuse to use their accumulated arsenals.

Does that answer your questions?

2nd Amendment cannot and will not be infringed upon

Not so fast, Trent. We are just one little Supreme Court decision away from a complete reinterpretation of the Second Amendment! If you are so delusional as to think that cannot happen, please allow me to redirect you to the recent Supreme Court Decision in which national health care was upheld. The right wing lunatic fringe thought that would never happen, too. Stay tuned!

That gun should be arrested for attempted murder!!!

"wars to take place" correction last post.

Another responsible law-abiding gun owner manages to shoot three people. Too bad it wasn't a criminal the gun owners could point to and blame.

Now that we all know that Gary Lynn Wilson violated one of the cardinal safety rules of proper and safe transport of a firearm, please let the following sink in to that little used muscle between your ears, unless you're claiming green credits on an R-19 dead air space:

Stratocumulus: any gun show has the right to prohibit owners from bringing their personal firearms within the venue; it is not a violation of anyone's CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. The sponsors of the show also have the right to prohibit entry to anyone whose presence is detrimental due to exhibited behavior problems or speech. Just like any other place that posts "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone who....."

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 second amendment was reinterpreted in 2008, the ruling addressed the rights of all citizens to bare arms, not militia, but the people.

I'm very aware that it can be reinterpreted, that's the problem.

If the Arms treaty that the UN votes on in March goes through, then good bye 2nd amendment, and hello tyranny.

If you don't fear your government considering all things done in the last 10 years I seriously want to ask you why you don't especially when the last two Presidents alone have committed acts that violate the checks and balances in place without any accountability, that's like crushing the lawful and civilized structure already in place... If you can't rely on that then what can you rely on?

Trent wrote:

"the ruling addressed the rights of all citizens to bare arms, "

Are you suggesting that prior to 2008 it was illegal to wear short sleeves?

bob in Post #1.52,

Please explain the contradiction in the Far Right ALWAYS supporting the U.S. having a standing army ready to intervene somewhere across the globe on a moment's notice.

It ain't Leftists doing that!

As our government struggles to come up with new gun regulations involving keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill as well as they types of guns and round capacity permitted to be owned, maybe they should also look into keeping guns out of the hands of stupid people. There definitely should be some sort of competence test involved with gun ownership, but many police officers would fail such a test as well. I remember that video of the police officer giving a gun safety course who stupidly and accidentally fired his gun in that class.

@Johnnyonthespot - I don't know what you're talking about...I've been seeing news stories about accidental shootings for years.

NBC,

I'm a lefty, liberal, bleeding heart but you're starting to lose me, and quite a few others I'm learning.

On this same day, about the same number of people were hit by lightning, more than that won a lottery, the list goes on. You guys data mining anything to do with guns while there's still blood in the water is really sad.

It used to be that you could make a reasonable arguement that NBC was left, but not as far as FOX is right, thats getting harder by the day. Please pull it together and dont become the new "unfair and unbalanced", I refuse to watch/read/look at FOX so I'll have no where to go. Yore better than this!!!

There is no such thing as an accidental discharge. They are all negligent. Weapons should always be unloaded when being transported in a case, especially on the way to a gun show or to sell them. No one said that any of these three were NRA members. And that should not matter. There are stupid people who legally own guns, there are stupid people who belong to the NRA, and there are millions of stupid people who believe gun controls will stop nut jobs from getting guns and going on rampages. basically, we live in a world of idiots who have learned all they know about guns AND what they do from video games and movies. Of which, none of it is real. Stupid is as stupid does.

Dear Alan, Don't be so thin skinned. I didn't say all mindless Phuc's named Alan.

Our founding fathers weren't stupid; these words, "well regulated," being included in the Second Amendment state that it is the government's duty to write laws that keep guns out of the hands of people who are unable to handle the responsibility of gun ownership.

Ryan

Not very often, and then it's almost always a fatality, unless it's the VP. A accidental shooting might be reported in a local rag.

If the Arms treaty that the UN votes on in March goes through, then good bye 2nd amendment, and hello tyranny

See this is the kinda posting that makes people call you gun lovers idiots. That treaty has NOTHING, ZERO, ANY, NO effect on the citizens of the United States. And if you had taken a moment to read it before jumping on your soap box with the rhetoric, you would have known that. Let me point out a few things you've obviously not heard from Alex Jones:

The Obama administration has stated that mandatory conditions for U.S. approval of such an arms trade treaty include the following:

• The Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld.
• There will be no restrictions on civilian possession or trade of firearms otherwise permitted by law or protected by the U.S. Constitution.
• There will be no dilution or diminishing of sovereign control over issues involving the private acquisition, ownership, or possession of firearms, which must remain matters of domestic law.

Understand what that says or should I break it down into smaller words?

Read about it yourself, and next time you're going to lie, don't make it a stupid one easily refuted.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

P.S. NBC,

Perhaps to inject a little balance into your reporting, on AVERAGE 400+ people use guns to protect themselves from some kind of attack EVERY DAY. The numbers I found were 2-10x more than that, but 400 is more than sensational enough. Dontcha think?

TheKhanKubla,

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained
so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in
proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated
correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the
people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd
amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the
founders wrote it.

Msnb: Why? First I am an American, second both sides have supported,sent troops and weapons all over the world. If we got tangible assets from that where are they? I have voted independent for quite some time. Left-Right? Whatever!

(You tell'um Test most don't know squat about history.)

Swallow456789

"Hey Robert in Oregon, I see we have two sheriffs that are refusing to enforce new Federal laws on gun ownership. Funny, last I checked a law enforcement person has an oath of office to uphold the laws of the state and country. The decision of whether laws are constitutional is a decision for the courts. So can we file charges with the FBI if this does take place?

One is Line county, I am not sure which the other is from. Heck, we already have the most open gun laws in the state and they worry about some minor issues of tracking and enforcement."

Yes, I believe it's actually "Linn"County, plus the Coos, Curry and Crook County sheriffs who have now all sent the exact same-worded letter to Vice President Biden.

Any guess which national association actually wrote that form letter, and made it available to county sheriffs around the country to affix their signatures and put on their letterhead and mail to the Vice President?

HINT: It was not the National Sheriff's Association. Yep, good guess. Gold star!

Fortunately all of these county sheriffs serve in elective office. Failure to uphold Federal laws with which they do not personally agree makes them subject to Federal arrest, removal from office, recall by the voters and/or simply being voted out of office.

So, ...time will tell, and this is bound to be an interesting story to watch as it unfolds. I have a strong inkling that in time a number of these county sheriffs will come to regret letting their knee-jerk emotions get ahead of their better judgements.

;-)

Cheers!

Chris: Is that from the NATO document? I've read it and I don't think that is in there.

No, Rich, you would be wrong. I don't hate guns and I do see that there are some legitimate uses for them. I'm not saying that all guns should be taken away from everyone and I know that sometimes a person firing or holding a gun has saved lives. I never said it hadn't. So you lost your assumption challenge there and you are just plain wrong.

It's on the State Department website itself.

http://www.state.gov/t/isn/armstradetreaty/index.htm

Scroll down to where it states the redlines that cannot be crossed with the treaty. And it's a United Nations proposal, not a NATO document. And regardless of what it says, the Supreme Court in Reid v. Covert has ruled that the Constitution trumps any treaties signed by the Senate.

This guy broke one of the cardinal rules of proper gun handling and he will pay the price for not following it.

Yes he did.

Unfortunately, he may have been completely unaware that the shotgun was loaded and may not have even thought to or really known how to check to see.

Everyone wants to presume that it was 'his' gun and that he was a hunter or shooter. However, there is absolutely no guarantee that that was the case at all. The article stated that he was thirty six, still a fairly young guy. There's a lot of young men in the Generation X/Y demographic that have never handled or fired a gun, done any hunting, or ever have any desire to. How do we know that he wasn't one of them but that he had possession of an old shotgun that had belonged to his father, grandfather, or some other ancestor and needed the money he could get for selling it more than he needed an old shotgun he never planned to use in the closet? It could very well be that shell had been in the chamber for decades and the action hadn't been opened in as long.

The shotgun discharge would be much more readily understood if we had the full details of what the shotgun was. I have 12 gauge repeating shotguns in my collection that date back to the 1880's and they've seen a lot of use, mostly during their first fifty years, I'm sure. Especially during the hardscrabble times of the 20's and 30's when most rural folk relied on wild game to some extent to remain nourished. With years of near daily use, guns do eventually start to wear out, especially the trigger, sear, and/or hammer, but also other small but critical parts, such as extractors. It is possible a very old gun can be 'cleared' but the breechbolt opened without extracting a cartridge that remained stuck in the chamber, possibly swollen or corroded in place. Sometimes the extractor loses its grip, breaks, or just tears off the cartridge rim and keeps on going while the cartridge keeps on staying!

Depending on just what model of shotgun it was, the hammer could have been cocked back at some point and never lowered, possibly by someone who didn't know not to cock a hammer back and leave it who may have handled it at some time. Or the gun could have been left loaded, round in the chamber, with the safety on, but the safety was bumped or vibrated loose at some point.

The fact that it fired while the case was being unzipped for inspection is what's suspicious and hints that maybe something wasn't right about the condition of the shotgun. Modern guns in good condition that no one has tinkered with are not going to discharge that easily. Well worn ones or ones that someone has attempted to 'tune' the trigger on most certainly can, though.

Tough to know exactly what's going on with this, but my point is that there are a great many people who have ended up with firearms of different sorts through inheritance or otherwise who didn't purchase them, have no interest in them, never intend to use them, and don't know the first thing about them. But they may come to understand that they might be worth several hundred dollars or more - maybe a lot more - these days. The danger comes when long idle guns start getting pulled out of closets and attics by people who know nothing about them or how to safely handle them but have decided it's time to sell them. One can just hope that whoever once owned and use them saw to it that they were unloaded before they left them behind!

sittingonafence

Actually California has one of the strongest weapon bans and the movie industry is specifically exempt from the law.

But I can see the California legislation thinking about this.

There is no such thing as an accidental discharge.

I had a girlfriend say that to me one night. She didn't believe me though and got out of the bed to sleep on the couch..

If gun control worked, Chicago would be the safest place to live in America..........

This is what we should be reading. http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/01/19/2-dead-6-wounded-in-shootings-since-friday/ This is where the real problem lies not with laaw abiding citizens. where is all the outrage by the lefties over this. this is just one example of many taking place everyday. Have Obama take care of his own back yard before he trespasses on mine.

Wait, last week you were saying his backyard was Kenya!

mike-2598123

well he was doing the right thing and selling it, because its painfully obvious he is an idiot.. most all gun owners know not to transport loaded weapons because of this exact thing happening !

this what gives the rest of us a bad name...

My carry is always loaded, cocked and locked, otherwise I just have a hammer in my pants. Errrr excuse the double entendre.

Here we go again...

"Well Regulated" is defined as: well equipped, well ordered and well trained...

"Militia" is defined as: A body of CITIZENS ARMED and trained, esp. by a state*, for military service APART FROM the regular armed forces. -- reserve militia. ALL persons who are not exempt from military service and not actively serving in the armed forces OR national guard. -- Black's Law Dictionary 8th Edition

So using the rules of the English language, we can put the definitions in the sentence and have the same exact meaning... So it CAN be read as:

"Well equipped, well ordered and well trained ARMED CITIZENS being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

*"Esp. by a state" is separated because the law does NOT REQUIRE it to be managed BY the state. HOWEVER, private militias MUST follow and abide by Constitutional Law.

-----

And when all of this latest crap started, Obama and Biden were making promises on who "TOUGH" they were going to be on criminals and gun control... Looks like most of the MSM conveniently forgot to report one of Flamin' Joe's statements:

Biden to NRA: We ‘don’t have the time’ to prosecute gun buyers who lie on background checks

-----

And to those out there that believe what the UN is saying when it says that it will NOT affect US sovereignty, you'ld better think again! The UN is gun grabbers on steroids!

Treaty Dictates from a Committee of Vultures

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -- Thomas Jefferson

ALL laws restricting firearms ARE unconstitutional and therefore unlawful, and thereby unenforceable... And notice that it says "Right to bear ARMS." It does NOT say "right to bear FIREARMS". Proof of this being true is the fact that Arnold Schwarzenegger just bough a TANK within the past few weeks! {Unconstitutional Official Acts -- 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256}

Gun Grabber Logic: The ready availability of guns today, with waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, etcetera, is responsible for recent school shootings, compared to the lack of school shootings in the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s, which resulted from the availability of guns at hardware stores, surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, mail order, etcetera.

Well we got our 2nd amendment and we can maintain our well regulated militia... against what, exactly? Ourselves? Hmmm maybe these 'accidents' weren't accidents after all. Maybe someone infiltrated the gun show and planted these weapons to go off and kill people. It's a conspiracy! Quick! Go buy some AR 15's and get ready- we're under attack!! Ahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!

As I have said all along, "some people are just too dumb to own guns'. like the guy who let his 8 year old son shoot an uzi and wound up killing himself. All we need is an IQ test for gun ownership. don't ban guns, ban stupid people from owning guns.

Hi Ram,

Sorry, but you didn't even come close to dealing with my point. I didn't say you hated guns, or that you wanted to take every gun away from every person with one. What I asked is if you wanted to see the stories about the hundreds of times each day that a crime was prevented, or stopped from being completed, because of the proper use of a gun, along with the list of shootings, accidental or otherwise, that occur. I think your non-topic reply kind of proves my assumption. You want one side of the debate heard, but not the other.

Whether you want all guns confiscated isn't the point either. That you want ANY guns confiscated which are presently legal would be an issue. Who do you want disarmed, and why?

Accidents happen. A couple of loaded guns at the check point to a gun show isn't unusual. That's why you always check to see if a gun is loaded. That's why they check going in.

So out of 100's of attendees a couple of people screw up and of course the media is all over it as though this is the norm rather than a couple of accidental occurrences. Judging by many of the previous posts it's clear that many people don't understand gun safety, gun rights, or statistics.

Robert read the link and tell me if it is not more of a story than this one. Oh and by the way I never made such a comment so therefore Robert you are either a liar a dumb ass or combination of both.

Hi Robert,

It is because posters on this thread, among others, refer to gun owners who want to protect their rights as conservative crazies that I then asked about "leftists". It was to set up the obvious question. So owning a gun (or being against gun ownership) doesn't make one conservative (or liberal), but in the context of THIS thread it does. Taken a step further, this time into the political sphere, it is leftists who are clamoring for more gun laws, and so the construct holds.

In your reply you write that millions of people have concluded that the numbers of guns relative to the numbers of people is insane. So wouldn't your definition of sanity mean that you want either fewer guns or more people, or both? So, unless you intend on helping people procreate your only action to create the solution you imply would be to reduce guns, either in who has them or how many those with them can have. I think you are wildly wrong about what is sane or not, but that doesn't change YOUR point that we should have fewer guns in America.

Which brings up a direct, clear, and simple question. Who, besides those presently who cannot have guns, should be denied guns, and how many guns (or of what variety) should the remaining people be allowed to have? There is no other way for you to get from here to there but to take gun ownership rights from people. If there is, and I have missed it, please let me know what it is. Until then I think I must conclude you are being disingenuous in your reply by pretending you don't want to do what you imply must be done to produce "sanity".

JohnnyOnTheSpot-3794903 Comment collapsed by the community

Why is this a story? We never use to see stories on accidental shootings in the national press before.

You mean this happens all the time at gun shows? You boys should have learned from your DI's on weapon safety.

Here's an idiot, bringing a shotgun to a show to sell, locked and loaded....well, maybe to sell, and maybe they should run his dumb ass through the ringer, he might be one of those terrorist.....LOL

Not reported in the news, that same day 120 people died from car ACCIDENTS in the US...

These guys are poster children for car control. They all whine bitterly about any legislative attempt to force them to be responsible car owners. There's no doubt that all parties involved are members of the AAA, too. It all adds up, doesn't it?

In reference to cars that can go 200mph causing crashes.

Accidents happen, with guns, cars, airplanes, etc.. What about every drunk driving accident be reported. The media is bias, to the extreme. Your opinion has been greatly influenced by them. And since you don't expose yourself to alternate media sources you're not getting the whole story.

Guns are not the problem. Violence is the problem.

Article 3 UN 55/255: Use of terms For the purposes of this Protocol: (a) “Firearm” shall mean any portable barrelled weapon that expels, is designed to expel or may be readily converted to expel a shot, bullet or projectile by the action of an explosive, excluding antique firearms or their replicas. Antique firearms and their replicas shall be defined in accordance with domestic law. In no case, however, shall antique firearms include firearms manufactured after 1899; (b) “Parts and components” shall mean any element or replacement element specifically designed for a firearm and essential to its operation, including a barrel, frame or receiver, slide or cylinder, bolt or breech block, and any device designed or adapted to diminish the sound caused by firing a firearm; (c) “Ammunition” shall mean the complete round or its components, including cartridge cases, primers, propellant powder, bullets or projectiles, that are used in a firearm, provided that those components are themselves subject to authorization in the respective State Party; and it can be modified and voted on in UN, US could be out voted. This has a lot more provisions having to do with crime and other issues. Read it!

Spiddas

Your quote that is attributed to Jefferson is most likely false. It has never been known to be in print at anytime before 2007. It was attributed to Matt Carson and I don't believe he has ever been able to back it up with any document.

The Constitution was written to be flexible, that is why we allow various acts and amendments.

For instance the Militia act of 1903 (aka the Dick Act) repealed previous methods of establishing a militia:

Sec. 25. That sections sixteen hundred and twenty-five to sixteen hundred and sixty, both included, of title sixteen of the Revised Statutes, and section two hundred and thirty-two thereof, relating to the militia, are hereby repealed.

The Militia act created the NATIONAL GUARD as our Well Regulated Militia.

The Law of the Land establishes the National Guard as our Militia.

http://www.arng.army.mil/aboutus/history/Pages/ConstitutionalCharteroftheGuard.aspx

Not sure how you got your definition of Militia

militia

mi·li·tia

noun
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

Definition #1-2 is fulfilled by the National Guard. Our Militia.

Definition #3 relates to the draft, which I remember, but we no longer have.

Definition #4 fails under the provision of being REGULATED.

That regulated part is something the NRA and Gun cultists have an issue with.

A bunch of assorted citizens with personal agendas does not make up a well regulated Militia. In fact the whole idea of being regulated is what the gun lobby is opposed to.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Gun nuts are their own worst enemy.

sotired-1320831 ...(#1.89).."Not reported in the news, that same day 120 people died from car ACCIDENTS in the US..."

_________________________________________

And 8 people died in Accidental House fires today, and every day ....384,000 house fires a year

http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Fire-Prevention/fires-factsheet.html

And 12 people died in Accidents at work today, and every day

"A preliminary total of 4,609 fatal work injuries were recorded in the United States in 2011"

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cfoi.nr0.htm

And 5 Accidentally Wounded at a few Gun Shows is National Headline News ???

The End Of The United States Is Near

Ha, both Liberal states. Probably Democrats. Can't fix stupid.

Seriously, out of a country with some 400,000,000 people, 3 guns are accidentally discharged, one while opening the box. Close to 7,000 people die every day in this country, and none of these people died.

315 million, thank you.

3 guns in a single news story. Odds are there are dozens more that didn't have a story written.

Regardless, incidents like these get the people who caused them hopefully a second look at their paperwork. Find out if they are competent enough to continue owning a gun. Sorry but you don't get any free passes when you f*ck up this badly and shoot someone. Yank his right to own.

And Mike, should we lower the regulations we require to operate cars to the same level we currently have for guns? No license to operate, no drivers ed, no insurance? Would the increase from 31,000 vehicle deaths in 2012 increasing to the hundreds of thousands make you happy? I doubt it, so please drop the bull@!$%# car vs guns comparison. Unless you really want to see the laws changed to make them even.

And 5 Accidentally Wounded at a few Gun Shows is National Headline News ???

Thanks Mike for putting this insanity into perspective.

no1jyd

This is what we should be reading. http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/01/19/2-dead-6-wounded-in-shootings-since-friday/ This is where the real problem lies not with laaw abiding citizens. where is all the outrage by the lefties over this. this is just one example of many taking place everyday. Have Obama take care of his own back yard before he trespasses on mine.

no1jyd

"Robert read the link and tell me if it is not more of a story than this one."

You're not making any sense. I have already read that article, and I have also read the NBC News report of that story. But this is a different news story. Are you lost, or just confused?

The facts and statistical data of the Chicago shootings are in the NBC News story about those shootings, which is where one should expect to find that information, not in this news story.

Again, this is a different news story. A d-i-f-f-e-r-e-n-t n-e-w-s s-t-o-r-y. Get it?

Why would NBC News report the shootings in Chicago in this news story about the accidental shootings at three gun shows (an unrelated story)?

And why would "lefties" post their "outrage" about that news story, here?

And how exactly does this translate to journalistic bias?

Screw loose, perhaps?

.

PS. People who do not agree with your various accusatory rants, are not by definition "lefties." You should learn to differentiate, if your intent is to be persuasive.

PPS. How exactly did you intend your reference to multiple shootings including deaths and injuries in Chicago to reinforce your pro-guns stance? (This should be interesting. I'll wait.

@Test Hamster - We'll go to the heart of the Constitution, a book most people never read because it is well over 2000 pages long but is a record of the creation of our Constitution because our founding fathers wanted a record of its creation, "The Debate on the Constitution." Part II, page 537, paragraph 2, "That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia, including the body of the people (and this part is highlighted) capable of bearing arms, (the mentally ill and untrained do not fit into this category and there's actually another section of this book that mentions training as well), is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state."

My carry is always loaded, cocked and locked, otherwise I just have a hammer in my pants. Errrr excuse the double entendre.

Sorry but if you're carrying a hand gun with the hammer cocked back, you're an idiot and I'm pretty sure most of us gun owners would say the same.

120 died in car wrecks, just shows how dumb those car drivers are.

Wow, slow news day. They have more gun bans to pass so the media has to dig hard.

I wonder how many of these comments are made by paid commenters? Like the crisis actors guild at Sandy Hook. Surely some of these stupid comments cannot be coming from normal people.

Rich-281385

"... I think I must conclude you are being disingenuous in your reply by pretending you don't want to do what you imply must be done to produce "sanity".

Rich, conclude whatever you wish. But when you in writing question my veracity and allege pretense because you don't like my answers, ... it's debate over. "No soup for you!"

( "Ignore this author" button ... click!)

In related news, over 70 people were killed today in alcohol related accidents.

It is estimated that one out of every two Americans will be involved in an alcohol related accident in his or her lifetime.

Alcohol related crashes are the leading cause of death for young Americans, between the ages of 16 and 24 years old.

For all Americans between 5 and 35 years of age, motor vehicle accidents are the number one cause of death. Over 50% of these accidents are caused by alcohol impaired drivers.

Every year, 708,000 persons are injured in alcohol related crashes; 74, 000 of those people suffer serious injuries.

About 2,000 people are hurt each day in alcohol related accidents.

Two million alcohol impaired driving collisions occur each year.

An accident by an alcohol impaired driver is the most frequently committed violent crime in the United States today.

40% of all suicide attempts are alcohol-related

54% of all violent crimes are alcohol-related

60% of all emergency room admissions are alcohol-related

80% of all domestic disputes are alcohol-related

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about something important here.

I think that a car/gun comparison is valid. You operate a car every day, and therefore a certain responsibility is asked. You don't operate a gun every day. If you only keep it for self-defense, then it's gonna sit for quite a while until it's needed, if at all (gang bangers, criminals and other wackos that are legally excluded to own one notwithstanding).

The car response is very much valid because like a gun a car is very dangerous, and whether anyone recognizes it or not it bares a huge responsibility on the value of life. If you want to drive it's not about you out there as much as it is you and everyone else. IF you do not respect the vehicle or drive recognizing your responsibility you will end up getting someone killed. Just because you didn't mean to get Ted killed while you were street racing but ended up killing him doesn't let you off because you didn't respect the responsibility given to you. Same goes for a gun. So yes the argument is very valid.

Chris:

If you knew anything about guns, he's probably got a 1911, which by its very design is normally holstered in the "cocked and locked" state. No threat to anyone. You have to physically unlock it in order to fire it.

JOregon:

Forgive me in advance for the long post. Everything I have found on the Efficiency of Militia Bill/ Dick Act essentially say the same thing, including what I have on file. So I'll put the link at the bottom to the one that covers it best, and with it's own citings, and HIGHLIGHT some important points. But first:

Not sure how you got your definition of Militia

Straight from the Law dictionary used by the courts, Black's Law Dictionary, 8th Edition. I listed it in my original post. Yes, I have a copy. Believe it or not, you can pick one up through Amazon.com.

"Militia" is defined as: A body of CITIZENS ARMED and trained, esp. by a state*, for military service APART FROM the regular armed forces. -- reserve militia. ALL persons who are not exempt from military service and not actively serving in the armed forces OR national guard.

-- Black's Law Dictionary 8th Edition, page 1014 top of the 2nd column. <--- Right Here

As for the "Regulated" part, as it was not found in the Law Dictionaries of the day, we are then relegated to the dictionary references of the period. As such, it does mean "Supplied, Equipped, and Trained". To sum it up "Maintained". Much like the word "ain't" isn't in modern dictionaries, but IS, in fact, in older ones and refer to the word being "archaic" in usage.

The problem lies in the fact that the courts deal with legal TERMS, when average people are using lay definitions that many times do not match up. {Go to your local law library, get the Black's Law Dictionary and look up the word "Person". That ought to piss you off!}

-----

Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, June 28, 1902. Congressional Record, House, pages 7706-7713 and 321-353, 7594-7595. Also known as the Dick Act of 1902, written by Representative Dick, passed by Congress on June 30, 1902.

The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the ABSOLUTE PERSONAL RIGHT and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

The Dick Act of 1902 CANNOT BE REPEALED; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.
Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, "the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States."

The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.

During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada. The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.

The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states. Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.

Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: "The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States." In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, "that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it."

"This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power."

The Honorable William Gordon
Congressional Record, House, Page 640 - 1917

"Be it enacted that the militia shall consist of every able-bodied male citizen, respective of States, Territories, and the District of Columbia and every able-bodied male of foreign birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who is more than 18 and less than 45 years of age, shall be divided into three classes; the organized militia, to be known as The National Guard of the State, Territory or District of Columbia, or by such other designations by the laws of the respective States or Territories, as may be given by the laws of the respective States or Territories, the national voluntary reserve as provided in this act, and the remainder to be known as the reserve militia."

The Militia Act and the revised Militia Act (the Dick Act), make it quite clear that all men between the ages of 18 and 45 are the (unorganized) militia with an absolute right to keep and bear Arms under the Article II of the Bill of Rights, of whatever type; automatic or semi-automatic, regardless of size, magazine capacity, barrel length or caliber/gauge in any quantity they may deem necessary along with any amount of ammunition they may determine from time to time.

"The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Report", of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the United States Senate Judiciary Committee; Ninety-seventh Congress, second session, February 1982. Orrin Hatch, Chairman.
"That the National Guard is not the "Militia" referred to in the Second Amendment is even clearer today. Congress has organized the National Guard under its power to "raise and support armies", and not its power to "Provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia." This Congress chose to do so in the interest of organizing reserve military units which were not limited in deployment by the strictures of our power over Constitutional militia, which can be called forth only "to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection, and repel invasions." The modern National Guard was specifically intended to avoid status as the Constitutional militia, a distinction recognized by Title 10 United States Code 311 (a)."

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commenter and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."

The Second Amendment right to keep and bear Arms, therefore, is a right of the individual citizen to privately possess and carry in a peaceful manner firearms and similar arms. Such an individual rights interpretation is in full accord with the history of the right to keep and bear arms previously discussed...It accurately reflects the majority of proposals that lead up to the Bill of Rights itself.

NOW, THEREFORE, all existing or future so-called "gun and/or ammunition laws", of whatever name or form under "color of law", whether Federal, Federal Agency, Pseudo Federal Agency, State, County or Municipal that infringes, abridges or restricts in any manner, the God given, unalienable, indefeasible, Constitutional right of Citizens to keep and bear Arms peaceably, openly or concealed, for their defense of life, liberty, and property are prima facie violations of Article 1, Sec. 9, Part 3; Article 6, Part 2; and Amendments I, II, IV, IX, and X of the Constitution for the United States of America; Article 2; Sec. 1, Sec. 2, Sec. 4, Sec. 5, Sec. 27, and Sec. 29 of the Constitution for the State of Arkansas; and the Dick Act of 1902, and are NO LAW, ab initio, ultra vires, of no force and effect, incumbent upon no one to obey or any court to enforce.

https://www.unitedstatesmilitia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=854

One key point above is that "The Dick Act of 1902 CANNOT BE REPEALED". And yeah. There have been several recent Presidents who have violated it and SHOULD BE prosecuted.

Hope that helps...

Chris from Yucaipa...(#1.96)..."And Mike, should we lower the regulations we require to operate cars to the same level we currently have for guns? No license to operate, no drivers ed, no insurance?"

And Chris.....We have over 1 million Illegals here in Florida alone....100's of thousands are driving with No Licence, No Drivers Ed, No Insurance....causing mayhem and death on our highways.

My friend was rear-ended, stopped at a traffic light, by an illegal with none of the above...cop came, gave him 3 tickets-- no licence, no insurance, expired registration....And let him drive off. Her insurance had to pay for the repairs...that's why our friggin' car insurance is so high here...Uninsured drivers.

I had to fill out a "A Firearms Transaction Record, or Form 4473" to purchase my gun(s) at Florida Gun Shows...and have the Background Check and wait 72 hours to pick up my firearm from a FFL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_4473

To get my CCW Permit I had to fill out the Florida form, take the CCW Permit Course (including firing at a gun range sign-off certificate (paid for that ) , fingerprint card (paid for that), Passport Photo (paid for that too), Produce State Issued Photo ID, all notarized( paid for this too)....Take all the required documents and send them off to Tallahassee with a check for $ 117.00. Took over 90 days to get my permit in the mail.....

http://www.americanccw.com/application-florida-ccw.htm

Law Abiding Citizens are not the problem.....

So you liberal, gun grabbing idiots are okay with your medical doctor and your psychologist having to be mandatory reporters to the federal government, I'm assuming that would be to the ATF, the FBI and the DHS, if you express any idea concerning anger and the thought of harm towards anyone or say anything about having firearms in your house? That's #2 and #16 on the list of EOs numbnuts. Or how about being profiled by the 'evil' gene when they perfect that study. That way they can remove you from society without ever having committed a crime. That's #14 on the list of EOs you dipsticks. I like how your god Obama refers to not being able to access your medical records as "unnecessary legal barriers". Follow him straight to the gates of hell because I want to see what a sheeple's fleece looks like when it burns.

To those who are wondering why this is news. Maybe because this day was hyped by the NRA and gun advocates as " Gun Appreciation Day" To drum up media attention and get the gun advocacy agenda out. Well you got what you wanted so don't blame the media because you made yourselves look like fools.

I only met a few psychiatrists in my life, and neither one was one that I would like to meet in a dark alley at night. Those are the guys who decide who's mentally unstable? It takes one to know one.

Guess what Frozencarbonite, accidents happen. I wonder how many medical patients die by doctors' oversight on National AMA day. 10 years ago, no matter the day, this wouldn't even have been news. It is the liberal, gun-grabbing agenda and their lap dog, the mainstream media, making sure this gets plenty of attention.

Yeah the gun to car comparison is relivant. You need a license for a car? Please... it's not like the qualifications are hard, any dumb*ss teenager can pass the test to get a driver's license. Insurance? You mean just pay someone, no strict qualifications there either. Driving classes are not required for a license. Background check? Nope. Guns can kill multiple people with ease? So can a car. If a crazed gunman runs wild it's going to be a place like a school or the movies where no one else has guns. Just like if you wanted to kill a bunch of people with a car you would just wait for the Boston Marathon or any public gathering. It's not the tool, but the individual. People just don't want to admit that the moral fabric of the country is unraveling. What would happen if all the guns are taken away and the murders still happened? Blame the knives? Then take away everything sharp and the murders still happen? Blame wood for making baseball bats (the #1 weapon of choice in violent crimes)? The problem is rooted deeper than the weapon of choice.

These people are all idiots. Incident 10 what kind of idiot goes to a gun show with a loaded weapon! You don't load your weapon unless you are going to be using it, like when hunting or on the range. 2) an exhibitor should know better. Weapons are not to be stored loaded, also do you know what a safety is, and why wasn't it engaged? 3) While loading? come on, again do you know what a safety is, and why wasn't it engaged? Thank goodness the only one injured was the idiot himself.

Incident 10 what kind of idiot goes to a gun show with a loaded weapon!

The same kind of idiot that pulls ahead of you and cuts you off in your lane in his Civic with custom exhaust, without having a drivers license, insurance, or even a SSN.

My point is this. Cars are some of the most regulated devices in the US. Literally dozens of checks and balances are in place to keep both the drivers and others safe. Ever since cars came out, they've been adding rules and such as needed when a problem is noticed. And yet with all these regs and safety features, cars still killed 31,000 people in 2012. But at no time have they ever considered banning cars when people are killed. They've simply set limits on them such as: setting a maximum horse power on new cars, the speed you can travel and forbidden them in certain areas.

Now consider the current gun debate and the proposed new legislation. Contrary to the rhetoric, they are not trying to take your guns away. If you have an AR-15, you get to keep it. Just like you get to keep that 900 horsepower muscle car you already owned. They simply are requesting that you no longer be able to buy them and that you register the ones you have. They want more background checks, something even the NRA can support. More money for mental health screening and treatment. And so on and so forth.

Some of you try to use the slippery slope argument in which you believe that once they start in with the restrictions, the end result will be a total ban on firearms. I disagree. For over 100 years cars have had regs added, and yet they are more popular than ever. They have many uses, just like guns do. And just like cars, there is no perfect solution to prevent deaths. But what harm does it actually do to add even one small thing that might help prevent another Sandy Hook or Aurora?

And Mike

And Chris.....We have over 1 million Illegals here in Florida alone....100's of thousands are driving with No Licence, No Drivers Ed, No Insurance....causing mayhem and death on our highways.

How much would that number increase if normal citizens no longer had to require any of those things either?

todd:

"... if you express any idea concerning anger and the thought of harm towards anyone.."

".. Follow him straight to the gates of hell because I want to see what a sheeple's fleece looks like when it burns."

Whatever you say, todd.

Not sure if it's already been said but:

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! That's some funny @!$%#!

on average in the US there are about 180,000 injuries that need medical attention daily.... 5 accidental shootings is not exactly a big problem retards

anti gun people are really big on manipulating the magnitude of gun violence by cherry picking statistics, but they are really stupid about the real causes, effects, practicality, and actual use of guns.... thats what happens when the grossly uninformed try to drive policy.

Spiddas

I'm concerned with your definition that you supposedly got from Black's Law Dictionary.

Let's review it:

"Militia" is defined as: A body of CITIZENS ARMED and trained, esp. by a state*, for military service APART FROM the regular armed forces. -- reserve militia. ALL persons who are not exempt from military service and not actively serving in the armed forces OR national guard. --Black's Law Dictionary 8th Edition

I don't have access to the 8th edition but I doubt it has changed so much from the 7th edition:

http://johnwademoore.net/_files/Blacks7thEdition/Blacks%20Law%207th%20Edition%20-%20Sec.%20M.pdf

militia (ma-lish-a). 1. A body of citizens armed and trained, esp. by a state, for military service apart from the regular armed forces. • The Constitution recognizes a state's right to form a "well-regulated militia" but also grants Con­gress the power to activate, organize, and gov­ern a federal militia. U.S. Const. amend. II; U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 15-16. See NATIONAL GUARD. 2. Roman law. Military service.

Black's 7th edition Definition of National Guard.

http://johnwademoore.net/_files/Blacks7thEdition/Blacks%20Law%207th%20Edition%20-%20Sec.%20N.pdf

National Guard. The U.S. militia, which is maintained as a reserve for the U.S. Army and Air Force . • Its members are volunteers, re­cruited and trained on a statewide basis and equipped by the federal government. A state may request the National Guard's assistance in quelling disturbances, and the federal govern­ment may order the National Guard into active service in times of war or other national emer­gency. See MILITIA.

Those Citizens that are armed are the National Guard - They are citizens are they not? They are trained BY THE STATE.

Historically every state had it's own Militia, the Governor of the state was their Commander in Chief. The problem came up that in times of a National need there were too many chiefs.

The Militia Act changed the way things operate. Today each State still has it's own National guard and each Governor is still that group's Commander in Chief EXCEPT in times of National need. That is when the President takes command of the National Guard.

Believe it or not I am old enough to remember a good example of how this worked.

In 1963 Governor George Wallace attempted to stop two Black students from registering for college. He stood on the steps of the school with the State Police to stop them from entering.

President Kennedy Federalized the Alabama National Guard which ordered Wallace to step aside.

The National Guard is NOT part of the regular Armed forces. They are trained by the STATE. They are a reserve Militia.

I'm thinking you got your definition from an unreliable source because if your definition was true then what I gave you, on the legal basis for the National Guard to be our militia, would be illegal.

The Militia Act trumps your questionable quote from Black's Law Dictionary.

To go back to the legal basis for the National Guard to be our Militia.

http://www.arng.army.mil/aboutus/history/Pages/ConstitutionalCharteroftheGuard.aspx

The National Guard's charter is the Constitution of the United States. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution contains a series of "militia clauses," vesting distinct authority and responsibilities in the federal government and the state governments. These clauses and follow-on legislation have sculpted the Guard as you see it today. Here are summaries that will help you understand how the Guard came to be what it is today.

Article I, Section 8; Clause 15 tells what the grounds are for calling up the Guard.

Clause 15 provides that the Congress has three constitutional grounds for calling up the militia -- "to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection and repel invasions." All three standards appear to be applicable only to the Territory of the United States.

Article I, Section 8; Clause 16
Congress may "organize, arm and discipline" the militia; the States may "establish… appoint the officers of… and train the militia." Also, limits Congress' power during peacetime.

Clause 16 gives Congress the power "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." That same clause specifically reserves to the States the authority to establish a state-based militia, to appoint the officers and to train the militia according to the discipline prescribed by the Congress. As written, the clause seeks to limit federal power over State militias during peacetime.

You might want to read the rest of the above from the National Guard site, and DOUBLE CHECK your Black's Definition. Please get back to me if you can prove your definition.

I do not think you can.

Yes the media chooses to glamorize every incident including their poor taste in costing childrens lives due to copy cats at the hands of the media glamorizing, and then pick out the idiots to portray a group. Well for the left be blushing a bit with your public spokesperson heading up your pack of idiots as "Chief of the clueless ones". BTW I hear Cuomo is about to limit the size of the steak you can order in NY and if your considered overweight by his elite cabinet criteria you won't be able to eat anything until you are within guidelines. Welcome to the new world order, you must be proud, stupid but proud.

Guns don't shoot idiots, idiots shoot idiots!

Just a shame these fools are still in the gene pool.

Some of you try to use the slippery slope argument in which you believe that once they start in with the restrictions,

They already have Chris. It was done almost from the beginning. I read in another article, one of the posters said that every law abiding citizen has the right to bear firearms. In reality, that is much more in line with current laws than constitutional written second amendmant laws of every citizen shall have the right to bear arms. Taken in it's raw form as the pro gun people claim they insist on, that would also include the rights of non law abiding citizens as well to bear arms to protect themselves, their homes and their families. We as a society made laws that said that once they broke a law, they no longer had the rights to bear arms to protect themselves, their homes, their families or their state and country. If laws can be made to strip a citizen on any level of their constitutional right, then the law can be made to strip any other citizen of their rights as well and make it binding under precedence regardless if the opposers object to the precedence being used. The right to bear arms has been in the past and will again in the present or future be infringed upon as the precedence to infringe on it has already been set.

In many states, even law abiding family members and others that live in a residence with a known felon lose their rights to have firearms in their home as long as the felon is living there. Once again, citizens second amendmant rights have been infringed upon and are backed by the very people that now claim they have a constitutional right to bear arms and that right cannot be infringed upon. It has and it will continue to be infringed upon as the needs for the infringments become clear and necessary.

Spiddas

Also to break this up a little bit:

The Dick Act of 1902 CANNOT BE REPEALED; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

SAYS WHO!

Do you even know what a bill of attender is?

I don't usually quote Wikipedia but this is easy:

A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without privilege of a judicial trial.

Wow, just wow. Try looking things up instead of getting your information from chain emails.

The idea that Congress cannot repeal a law they made is absurd. The Dick act itself repealed previous laws.

Think man think.

So anytime there is an incident with guns, it's gonna be reported and a top story at that. So when are they going to report on every single drunk driving incident that leads to deaths or people getting injured and call for a ban on alcohol?

FYI alcohol has led to many more deaths than guns; 63% of gun deaths are suicides, and drunk driving deaths are on par with homicides. Just looking at the suicide rate, which is among the highest in the world, I doubt you can stop people committing suicide by a gun ban, and tells me the problem is a societal ill than guns.

Switzerland where many citizens own guns including fully automatic assault rifles, does not have the same problems. In addition, with a gun ban, who is going to enforce the ban on the very wealthy with estates and who may be targets themselves. With a gun law, I can only see the very wealthy and criminals retaining their weapons.

with a gun ban, who is going to enforce the ban on the very wealthy with estates and who may be targets themselves. With a gun law, I can only see the very wealthy and criminals retaining their weapons.

I'm still waiting to be shown where anyone is trying to ban or take your guns from you.

Yes the media chooses to glamorize every incident including their poor taste in costing childrens lives due to copy cats at the hands of the media glamorizing, and then pick out the idiots to portray a group.

How 'bout instead of a psych exam just a basic English test to weed out the @!$%#ing morons?

I know quite a few aliens that can compose a better sentence and are better suited for guns.

This is funny as hell! Even the people here posting are hilarious! Wow... thanks for the laugh!

Switzerland where many citizens own guns including fully automatic assault rifles, does not have the same problems

Switzerland also has no standing army. So every male from age 20-30 is conscripted into the militia, sent to boot camp and then issued an assault rifle. But the key point you guys leave out every time you bring up the "Swiss and their guns" rhetoric is that as of 2007 you are no longer issued ammunition to go with that gun and everyone who was issued bullets before the change had to return them, unopened.

After their period of service ends, they are allowed to either keep their rifle, or return it. If they choose to keep it, it is sent to the factory and turned into a semi automatic before being returned.

Ok, I've officially changed my entire position on gun control. Please, it should be a law that everyone attending a gun show carries a loaded gun with them at all times. You know, to keep them safe, in case at the gun show there's an argument or something. Just want them all to be prepared is all.

A few things.

1. I am waiting on a response to what to do with alcohol since the statistics show that it is causing more deaths.

2.

After their period of service ends, they are allowed to either keep their rifle, or return it. If they choose to keep it, it is sent to the factory and turned into a semi automatic before being returned.

I did overlook that, but even so, assault weapons have been banned in the US and there is an attempt to ban semi-automatics; so why isn't Switzerland having the same problems with semi-automatics? Here is what a Time article had to say:

“Social conditions are fundamental in deterring crime,” says Peter Squires, professor of criminology and public policy at the University of Brighton in Great Britain, who has studied gun violence in different countries and concluded that a “culture of support” rather than focus on individualism, can deter mass killings.

“If people have a responsible, disciplined and organized introduction into an activity like shooting, there will be less risk of gun violence,” he tells TIME.

Like I said previously, looking at the suicide rate, it looks like a societal problem.

3. A ban on semi-automatics would be like a reversion to guns pre-1885. I would feel bad for anyone (in self defense) missing on their first shot. So technically, semi-automatics would be taken away.

4. I think the guys who wrote the Constitution, and placed high importance on the 2nd Amendment, have a better understanding of history than the average Joe.

5. I don't own a gun nor have I ever, but I don't feel endangered because others own guns, esp. with all the one-off shootings. Considering the gun-ownership rate and the number of random shootings that occur, you might as well be afraid to fly on an airplane in the event it may crash.

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 damn weird when you try to make these anti-second amendment arguments apply to the first

And so we have the solution, provided by the nuts themselves.

Simply insist that all gun fanatics must attend a gun show for three hours each month until they are dead.

whiskey eye ...(#1.32).."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."

And in their infinate wisdom and rush to pass some feel good legislation....In NY, the New Gun Law even makes it illegal for Police and Certified Armed Security to have a magazine with greater than 7 rounds...So, a NYPD Cop, State Trooper, any Law Enforcement carrying a Glock 17 has to remove 10 bullets from his /her magazine in order to be compliant....Whooops, they are carving out exemptions as we speak and will ammend the Law even before the ink is dry.

And then there is this:

"THIS gun is banned but THIS gun isn't"

http://conservativebyte.com/2013/01/this-gun-is-banned-but-this-one-isnt/

Closer look:

http://conservativebyte.com/2013/01/this-gun-is-banned-but-this-one-isnt/16n_rifles_ipad-525x300/

Whoops!

This would not have made a blip on the radar at any other time, but leave it to the liberal media to make it national headlines now. How conveeeeeenient. Can you say "exploit"????

Every single gun nut on here screeching about how many people get hurt in car accidents is actually making the point very well. Yes, cars can be dangerous. That is why they are regulated. Every person using that argument must then agree that guns should also be regulated as strictly as cars.

You must meet minimum age requirements to operate one.

You must possess a license to operate one.

You must pass a test to obtain that license.

You must register every one you own.

There are laws to control how and where you use one.

There are restrictions on what types you may use.

You must have liability insurance to protect anyone you might injure.

There are legal penalties for misusing one.

That's how we regulate cars. What is the objection to applying the same level of regulation to guns?

These incidents all happened on the first "National Gun Appreciation Day," which was organized by Political Media, a Republican consulting firm.

LOL. So, one gun nut shot himself; another shot his friend; another shot three random other gun nuts. Awesome.

What is especially funny is that the gun nuts posting here say, "So what??? Only 5 gun nuts accidently shot by gun nuts in one day celebrating the guns that wounded them?".

Yes, statistically, 5 gun nuts is insignificant. But the fact that one gun nut shot himself shows that these are dangerous, and doubly so when they are idiots, which covers about 99% of everyone attending a gun show after Newton, CT.

'The End of the United States is Near' says"

Ha, both Liberal states. Probably Democrats. Can't fix stupid.

Seriously, out of a country with some 400,000,000 people, 3 guns are accidentally discharged, one while opening the box. Close to 7,000 people die every day in this country, and none of these people died.

1. Three states, not both
2. Two of the three states are red states (Indiana and North Carolina)
3. All of the shooters, victims, and apologists here are idiots.
4. Can't fix stupid is true, otherwise, we would not have people trying to justify accidental shootings of gun nuts by gun nuts by explaining that people die every day. Yes, people die every day. Does that mean that nothing should be done to keep anyone else from dying unnecessarily just because gun nuts like to feel powerful?

Go back to watching American Idol or Dancing With The Stars. This is the upper limit of what you can comprehend.

Sailcat - You stated that the NRA was "taken over" by right wing extremists, I guess that the ACLU, NAACP and Democratic Party have all been taken over by left wing extremists.

Janine - it is the same when PMS-DNC runs stories about SUV's running over people. Nothing about the idiot at the wheel, just the "evil" SUV harming a sock-and-sandal wearing innocent bystander. The SUV was probably protesting FOR global warming.

Robert in Oregon - You complain about being labeled a leftist, but it seems to be okay all you leftist to immediately classify anyone for gun rights, anti free drug laws, or practicing Christians as "far right extremists" (just read some previous posts). You complain about some Sheriff's refusing to follow laws THEY consider unconstitutional, but how do you feel about the President, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the country, telling his Just-us department NOT to enforce Federal Laws he disagrees with politically? How do you feel about an Attorney general violating federal firearms laws and letting weapons walk? (and it's now been 4 years, you can't blame Bush for the idiocy of this administration)

Quit using these analogies:

Guns don't kill People...People kill people. It's like saying cigarettes don't kill people....It's the people that smoke them. (both need human interaction in order to function)

Cars kill more people each year than guns.....They call those accidents. There are not many news stories where you see someone trying to intentionally do mass harm with a vehicle.....You crash it once and it's over, you can not reload your car unless it is a video game.

Okay those are just a few...I'm sure you get my point here. In pointing these examples out by those that use them is an attempt to take the responsibility of gun ownership and shift it over to something else.

Guns used in violent crimes are 90% more likely to have been stolen from someones home. That means the guns that you bought to keep your home safe are taken, sold to someone on the street and end up involved in a crime.

I own firearms. They are locked up, and have trigger locks on them. They (my guns) are not in a glass display case for all to see, nor are they sitting on my mantel in plan sight. It's called being a responsible gun owner. Now I know it (gun safes & trigger locks) won't stop someone 100% from taking my guns if they want....But it sure as hell will slow them down.

So when you do a comparison to how deaths occur due to guns, please think about where these guns came from in the first place.

@sandmantruth

One thing I left off that might have some bearing is that the ammo for those automatics and semi automatics can only be purchased at a gun range and by law can only be fired there as well. They don't get to take the ammo for those rifles home.

Just to clarify my point

Guns are a separate issue.

Cars...cigarettes and anything else you wish to compare guns to...all separate categories, the only thing that links them together is people and death.

Here is something for all you John Wayne's out there that think putting guns in the hands of everyone is a good idea.

When our fight or flight response is
activated, sequences of nerve cell firing occur and chemicals like adrenaline,
noradrenaline and cortisol are released into our bloodstream. These patterns of
nerve cell firing and chemical release cause our body to undergo a series of
very dramatic changes. Our respiratory rate increases. Blood is shunted away
from our digestive tract and directed into our muscles and limbs, which require
extra energy and fuel for running and fighting. Our pupils dilate. Our awareness
intensifies. Our sight sharpens. Our impulses quicken. Our perception of pain
diminishes. Our immune system mobilizes with increased activation. We become
prepared—physically and psychologically—for fight or flight. We scan and search
our environment, "looking for the enemy."

When our fight or flight system is
activated, we tend to perceive everything in our environment as a possible
threat to our survival. By its very nature, the fight or flight system bypasses
our rational mind—where our more well thought out beliefs exist—and moves us
into "attack" mode. This state of alert causes us to perceive almost everything
in our world as a possible threat to our survival. As such, we tend to see
everyone and everything as a possible enemy. Like airport security during a
terrorist threat, we are on the look out for every possible danger. We may
overreact to the slightest comment. Our fear is exaggerated. Our thinking is
distorted. We see everything through the filter of possible danger. We narrow
our focus to those things that can harm us. Fear becomes the lens through which
we see the world.

So everyone having guns knowing this is a good idea?

My uncle trained me to carry a weapon some 35 years ago and even provided me a certificate stating that I had been trained....

Weapons kill things, thats what they designed to do....

Rule #1.... Never presume that a weapon is unloaded always check them in a safe manner....

Rule #2.... (First refer back to rule #1) Once a cartridge is in the chamber keep the gun/weapon pointed towards the air (unoccupied space) until you are ready to fire it.... Check your surroundings before you lower your weapon to fire it.... When hunting in groups all men should stay in a line and not move foward of that line into the line of fire....

Rule #3.... Safely remove all cartridges from weapon once done and transport/store the weapon and safely clean it before storing the weapon once more....

My uncle had an extreme for gun safety and owned over 100 weapons from 270 high powered rifes down to 22 automatics both pistols, shotguns and rifles and never once missed a deer season, squirrel season or rabbit season in the 75 years he lived.... He was also recruited as a deputy by his local police department when needed and they knew him where he lived very well.... He died of cancer and not from being shot....

So you can see these people were idiots when it comes to gun safety.... It may be your right to own/carry a firearm but its your duty to the public to safely do so....

Please Mr. NRA man, tell me again how much safer I will be if I just BUY a gun, also tell me how much safer I am if you got a gun. Gun control, we need it.

I taught my wife when teaching her how to use my grandfather's old shotgun. She's new to guns, so I am the jerk who makes her repeat these things to me before we practice:

1) Never point or aim the weapon at something you don't intend to shoot

2) Never put your finger on the trigger unless you intend to fire the weapon

3) Never take it off safety unless you intend to fire the weapon

4) Always check the chamber and Magazine to verify they are empty before you do anything else.

5) never keep a shotgun loaded when not in use.

These are among other things I learned when I was a kid regarding gun safety. I think it goes without saying that you don't transport a loaded shotgun to a gun show. You can't punish everyone because a couple people are stupid, or pretend that the exception is the norm. that would be like me saying that all liberals are gun-hating sissies.

For the record, I think everyone who uses a firearm should be required to take a training course. I did when I was younger. My wife is taking one next month. I want her to know how to use the gun since it is in our house. Now that she knows the basic operation and how easy it is to be a safe gun owner, the mystique is gone and she doesn't fear it.

@Steve guns actually kill more people than cars if you include the use by smugglers as well as illegal wars!

There were irresponsible gun owners here. Guy with shotgun should not have had it loaded. Whoever put the gun in the box should not have put it in loaded. Shooting self while loading gun - I don't know what he did exactly, but he wasn't doing something right.

5 accidental shootings is not exactly a big problem retards

Unless of course you're the one getting shot, correct?

How is transporting a loaded and non safetied weapon not a big problem?

There is nothing accidental about not properly clearing your weapon before storing it. No excuses. These individuals have proved that they need their right to bear arms removed until they have taken safety courses at their own expense.

Would you be blowing off these "accidents" if people died as a result?

If you own a firearm, it is incumbent upon you to stay properly trained. If you choose not to, you should have your right to bear arms revoked.

I have owned firearms since the 70's, and never once have I failed to clear the weapon. It's gun ownership 101. Clearly too many people out there think that just owning a weapon is all that matters, and that actually being responsible with it, is a passing thought.

Whiskey Eye

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.

Try saying, "this is a hijack" in a aircraft.

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.

I guess if that religion involved human sacrifice that could be a problem.

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 ever hear of Child Porn?

Doesn't sound weird at all.

These are some of the people they tell us will protect us from harm as long as we have freedom to puchase arms unfettered! This is living proof we need responsible regulations to prevent some gun nut from opening up in a crowded place when he thinks he see something harmful. if they cannot even prevent this from happening at Gun shows I hope and pray I am never close to one of these people when they decide to be Jpohn Wayne or whomever they are trying to be in a tough situation. Facts scare the hell out of you if you take the time to listen and one really scary one is the fact that even highly trained shooters miss their target 70% of the time! That includes Police and military! No one is trying to disarm Americans thats just the arms merchants BS. People are trying to get responsible rules in place to prevent people like this from spoiling it for those of us who take the time to become responsible owners. My neighbor bought into the ploy went out and go a gun to "protect" his home and never ever took any kind of training so I asked him about it and his answers scared me.

Whats going to happen is if the NRA and that other gun organization which are nothing more than fronts for the arms dealers who are basking in the glow of gun sales today do not get in the mix and help Americans get responsible gun legistlation passed they will have to live with whatever the people they hate come up with. Which may not be the best thing to happen.

Probably all NRA members, safety is number one !!!

This is nothing more than a self-correcting problem.

Once, after grouse hunting with friends, a buddy shot his car. We were clearing our shotguns, like you should, before storing them in his car trunk. Fortunately, we all had mussel-awareness and no one was hurt. But, I think it unnerved my friend. He hasn't hunted with us since, and he's sold his hunting guns. To say nothing about his trunk lid!

The guy that shot himself, and the guy that shot his partner (former?) are my early nominations for this years Darwin Award.

How cavalier we are when 'someone else' (anonymous) gets wounded or killed. When it is us or a friend/loved one, what a global tragedy. "Someone else" is us.

Fortunately, we all had mussel-awareness

It's always good to know where your shellfish is at :)

Thanks Chris, I lol'ed! Muzzle is not a word I type, very often!

breadex

These are some of the people they tell us will protect us from harm as long as we have freedom to puchase arms unfettered! This is living proof we need responsible regulations to prevent some gun nut from opening up in a crowded place when he thinks he see something harmful. if they cannot even prevent this from happening at Gun shows I hope and pray I am never close to one of these people when they decide to be Jpohn Wayne or whomever they are trying to be in a tough situation. Facts scare the hell out of you if you take the time to listen and one really scary one is the fact that even highly trained shooters miss their target 70% of the time! That includes Police and military! No one is trying to disarm Americans thats just the arms merchants BS. People are trying to get responsible rules in place to prevent people like this from spoiling it for those of us who take the time to become responsible owners. My neighbor bought into the ploy went out and go a gun to "protect" his home and never ever took any kind of training so I asked him about it and his answers scared me.

Whats going to happen is if the NRA and that other gun organization which are nothing more than fronts for the arms dealers who are basking in the glow of gun sales today do not get in the mix and help Americans get responsible gun legistlation passed they will have to live with whatever the people they hate come up with. Which may not be the best thing to happen.

Great point here made by breadex:::: I think it should be required that any gun owner take a weapons safety course before they ever receive a permit to carry and be able to buy a weapon of any kind, and that permit be worded so the person carring doesn't have to have a weapon in plain site or with tons of bullets.... Crime ain't that bad here yet....

@Ken-1593428

Every single gun nut on here screeching about how many people get hurt in car accidents is actually making the point very well. Yes, cars can be dangerous. That is why they are regulated. Every person using that argument must then agree that guns should also be regulated as strictly as cars.

Cars and guns are regulated about the same in FL.

You must meet minimum age requirements to operate one.

There are minimum age requirements. You have to be 21 to purchase a handgun and 18 for anything else. As for operation, hell I've seen 12 year old kids driving cars around when they're not supposed to be. There is no stopping idiotic parenting, no matter what laws are in place.

You must possess a license to operate one.

CWP license or hunting license if you're taking the weapon anywhere or hunt with it. If the firearm license test is the same difficulty as the drivers license test it wouldn't be that hard to pass.

You must pass a test to obtain that license.

You must pass a written and shooting test for a CWP and for the hunter safety course for a hunting license. Even if you go to a shooting range the majority make you take a minimum safety test.

You must register every one you own.

When you purchase one it is recorded as yours. Not to mention background checks and waiting periods. It must be yours if you are going to carry it concealed. You will lose your CWP if you're caught concealing a firearm that isn't yours.

There are laws to control how and where you use one.

This is in place too. I live in a residential area. I can't just go out in my backyard and start shooting. It's illegal to discharge a firearm in a residential area, but you can use a crossbow...

There are restrictions on what types you may use.

This is in place as well. I can't go down to the store and buy an M60 or MP5 or any other full auto. There is already a ban on those. Just like I can't drive an Indy car down the highway.

You must have liability insurance to protect anyone you might injure.

This isn't in place anywhere that I know of. It's not a bad idea. Eventhough I hate insurance companies it isn't unreasonable to have firearm insurance. You have to have it for cars, boats, motorcycles, homeowners, businesses, just about on everything.

There are legal penalties for misusing one.

Come on now. You know there is already legal penalties for misusing a firearm.

That's how we regulate cars. What is the objection to applying the same level of regulation to guns?

So, there is about the same regulations here, except for the insurance...

breadex

Facts scare the hell out of you if you take the time to listen...

Sure they do. And I'm sure the FACT that there are an estimated 5,000 gun shows a year and MSNBC could only come up with 5 minor injuries should scare you because it blows your whole BS theroies to hell.

Note to liberals- People take guns to gun shows to sell them. Some of these people are NOT "gun people" they are there getting rid of "grandpas old gun" etc. If you think every single person at a gun show is an "NRA loving gun nut" you need to look in the mirror BEFORE you start caling anyone an idiot.

Just think, if this had happened to 3 different teenagers, they would all be tried as adults!

Old Timer-88224

Just think, if this had happened to 3 different teenagers, they would all be tried as adults!

Tried?? Did I miss the part of the article that said anyone had been charged with a crime?

I have no problem with background checks in order to discover if someone who can't legally own weapons is trying to buy a weapon. But this will hardly do anything to stop the criminal use of a gun. I also have no problem with requiring someone wanting to own a weapon to take a safety course and pass a license exam. Registration makes no sense at all to me though, but test firing every rifled firearm and keeping that database for future reference would be okay.

Some here are arguing that cars are more dangerous than guns. Which is true. Others are arguing that cars are more regulated than guns. Which is not true. But it's also irrelevant. Cars, and the people who drive them, are principally regulated by the state, not the feds, save design regulations that imo are unconstitutional. So any talk about federal regulation of private gun ownership, other than design regulations which could pass constitutional scrutiny (again, imo they would be unconstitutional) is off the mark.

I think NY, among other state or local jurisdictions, has every right to place all sorts of stupid regulations--by stupid I mean ineffective at achieving the stated goal--on firearms so long as the actual right to keep and bear isn't infringed. It seems to me to be driving the country further apart as individual states are trying to cause the people of other states to comply with out-of-state rules, but we suffer from political entropy problems anyhow.

If the left, and it is the left who is championing the gun control position, truly cared about gun violence then they would seek to understand its causes and deal with those things. Things like single parenting, illiteracy, moral uncertainty, and so on. But the left champions these very social outcomes (I know, illiteracy would be a debateable point, but I think the evidence supports the claim otherwise we would not continue to spend far more and get the same, or less, performance) and so there is no way in hell they will confront them as possible causes for a culture that leads to gun violence.

Just ask yourself...If guns are such a problem then why when there were more guns per capita in the USA, and more people actually had access to guns, and those guns included legal ownership of even machine guns, that we had such lower rates of gun violence?

It's the culture, not the guns. And the culture has been degraded for decades at the direction of liberals with the all too often aquiescence of enough conservatives to make it happen.

Ken-1593428

Every person using that argument must then agree that guns should also be regulated as strictly as cars.

NOTHING in the US is more heavily regulated than guns. Cars don't even come close. After all, the roads are full of POS cars being driven by people who God only knows how they managed to get a drivers license. So much for that argument.

You must meet minimum age requirements to operate one.

This ONLY applies to opperating them on public roads. On private property you can do whatever you want.

You must possess a license to operate one.

See above

You must pass a test to obtain that license.

See above

You must register every one you own.

See above

There are laws to control how and where you use one.

See above

There are restrictions on what types you may use.

See above

You must have liability insurance to protect anyone you might injure.

See above

There are legal penalties for misusing one.

As there are with firearms

So basically what you're saying is that as long as people aren't using them in a "public" place none of these rules would apply???? Or are you going to admit that your car analogy is as ridiculous as it sounds?

How many people got shot in Chicago this weekend where guns are virtually banned?

Holy chit is this thing still here?

@Ken "You must meet minimum age requirements to operate one." Unless your parent buys it for you the minimum age is 18. Pretty sure most states make you be 21 to legally own a handgun. There are so many laws already I would have to go and look them all up, but there is no way any store is selling a minor a firearm.

"You must possess a license to operate one." You must possess valid ID to legally buy a gun and I have always been in favor of some training classes before just anyone is given a gun. The "never point a gun at something you do not intend to kill" and "treat every gun as it is loaded" cannot be stressed enough, but a simple "failure to extract" of an old shell left in the shotgun for many years that might have swelled up could have caused this incident. Maybe he was responsible and tried to clear the gun, but it failed to do so.

"You must pass a test to obtain that license." You must pass a background check in most cases. Fix the gunshow loophole and make used purchasers do the same, but some criminals will still find a way around those. If I can buy illegal drugs from another country, I can buy an illegal gun from another country too.

"You must register every one you own." Not sure what this does other then to limit who can have guns or not, and who is going to determine the criteria for that? How is that going to prevent criminals from getting illegal guns they do not have to register? How many people drive car without licenses, registration, or insurance. The manufacturer of my handgun already fired a round into a water tank and has that onfile just in case that gun is ever used in a crime.

"There are laws to control how and where you use one." WTF? Are you kidding me? Why can I not discharge a firearm within city limits unless in self defense moron? They are not laws and rules about how I can legally transport firearms in my vehicle? Maybe get your head out of your a$$ and learn about all the laws that ALREADY exist.

"There are restrictions on what types you may use." WTF...again? Let me see can I own a fully automatic rifle without an expensive permit? NO. Can I own a grenade or RPG, explosives (without the permits and training), etc.? NO. Can I have an armed tank, armed plane, SAMs, mortars, etc.? NO. Once again plenty of rules and restrictions already.

"You must have liability insurance to protect anyone you might injure." I do not use my gun everyday in public. If a human does not touch it, it cannot fire. This will just make people more likely to kill anyone they shot to avoid being sued. Pretty sure you can still sue someone, you just might not get as much. If I have to get insurance you should have to get uninsured gun protection. You know just incase someone (criminal) does not have insurance...

"There are legal penalties for misusing one." Are you F***ING kidding me or what? If people did not open up their mouth and say stupid chit I would not be able to call them morons.

"That's how we regulate cars. What is the objection to applying the same level of regulation to guns?" There already is, put down your pitchfork and wake up. If we reduced the speed limit to 55 we would save WAY more lives then the less then four hundred average that are killed each year by ALL rifles. What happened to the "If we can save one life" rhetoric/B.S. you all were spewing when talking about semi-automatic rifles? Only when it suits your political cause huh?

@Chris "Contrary to the rhetoric, they are not trying to take your guns away. If you have an AR-15, you get to keep it." Semi-automatic firearms have been around since 1885 or so and they are what you "want" to ban. They are trying to take them away by removing our ability to buy more of them, meaning eventually no more, and "effectively" taking away our guns.

If only there was not another super-power that makes assault rifles and other guns, AND would love nothing more then to sell even more of them to the people of America. Stop American manufacturers from producing certain types of guns and another country will step in to meet the demand, way to help out the American economy. If I can buy illegal drugs from another country what makes you think I cannot buy an illegal gun? Logic is a painful thing for some it seems.

WTF do you need 1000+ horsepower for? A car that can do over 200 mph? What are you going to run from the police with it...derp derp? What about that nitrous system? My 750 sportbike can break every speed limit in 2nd or 3rd gear, and it is slow compared to some of the bikes out there. What do you need that for and why do we allow them on our roads? If they are on a track then that is another story... You do not hear me crying about displacement limits, horsepower limits, turbo limits, nitrous limits, etc. now do you?

PMSNBC:

Johnny, Get used to it. The majority want change. It WILL come.

Is that REALLY the way you want to live?

You REALLY want the power of the MOB, er... I mean... Majority to rule your destiny? This (US) government was formed to protect the rights of the Individual, not cater to the whim of Mob Rule.

In 1950 the "Majority" believed that blacks should sit at the back of the bus. This is DANGEROUS thinking.

(Oh - and PMSNBC - Recent polls overwhelmingly negate your supposition)

Please Mr. NRA man, tell me again how much safer I will be if I just BUY a gun, also tell me how much safer I am if you got a gun. Gun control, we need it.

Maybe declaring your home a gun-free zone will make you safer.

JOregon: I bet you weren't expecting me back, eh? You're making dig out the deep stuff, so it's gonna take me a little extra time to 'get 'r done!' LOL. Anyhow...

I only gave the pertinent part of the definition and the sub-definition, (which appears to be the only difference). I'll clarify and show the full definition from Black's Dictionary, 8th ed., (Page 1014), as follows:

-----

militia (mə-lish-ə). 1. A body of citizens armed and trained, esp. by a state, for military service apart from the regular armed forces. • The Constitution recognizes a state's right to form a "well-regulated militia" but also grants Congress the power to activate, organize, and govern a federal militia. U.S. Const. amend. II; U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 15-16. See NATIONAL GUARD. [Cases: Militia 1-3; Weapons 1. C.J.S. Armed Services §§ 288-289; Weapons §§ 1-8, 61-62.]

reserve militia. All persons who are not exempt from military service and not actively serving in the armed forces OR national guard. -- Black's Law Dictionary, 8th Edition

2. Roman law. Military service.

-----

...They (National Guard) are a reserve Militia.

No. As black's 8th points out, the "reserve militia" IS ALL persons who are not exempt from military service and not actively serving in the armed forces OR national guard. Which verifies the three separate classes stated in the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654/Dick Act, of, federal (Military), State (National Guard) and State (reserve militia).

{As per the link you gave to Black's 7th., it does not appear that the "reserve militia" definition was part of the dictionary when it was printed. If anyone has access to Black's 9th., and can see if there are any changes, I think everyone would appreciate it.}

The reserve militia is also evident with information available from Idaho and the Idaho Militia, (which are helping other States set up and train their unorganized citizen militias){DIY.}, as well as the legislation being proposed by the Governor of South Carolina. {IIRC, MSN/MSNBC did a piece on them several months ago, complete with video of them working with their Governor.}

SC bill would exempt state militia from federal gun rules

"By calling attention to ‘a well regulated militia,’ ‘the security of the nation,’ and The RIGHT OF EACH CITIZEN ‘to keep and bear arms,’ our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy... The Second Amendment STILL remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which EVERY CITIZEN MUST BE READY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DEFENSE OF HIS COUNTRY. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will ALWAYS be important." -- John F. Kennedy

-----

"The Dick Act of 1902 CANNOT BE REPEALED; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights...

The Honorable William Gordon
Congressional Record, House, Page 640 - 1917"

This is the government saying this; not me. I have not delved into that area, so I cannot help much. But from what limited understanding I do have, it sounds to me like the way it was written, it was done so to make the only way to effectively do away with the acts would be through the adjudication process and nothing else. ie - No act of the Congress or the President can nullify it. Making the odds of it getting effectively nullified through adjudication, virtually nil.

bill of attainder. 1. Archaic. A special legislative act that imposes a death sentence on a person without a trial. 2. A special legislative act prescribing punishment, without a trial, for a specific person or group. • Bills of attainder are prohibited by the U.S. Constitution* (art. I, § 9, cl. 3; art I, § 10, cl. 1). - Also termed act of attainder. See ATTAINDER; BILL OF PAINS AND PENALTIES. [Cases: Constitutional Law 82.5. C.J.S. Constitutional Law §§ 429-431.] -- Black's Dictionary, 8th Ed., (Page 176)

*emphasis added

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ... THE RIGHT OF THE CITIZENS TO BEAR ARMS IS JUST ONE GUARANTEE AGAINST ARBITRARY GOVERNMENT, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America BUT WHICH HISTORICALLY HAS PROVEN TO BE ALWAYS POSSIBLE." -- Hubert H. Humphrey

Mr. Miller: Here's one for ya...

Gun Grabber Logic: A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.

Bonus:

Gun Grabber Logic: The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1791, refers to the National Guard, which was created by an act of Congress in 1903.

Gun control is less about guns than it is about control.

Spiddas

Glad I was able to get you to show at least part of the truth - nothing like selectively editing to get your personal stand across.

Now then, how does your 8th edition define the National Guard?

Remember the 7th edition says under the definition for the National Guard:

"National Guard. The U.S. militia, which is maintained as a reserve for the U.S. Army and Air Force..."

Which kind of blows apart your sub-definition unless you understand what that means. The Selective Service. Those that are available for the Selective Service cannot be in the National Guard.

That is your RESERVE militia. Look at the rest of your sub definition. "All persons who are not exempt from military service"

To be qualified for military service there are some pretty stringent rules. The youngest age you can be in is 17. So if we follow your thought anyone younger than 17 cannot own a gun.

The coast guard has the oldest age available to enlist at 39, so anyone over 39 cannot own a gun, unless they are in the National Guard.

If you are over 34 and have more than 2 dependents you gotta get rid of your gun.

Here are the requirements:

http://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/join-the-military-basic-eligibility.html

This is the government saying this; not me.

It is not the Government saying this at all, it is your cult leaders twisting a very old Article of the Constitution. It has nothing to do with the Militia Act of 1903.

Here are some links for you to research:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bill+of+attainder

bill of attainder

n. pl. bills of attainder
A legislative act pronouncing a person guilty of a crime, usually treason, without trial and subjecting that person to capital punishment and attainder. Such acts are prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.

http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/attainder.htm

Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.

The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."

"The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature." U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).

"These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment." William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.

"Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community." James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.

http://johnwademoore.net/_files/Blacks7thEdition/Blacks%20Law%207th%20Edition%20-%20Sec.%20A.pdf

"The word attainder is derived from the Latin term attinctus, signifying stained or polluted, and includes, in its meaning, all those disabilities which flow from a capital sentence. On the attainder, the defendant is disqualified to be a witness in any court; he can bring no action, nor perform any of the legal functions which before he was admitted to discharge; he is, in short, regarded as dead in law." 1 Joseph Chitty, A Practical Treatise on the Criminal Law 725 (2d ed. 1826).

Bills of Attainder are illegal in the US because we are entitled to a trial, and a jury of our peers. It has nothing to do with the Militia Act.

Trying to get the Bill of Attainder clause to relate to the Militia Act is worse then trying to put a square peg in a round hole. It is more like trying to pound a wooden peg into a solid sheet of half inch steel.

The Militia Act itself repealed previous Acts, so they can definitely be repealed.

What seems to be lost here is the Militia Act was established for one reason; to create Federal Control of the National Guard in certain times of need.

During the Civil War, the State National Guards became Private Armies to some degree for various Governors. The Militia Act ended that.

Anyway I am trying to do too many things here, the game is on.

Joregon:

Omitting part of a definition that only reinforces the actual definition is not twisting anything if only being used to get a point across. It's only an issue for self-righteous individuals who like to nitpic and use circular reasoning to attempt to prove their otherwise empty points. And you're cherry-picking you data.

Case in point:

Unlike omitting a reinforcing phrase, you only took the first half of the sub-definition, and are leaving out the just as important, last half of the statement. And the part you are using, you are using out of context:

All persons who are not exempt from military service

That is NOT what it says! They used the conjunction "AND", which is why there is not a period there. And what is written after the "AND" completely changes everything.

All persons who are not exempt from military service AND not actively serving in the armed forces OR national guard.

By using "AND" it means that BOTH parts are REQUIRED to be applied. Not just the part you want to apply. In other words Everything listed MUST apply:

1. not exempt from military service -- AND
2. not actively serving in the armed forces -- AND
3. not actively serving in the national guard

Notice is says that to be a part of the LAWFUL CITIZEN MILITIA one MUST NOT BE ACTIVELY SERVING IN THE NATIONAL GUARD. Therefore proving that there IS a difference twixt the National Guard and Citizen Militia.

And even using the definition for "National Guard" from Black's 7th has no effect on on the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654/Dick Act, as the requirement for the unorganized militias are defined by each State's Constitution. It stands to reason that if the State is going to have guidelines for its National Guard, that it would have either the same or similar guidelines for its Citizen Militia. You keep trying the mix two seperate, unrelated groups under the same heading, and that is where you are in error.

Also, if someone is 17 or under, they are under their parents supervision. As such, any guns would be considered to be under the control of said parents. What you're implying is just plain goofy.

Why you bring up the Coast Guard is beyond me, as they are part of the federal militia and not part of any State's National Guard. And in Ohio, (I'm an Ohioan), it says nothing about relinquishing your gun. As such, Federal law would have no bearing on it, even through the Supremacy Clause, as those determinations were left to the States by the very definition of militia.

And since the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654/Dick Act delineates between federal milita (Military), State organized militia (National Guard), AND State unorganized militia (Citizen Militia), each has it's own requirements to be adhered to when those that are called to duty, show up, WITH THEIR OWN WEAPONS, (just as the citizen militia did when they came to the aid of General Washington and the army under his command during the Revolutionary War).

Ohio is as follows:

Ohio Constitution Article IX: Militia

WHO SHALL PERFORM MILITARY DUTY

§1. All citizens, residents of this state, being seventeen years of age, and under the age of sixty-seven years, shall be subject to enrollment in the militia and the performance of military duty, in such manner, not incompatible with the Constitution and laws of the United States, as may be prescribed by law. (1851, am. 1953, 1961) -- Constitution of the State of Ohio (with amendments to 2006, page 55)

Under federal rules, I am too old. Under Ohio Rules, I am not.

Cult leaders eh? Are you really stooping that low. I learned a LONG time ago that I have to do my own research, and my own thinking. I don't belong to any Gun Rights group. If I did, it would NOT be the NRA. Nor am I a follower of any media propaganda show(s) of EITHER side, be it TV, radio, or internet/web.

I'll wrap this up by hitting the high points ONLY.

Bills of Attainder are illegal in the US because we are entitled to a trial, and a jury of our peers. It has nothing to do with the Militia Act.

It has to do with groups, so by definition, it does. You're missing the point that it says that it cannot be used because it IS prohibited by law. Call it a redundant phrase, if you will.

The Militia Act itself repealed previous Acts, so they can definitely be repealed.

Unless it's written in such a way as to defeat a simple repeal. {My personal stance on the Constitution is that it is a living document WITHIN a framework. We were given a framework to build off of, but not to have it's foundations removed.}

What seems to be lost here is the Militia Act was established for one reason; to create Federal Control of the National Guard in certain times of need.

It created more than just the National Guard.

During the Civil War, the State National Guards became Private Armies to some degree for various Governors. The Militia Act ended that.

And for good reason...

I think I'll stop there because you're going to have to do some digging on your own. As long as you think there's only the federal military and National Guard, there will be nothing I, or anyone else can do to correct your thinking. You appear to be relying on only a handful of sources, rather than use all of the sources that paint the whole picture.

Good luck... ~_o

"A mind is like a parachute. If it doesn't open, you're @!$%#ed!" -- Don Williams Jr.

Here is something for all of the gun control advocates out there. Hell, it might even be good for the pro-gunners to look at. It's a bit simplistic, but it gets the point across,

Penn & Teller Bull@!$%#! - Gun Control - S03E09 (18+)

I find it a bit difficult to equate the 'accidental discharge' of a shotgun or a .45 wheelgun with the 'accidental discharge' of a joint or a can of beer.

Millions of suitcases, attache's and backpacks are opened and inspected every day at airports worldwide. How many people are injured by 'accidental discharges' of breast pumps, shampoo bottles or lattes?

Guns are simply the most dangerous single item any of us are likely to carry. They are specifically designed to be dangerous - if not lethal. An accident with a gun isn't like an accident with a fishing rod or a tennis racquet.

@Rich-281385 - "Things like single parenting, illiteracy, moral uncertainty, and so on. But the left champions these very social outcomes"

Wow, I missed that day at How To Be A Liberal class. I certainly don't champion those outcomes.

Spiddas

Omitting part of a definition that only reinforces the actual definition is not twisting anything if only being used to get a point across.

No it was blatantly dishonest. You were trying to give the impression that the National Guard was not our Militia. It is.

It is in all 50 States. It is the only constitutionally recognized militia that is found in all of the states.

What I did not know is that some states have an additional Militia such as you have in Ohio. I honestly did not know there was such a thing.

Most of the States have recognized such a secondary militia to be expensive and an unnecessary tax burden. The National guard is enough. If the people of Ohio wish to pay additional taxes to support such a militia it is their choice, just be careful when asking for tax cuts. Oregon does not have such a secondary Militia.

Using your Ohio Militia as an example for 2nd amendment rights is sound.............if you are living in Ohio.

For more than half of the states that argument won't work, our militia is the National Guard.

Of the 53 States and Districts of the United States 23 of them have an additional State Militia. In all about 150,000 people are in these secondary militias. It will be interesting in this time of tax cuts to see how this pans out.

No matter how you try to word it the 2nd amendment does not give permission to all arms. It was written at the time of Flintlocks. Nobody is suggesting we go back to Flintlocks. The only suggestion is in limiting the firepower of those arms. No one single individual needs to have more firepower in his hands than the entire Continental Army.

It's time for you to open your parachute.

Have to get ready for work so I'll jump down to the Bills of Attainder.

You go ahead and show me where any legal document says it applies to the Militia Act.

You might want to see if you can steer toward a soft area, the ground is coming up fast.

JOregon:

Keep burying yourself. You really need to take a course on reading comprehension.

You were trying to give the impression that the National Guard was not our Militia.

WRONG! I said it was only one of the TWO militias ALL 50 States have at their disposal. You're the one saying the National Guard is only Constitutional militia, when it is NOT. And the reserve Citizen Militia is funded by the INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN, {and as such, required to maintain military grade weapons}, NOT through the tax payer via the State. That is why it's called the "citizen" militia. {What a concept!} (And US territories do not have them because they are not Sovereign States.)

No matter how you try to word it the 2nd amendment does not give permission to all arms. It was written at the time of Flintlocks. Nobody is suggesting we go back to Flintlocks. The only suggestion is in limiting the firepower of those arms. No one single individual needs to have more firepower in his hands than the entire Continental Army.

Do you even realize that your last sentence virtually cancels out the previous three?!?! Virtually EVERY lever action "cowboy" rifle has that! Straight from the gun grabber's handbook.

It's no wonder you're having a problem with Bills of Attainder. You're confusing yourself. So I'm not EVEN going to waste any more of my time on that one.

-----

The undeniable truths:

The Constitution does NOT GRANT rights. It limits the government in its ability to take rights.
(The Second Amendment thoroughly explained in under one minute.) {If ya got 'them'...}

Criminals do not obey laws. That is why they are called "criminals". {Again. What a concept!}
(Laws are only as good as those who obey them, and who enforce them.)

Gun control has NEVER worked in favor of the People. Everywhere guns are restricted, crime increases. {One more time! What a concept!}
(The Brady Campaign's website even shows this to be true.)

Gun Grabber Logic: The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994, are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991, AND since it expired.

Accidents happen. Get over it. Utopia does NOT exist.

-----

I challenge you to watch the video via the link in post #1.177, and if you feel up to it, watch the following 3:18 minute video from PBS affiliate klru.

And with that, I bid you adieu.

Sorry Spiddas but you are the one with the reading comprehension issues.

In your original post.....

#1.81 - Sat Jan 19, 2013 7:35 PM PST

You made no mention of the National Guard except to claim:

"Well Regulated" is defined as: well equipped, well ordered and well trained...

"Militia" is defined as: A body of CITIZENS ARMED and trained, esp. by a state*, for military service APART FROM the regular armed forces. -- reserve militia. ALL persons who are not exempt from military service and not actively serving in the armed forces OR ******national guard******. --Black's Law Dictionary 8th Edition

(The ****** was added by me to separate.)

Obviously the intent (belief?) was to claim that the National Guard was not a Militia.

I'm guessing you did not compile this excerpt from Black's but instead copied it and pasted it from a pro-gun website (true or false?).

Next on your second post........

#1.107 - Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:23 PM PST

You repeated the same quote because I questioned your definition. If there ever was a time to clarify that you had combined portions of 2 separate definitions and created your own definition that was the time to do it......you did not.

You should have clarified at that point because in my post.........

#1.92 - Sat Jan 19, 2013 8:12 PM PST

...........that you were responding to, I was all about our National Guard being our militia. Up to this point in time you did not acknowledge the National Guard to be our militia. It is a common mind set with the Gun Cult. I have had others do the same, or even claim outright that the National Guard is not a militia.

At least on that second post you did mention the National guard as being a Militia, except you did it as a quote instead of your own words.

Then you went and said:

One key point above is that "The Dick Act of 1902 CANNOT BE REPEALED".

That was your focus (misdirect) of the quote.

That is still an issue for you, you have not been able to respond to my challenge:

I'll jump down to the Bills of Attainder.

You go ahead and show me where any legal document says it applies to the Militia Act.

You might want to see if you can steer toward a soft area, the ground is coming up fast.

It is clear from your response.........

It's no wonder you're having a problem with Bills of Attainder. You're confusing yourself. So I'm not EVEN going to waste any more of my time on that one.

.......you can't find any legal document to support that bull@!$%# claim of yours. That big Granite rock just smacked you like a fly. You even forgot to pull your reserve chute.

A man can admit when he has erred. Grow a pair. You cannot find any legal support for your Dick Act claim.

I admitted when I was in error.

This is where your reading comprehension comes in.

You're the one saying the National Guard is only Constitutional militia, when it is NOT.

I did, but then I admitted I was in error:

What I did not know is that some states have an additional Militia such as you have in Ohio. I honestly did not know there was such a thing.

That additional Militia is not generally referred to as a militia instead they use the term "State Defense Force". In all about 14,000 (2005) people are involved.

Yes it does cost the state money.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/10/the-21st-century-militia-state-defense-forces-and-homeland-security

while SDFs are considered a low-cost asset, they still require adequate state funding to ensure that they have the resources necessary to carry out their assigned missions.

Did you notice I have the balls to include the State Defense Forces could be considered a cost effective asset?

Some people don't agree. While there may be legitimate arguments to claim a SDF is financially viable most States do not have such an organization and feel it is an unnecessary expense - (also a legitimate argument).

Everywhere guns are restricted, crime increases.

While that is often declared by the Gun Cult it is not true.

If you guys were honest you might win over more people.

I don't need to watch a video done by illusionists. Smoke and mirrors. I have a friend that can bend forks and spoons with out touching the part that is bending, and he can make a deck of cards come suddenly out of his mouth slobber and all, after he has been using that deck for tricks.....and talking the whole time. I really don't need an illusionist try to show me anything.

Bills of Attainder - - - - - - - Still waiting.

JOregon:

Post #1.81

"Obviously the intent (belief?) was to claim that the National Guard was not a Militia."

Never made any claim to that. You're taking the post out of context and twisting it to suit your argument... Again.

"I'm guessing you did not compile this excerpt from Black's but instead copied it and pasted it from a pro-gun website (true or false?)."

FALSE! Stop by your local law library, {they are free and open to the public}, and look for yourself. I have a pysichal hard-copy of the book, so it makes it difficult to give you a link. {sarcasm} Maybe you missed that I said that in post #1.107. Hell, I even called out to any other member that may have Black's 9th to chime in to see if there were any changes or updates. If that isn't putting it on the line, I don't know what is...

"You should have clarified at that point because in my post........."

Clarification at that time was not necessary, as according the Black's 8th, "GUIDE TO THE DICTIONARY", Heading - 6. Bullets {page xxi}:

"Bullets are used to separate definitional information (before the bullet) from information that is not purely definitional (after the bullet), such as encyclopedic information or usage notes"

So the original post DID, in fact, give the PROPER definition. Everything after the bullet point...

• The Constitution recognizes a state's right to form a "well-regulated militia" but also grants Congress the power to activate, organize, and govern a federal militia. U.S. Const. amend. II; U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 15-16. See NATIONAL GUARD. [Cases: Militia 1-3; Weapons 1. C.J.S. Armed Services §§ 288-289; Weapons §§ 1-8, 61-62.]

...is just EXTRA information. So if you can't even understand how to use the damned thing, continuing on would be just an exercise in futility...

So also, is continuing with the Militia Act/Dick Act, as there is no data on any topic available online from the US House congressional Record prior to 93rd Congress 1973-1974. {Though evidence of its existence is available through USC, the National Archives and Cornell Law.}

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt

http://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed-records/groups/168.html#168.3

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

But since you don't "believe" the Black's 8th refernece either, what IS the point with continuing? The same goes with your problem with the bill of attainder, as it would be an useless argument as well. That is, unless, YOU go order the 1917 record form the GPO, YOURSELF, and look it up, YOURSELF, as you refuse to have any trust in any Pro-Second Amendment site. But that's too much work on YOUR part, isn't it?

"While that is often declared by the Gun Cult it is not true."

The FBI says otherwise. And that is where arms friendly sites get their info from. After all, they should know the record, shouldn't they? {sarcasm}

"I don't need to watch a video done by illusionists."

You don't know very much about these guys, do ya? Just illusionists? If you would have "opened your mind" and watched the video, you would have seen that they had numerous, knowledgeable people supplying data, facts and history. And not just them.

Frankly, all you've been doing has been twisting statements and cherry-picking data. Speaking of which, there's a six and a half minute video on that very topic that give links to both the FBI and Home Office (Britain) sites. An apples-to-apples comparison, and why so many get it wrong.

Choose Your Own Crime Stats

But hey, you've already made up your mind without even watching it, haven't you. No sense in actually having an "open mind" get in the way, is there? The only thing you've proven to me, {and everyone else}, is you're just another in a long line of ignorant, fact-twisting gun grabbers who wants everyone to live in a police state.

{Shakes head and walks away laughing. Well grounded from the start...}

Kid picks up a rock. Throws it. It smashes through a neighbor's window. It's the rock's fault?

FALSE! Stop by your local law library, {they are free and open to the public}, and look for yourself. I have a pysichal hard-copy of the book, so it makes it difficult to give you a link. {sarcasm} Maybe you missed that I said that in post #1.107. Hell, I even called out to any other member that may have Black's 9th to chime in to see if there were any changes or updates. If that isn't putting it on the line, I don't know what is...

Do you know what the word COMPILE means?

from Latin compīlāre to pile together, plunder, from com- together + pīlāre to thrust down, pack]

Word Origin & History

compile
early 14c., from O.Fr. compiler, from L. compilare "to snatch together, plunder, heap," from com-"together" + pilare "to compress, ram down."

verb (used with object), com·piled, com·pil·ing.

1. to put together (documents, selections, or other materials) in one book or work.
You did not use the direct Black's definition. You took pieces from two different definitions found in Black's and combined them to make a definition that served your means - then credited that definition to Black's.

You even admitted you COMPILED parts of two definitions on two different topics - Militia and RESERVE Militia into one definition calling it a "definition of Militia". By editing out the parts that didn't serve you. You created a definition of Militia giving the impression the National Guard was not a Militia. I have heard this belief from other members of your cult.

DISHONESTY.

I tried to deflect the dishonesty of your definition away from you and on to a gun cult website, but apparently you want full responsibility for such a dishonest definition. So be it.

What is sad is you don't seem to see that what you did was dishonest. They were 2 different definitions on two different topics not one and a sub definition.

You even seem to have forgotten what your ORIGINAL definition was:
#1.81 - Sat Jan 19, 2013 7:35 PM PST
I will eliminate the unnecessary bold letters.

"Militia" is defined as: A body of CITIZENS ARMED and trained, esp. by a state*, for military service APART FROM the regular armed forces. -- reserve militia. ALL persons who are not exempt from military service and not actively serving in the armed forces OR national guard. --Black's Law Dictionary 8th Edition

I never said I don't agree with Black's I just don't agree with you EDITING Black's.
*Face Palm*

I am running late. I can't read all the info in your links. If you have any reference to the Bills of Attainder please be specific.

Amen, Aggie!

I respect my fellow man.... Even if they aren't worthy in my eyes....

Why not!

Why not require a gun license which includes the certification of good mental health and of course, require renewals! That would cover many questions and problems! If we can require licenses to hunt, fish, drive a car or truck, own a business, etc. - why not gun ownership! Everyone would be able to own all the guns they wanted and the rest of us would be safe!

But he's a good guy so it's ok. Does that make the people he shot bad guys? I'd like LaPierre to explain this to me. And if we will get good guys like this in our schools will unintended shootings be the cost of doing business? Or is he going to sprinkle some kind of mishap prevention fairy dust over all the good guys?

Strong message there NFIL, most gun owners have had an accidental discharge at sometime in their lives. Even with significant training. Hmm, maybe this is the reason that in the military no one carries a loaded weapon during training or outside combat zones (except MP). And we want this guy in our schools with a gun?? Give me a break.

He owns a gun and you interpret that as the guy who's going to run security in a school? Black and white much? Please don't do that.

you cant have an accidental discharge if you keep your gun not loaded till it's time to use it, and then follow simple precautions, like either point it at the floor or up to the sky. not over your arm lol Who the hell carries a loaded shot gun in a case and brings it to a gun show? ans: morons.

And yes, stupid people like this want to be the armed gaurds for schools, you betcha.

george; I've seen some really stupid things idiots driving cars do, saw a guy texting on a motorcycle. I still would rather send my child to a school with security than leave them in harms way. I agree, no matter what there are going to be morons. You even have them at Airports, but we still get strip searched to get on an airplane, a lot of them are morons, yet not one passenger has been shot by a TSA guard. Are you guys sooo brainwashed as to disregard your children's safety, and to get a false sense of security by giving up your rights to protect yourself from your government?

We send our young men and women off to fight for freedom, and when they get back home they find out that we freely gave it away.

Relax...good guys with guns are here to protect us.

Look these guys are their own worst enemy. Their mental attitude is so sure that they right that they fail to follow safe rules of gun carry. It is kind of like when a person tells you he isn't lyeing you instantly know he is.

Kinda like our president?????

kinda like your mother?

seems to me the dilemma is this: guns don't kill people, either bad guys or stupid ones possessing guns kill people. Maybe a combination thereof? So how do we know the smart ones from the lunatic fringe? Is there a test for that? Or a medication to treat it? To be honest about it, from my observation... just reading some of the crap spewing from the NRA and even here on the 'Vine and other blogs, I gotta say that the lunatics and stupid pro-gun nuts are outnumbering the "responsible owners". What a preponderance of evidence we have to deal with.

It is one sided evidence though - there's no knowledge of how many firearms were handled safely, with no incidents. There's no mention of how many rounds are purchased and fired at targets and tin cans every year. There are no balanced stats showing how many hours of safe hunting is done every year.

Don't get me wrong - a person with a loaded gun in a case... that's just wrong and stupid. Loading live ammunition indoors at a gun show... that's just wrong and stupid. BUT, while these incidents may be representative of the average media gun story today, they are not representative of the average responsible owners firearm use today.

Certainly, five incidents is five too many, but is that more or less dangerous than other activities when you look at the big picture? By definition, whenever we hear the details of any 'accident', they seem dumb and like huge mistakes in judgement. Luckily, most stupid mistakes don't result in a tragedy, but sometimes, unfortunately they do.

However, we have to put Firearm accidents in perspective of all other accidents. According to the National Safety Council's data on accidents from 2,000, in the USA there were:

46,749 Deaths from Transport/Traffic Accidents
13,322 Deaths from Accidental Falls
12,757 Deaths from Accidental Poisoning
5,648 Deaths from Accidental Suffocation/Choking
3,482 Deaths from Accidental Drowning
3,377 Deaths from Accidental Exposure to Fire/Smoke
2,768 Deaths from Accidental Mechanical Forces (Machinery/Explosions/Firearms/Impact/etc)
1,223 Deaths from Accidental Exposure to Nature (Cold/Lightning/Earthquake/etc)

Don't get me wrong - any accidents with firearms are horrible & tragic. However, in perspective of all accidents (which all seem stupid and foolish) there were: deaths from ridding a bicycle (740), ridding an ATV (717), boating accidents (630), from swimming pools (567), falling out of bed (650), choking on food (744), Excessive natural cold (742) & Anti-Epileptic/Anti-Parkinson drugs (704).

Oops, I accidentally submitted that post before finishing editing. Another accident.... LOL.

If I could have edited it down, I would have made a more concise point, so sorry about that. I just meant to say that if there are 5 incidents out of 50 firearm handlings, then that's one case. If there are 5 incidents out of 50,000,000 handlings, then that's a whole different set of math.

This argument is a logical fallacy. ToddC and others like him are not able to understand it, but for those capable of logic, it goes like this"

5 gun nuts were shot by accident, but that is ok because people die in fires, falls and traffic accidents.

This is like the smoker who justifies his slow suicide by explaining he could get get killed by a bus crossing the street.

The possibility of getting killed crossing the street is completely independent of the risks of smoking, other than the fact that you are MORE likely to be hit by a bus because you can't run anymore because you get winded after five steps.

ToddC is so oblivious to reality, that he even cites gun deaths as justification for other shootings!
2,768 Deaths from Accidental Mechanical Forces (Machinery/Explosions/Firearms/Impact/etc)

When you deal with people so intellectually challenged that they can't even comprehend/process facts, and you give them guns, bad things are going to happen.

Then in his next post, he attempts statistical analysis to prove that 5 out of 50 would be actionable, but 5 out of 50,000 is fine. Unbelievable.

Please Mr. NRA man, tell me again how much safer I will be if I just BUY a gun, also tell me how much safer I am if you got a gun. Gun control, we need it.

PRober there are no laws prohibiting people who are untrained from buying a firearm....

ToddC-1160496 great post man.... "really"

Johntho It is every mans right to own any weapons that they choose to own, but they have a duty to everyone to safely handle, transport and store a weapon.... What you have here is idiot who doesn't respect those weapons or their purpose "which is to take life" Those who do so should by all means loose that right permanently....

Starderup ToddC was making a point that no matter what you do accidents will happen.... Unlike these which were mostly pure stupidity.... Should we ban bicycles because they kill our children.... "No" as parents its our duty to teach our children bicycle safety and take their bikes away anytime we see them violate those rules.... Rule #1 for bicycle safety for kids.... Never ride your bike in the street or you will loose it....

The same can be said for gun safety as well, exept it is the gun owners responsibilty to safely handle, transport and store weapons and this is what happens if you disrespect those duties....

...they can't write theses laws fast enough...!!!

If we have 30,000 nuclear weapons in our arsenal, and only 2 detonate, is that an acceptable rate of error? Yeah, yeah - a gun death is as dead as a nuclear death. I suppose, if it's someone else, we shouldn't be concerned.

JohnnyOnTheSpot-3794903 Comment collapsed by the community

Why is this a story? We never use to see stories on accidental shootings in the national press before. Can you say liberal agenda?

Maybe it's a story since it occurred on the first "National Gun Appreciation Day," which was organized by Political Media, a Republican consulting firm. The point of the NRA and gun proponents is always that guns are safe when handled by good, qualified people. It's just interesting that on this day of celebration of legal gun ownership, owned by law abiding, qualified, "good" people, that 5 different people are actually accidentally shot by these qualified, "good" gun owners. Not a liberal agaenda, but a report on a conservative gun celebration that didn't seem to produce the results that guns are safe when operated by "good" people.

This is like the smoker who justifies his slow suicide by explaining he could get get killed by a bus crossing the street.

Bad comparison. He doesn't need to justify anything to anyone. It's his body - he may dispose of it as he sees fit.

Starderup

Then in his next post, he attempts statistical analysis to prove that 5 out of 50 would be actionable, but 5 out of 50,000 is fine. Unbelievable.

He made it PERFECTLY CLEAR that it was not "fine" but, as usual, you have to make up a bunch of drivel an BS to support your argument. Either that or you are too "intellectually challenged" to comprehend a simple post. Tough call, pretty much 50/50 either way from what I can tell.

Matt-3752397

...that 5 different people are actually accidentally shot by these qualified, "good" gun owners

Please post a link to the story that said any of these guns were owned by "qualified, good gun owners" or are you just speculating because it fits your agenda? People go to gun shows to sell guns that they don't want. Odds are better than average that these were NOT "good gun owners" but rather just people looking to get rid of something they never wanted to begin with. I know of a woman who was actually considering throwing a loaded handgun in the garbage because she didn't want to own it after her father had passed. She wasn't a "good gun owner" but still had possession of one and almost did something stupid with it.

Actually, rational people are going to appreciate the irony in this story: childish gun enthusiasts who are desperately resisting responsible legislation to protect innocent people from gun violence are, through their irresponsible actions, shooting other immature gun enthusiasts. You aren't so ignorant and self-absorbed that you can't see it, are you?

Randoo: Just shows how dangerous guns can be, even when it's not in the hands of a non mental, a thug, or a criminal.

But not so safe in the hands of a few ignorant rednecks.

The situation still came down to one persons poor judgement, i mean it was the person who made this mistake was it not? :)

"But not so safe in the hands of a few ignorant rednecks"

Must be a lot of rednecks in Chicago. As of 1-16-13 there have been 25 homicides, and 82 shootings in that safe haven of gun control. At that rate they will break last year's record.

A man made a stupid mistake. Have any accidentally run a red light?

Sailcat, so by your logic anyone who owns a gun is "immature"? Life seems simple in your black and white world. It seems that the recurrent themes in your posts are, "If you don't agree with me you must be immature, redundant, etc" It must be lovely in your ivory tower surronded by your pseudo-intellectual BS and pontificatons. BTW the Supreme court court has ruled multiple on gun ownership and hopefully they won't bow down to political expediency like so many politicians. But your too narcisstic it seems to appreciate any other ideas but your own, aren't you?

Sailcat, so by your logic anyone who owns a gun is "immature"?

I would say that if they were truly mature they would agree there is a pressing need for stricter gun laws and they would also recognize there is no need for anyone to own an assault rifle, 30 round magazines, or for that matter, a .50 cal sniper rifle. Since you are obviously too childish...or lack the intellectual horsepower...to comprehend that fact, I would say you can be counted among the immature ranks of fantasy-driven "gun enthusiasts" who place their selfish desire to own senseless weaponry over the lives of his fellow Americans.

Feel smarter? No? Well, you'll get used to it.

THEre's no need to own anything, now wanting to own something is a different story. Luxuries are different from necessities, a gun of that quality given the current situation in society isn't a necessity but rather a luxury.

Maybe someone just wants to own one of those? :D There is nothing immature about that. There is something in the maturity of the owner given the respect he or she gives to said weapon and in its use.

Sailcat, no one "NEEDS" a 30 round magazine or a whole list of gun accessories just like no one "NEEDS" a car that can go 100+ mph... ANY V8, corvette, viper, lotus, ferarri, camaro, mustang, civic, cadillac, well pretty much any car... when the max speed limit is NOWHERE near that anywhere is the country, but you're allowed to own one under the principle that you're going to be a responsible owner. It's the same idea. Asking why can't people just be satisfied with a .22 pistol that holds a 5 round clip is the same as asking why can't everyone just be happy driving around in a smart car at 40 mph? Should we create more infringing and increasingly stricter traffic laws for EVERYONE just because a handful of crazies can't drive the speed limit???

Sailcat,

It's not that enthusiasts don't understand these things aren't necessary, it's that they're fun for them. I do not own one of said weapons (only shotguns and hunting rifles), but have been to a range and fired a few AR-15s. I must say they're very exciting and can provide an afternoon of entertainment. I could easily say that you are too childish or foolish comprehend that a number of these owners own them simply for fun. Please, go out and at least try firing some rounds down range, the very least you could get out of it is a better understanding of why you feel the way you do.

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 damn weird when you try to make these anti-second amendment arguments apply to the first.

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.

Try saying, "this is a hijack" in a aircraft.

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.

I guess if that religion involved human sacrifice that could be a problem.

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 ever hear of Child Porn?

Doesn't sound weird at all.

Whiskey, infringing means to limit or otherwise undermine. SO taking anyway weaponry itself is infringing, no matter how you sugar coat it XD

Sailcat-2064101

childish gun enthusiasts who are desperately resisting responsible legislation to protect innocent people from gun violence are, through their irresponsible actions, shooting other immature gun enthusiasts

And you can state for certain that these weren't your type of people just looking to get rid of "grandpas old gun"??

When your argument is based entirely on speculation you should hardly be condescending towards OTHERS for being "ignorant and self-absorbed".

JOregon

Try saying, "this is a hijack" in a aircraft.

You have the right to say that, you just have to accept the consequences of that action just like you do if you misuse your 2nd amendment rights.

I guess if that religion involved human sacrifice that could be a problem.

A problem? Sure. Could said religion be banned because of that?? No.

You ever hear of Child Porn?

Have I heard of child porn (or any porn for that matter) being in anyway equated to "the press"? No, that's just utterly ridiculous. Out of curiosity, did you fall out of your chair reaching for that one?

You have the right to say that, you just have to accept the consequences of that action just like you do if you misuse your 2nd amendment rights.

Try publicly saying you are planning to kill the President.

There are rightfully serious consequences.

Just as there should be serious consequences for owning certain guns, like semiautomatics with high capacity magazines.

A problem? Sure. Could said religion be banned because of that?? No.

That is fine you can desire a semiautomatic weapon with a high capacity magazine (just as you could desire to sacrifice to your Great God Glock) but if you own one it should be illegal and you should suffer the consequences.

Have I heard of child porn (or any porn for that matter) being in anyway equated to "the press"? No, that's just utterly ridiculous. Out of curiosity, did you fall out of your chair reaching for that one?

Child Porn can be found in Magazines that is known as the PRESS.

My Butt is Firmly Planted.

JOregon

My Butt is Firmly Planted.

So is your head and the two are related if you catch my meaning. You analogy was epically weak as was your response. Arguing that minor tweaks to our freedom for specific reason to prevent specific threats is equal to banning something outright is such a reach I have no doubt you fell over.

Backcountry

The whole original analogy was weak and pointless.

Whiskey had a thought. He imagined it to be so amazing he repeated this same post all over the place, but it is BS. If he had just posted the same thing once I would have ignored it.

My facts are not an analogy they are truths. We have limitations on all of our so called rights, only the gun cult thinks they should be exempt.

You're the master of the pointless and irrelevant post, Mark.

Mark S-971793 can't help it. He's just not very intelligent. First off not all Japanese killed millions all over Asia nor do they want to do so today.

Ban skiing! What? Oh, I don't ski so you shouldn't either.

Ban stupid people

Bush to use your same logic not all white people owned slaves nor do they want to today. But we continue to have things such as the NAACP the black caucus united negro college fund black history month affimative action etc. Try starting a NAAWP or united caucasian college fund and see how far you get. What do think would happen if congress decided to form the congressional white caucus. Granted marks comment was not necessary but many people other than white people are given much more opportunity to excel they just refuse to use it. http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/01/19/2-dead-6-wounded-in-shootings-since-friday/ read this article this should be the real story written here instead of some left wing propaganda. I will wait for the expected you are a racist comments which is far from the truth I am just citing facts.

birdshot won't kill you ,just sting and hurt like a son of a bitch !

Can blind you though.

"birdshot won't kill you ,just sting and hurt like a son of a bitch !" Mark that is one of the stupidest statements I have ever read. Bird shot will blow a hole in your skull you can put your fist in at close range.

I suspect there's something Mark S spends a lot of time doing that I've heard can make you go blind.

Not that there's anything wrong with it.

Mark, I know you haven't had the experience but in Viet Nam the 12ga pump was one of our most effective weapons (with BB shot). In face to face, close quarters combat a shotgun is very effective at putting the enemy down.

But we did use 00 buck or #4 shot not #8 or higher shot. Bystander were lucky he hadn't been deer hunting and left it loaded with a slug or 00, if he had we would be talking funerals. I say let them buy any weapon they want to, just outlaw bullets because they are not covered by the 2nd Amendment. You can have all the guns you want but you'll have to use them as clubs.

exactly, the constitution was written way before bullets where invented. muzzle loaders for all.

Astro... unless you look at that from the standpoint that Mark might shoot his little "gun" in the proximity of a female, thereby risking knocking her up and procreating. Simply based on genetics, that could be a catastrophe!

It would be tough to kill someone with good ol' 7 1/2 birdshot. It sure wouldn't be fun to be shot by it though. No excuses for an idiot who goes to a gun show with a loaded firearm...or puts said loaded firearm into a case in the first place. He obviously didn't follow common-sense safety procedures.

george pauljohn

exactly, the constitution was written way before bullets where invented. muzzle loaders for all.

Which were the most advanced, state-of-the-art, weapons available at the time. Read the Founding Fathers and you'll find nothing to suggest they wouldn't want the exact same thing in the hands of people today regardless of how much more powerful they are. Any suggestion to the contrary is pure, unfounded speculation.

And frankly, since you don't even know what a bullet is, it's a little hard to take your opinion seriously at all.

you'll be eaten alive by the criminals and will have no one to cry to for help. good idea, just sit there. best thing for ya.

mt,

If you're trying to make the point that the rest of us are somehow "protected" from criminals simply because YOU, this clown at the gun show, and other "non-criminal gun owners" possess them...you're crazy.

I'll leave policing to the police and keep my eyes and ears peeled for idiot gun owners, criminal or otherwise.

So..... are you including the military and police kill themselves too ? You said "gun carriers" right ? Yep.....you're a bright one.

Hey, mt! Who is going to protect us from "gun enthusiasts" like the retards in this article?

"gun grabbbers?" THis must refer to the regiment of islamic spider monkeys President Obaba is training to come down the chimney on CHristmas Eve to confisacte alll firearms.

you'll be eaten alive by the criminals and will have no one to cry to for help

Because it's the gun owners out there keeping criminals at bay right now!??!??

Do you guys actually believe the stupid sh$% you say? You still won't top how gun appreciation day is a way of honoring MLK, or if the people white Americans kidnapped from halfway around the world to sell off like cattle had gun rights, maybe America wouldn't have had the ugly stain of slavery in it's history.

mt-961676

If I had a criminal after me with a gun, I would NOT be calling a self absorbed, over the top republican gun toting NRA backing fool...I'd call the police.

BrainCandy - the real victim in alll this is sarcasm. THe prop-gun arguments besides being tautological are so bizarrre that it's killled sarcasm.

Yeah, and then move to San Francisco and get naked, smoke dope and sing kumbaya.

Sail cat, OMG You used the word Retard! I am going to report you to the insensitive police. I thought Liberals were for the people who can't defend themselves? Your are a fraud. Just like the rest of your lib buddys. You are so quick to point out everyone else's worts, You refuse to see your own, Hypocrite!!

And they could be there with the Chalk and cameras to take pics

of the bodies in just minutes........

I call 'em as I see 'em, Richard. Besides, you shouldn't be too offended. After all, you've been call that many times before, right?

mt-961676 & Arizona-2861199

Police and military are legally allowed, and firmly trained to handle guns and emergency situations. It has been shown, repeatedly, that in any "chaotic" situation, civilians, with little to no training in emergency chaotic situations, are far more dangerous to themselves than to the criminal. The two dolts in this article are prime examples of who should not be allowed to own any weapon at all. It is a firm rule that no weapon being transported anywhere be loaded. And the dolt who shot himself in the hand is lucky, both of these are very lucky that no one died.

And the police usually get there just in time to put up the murder scene tape chrisk196. It's already been ruled that the police have no duty to protect the individual.

"Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted District of Columbia Court of Appeals (equivalent to a state supreme court) case that held police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals."

You mean like those two "firmly trained" hero cops out here in Colorado that shot what amounted to a neighborhood pet bull elk and bragged it off to the butcher?

I hope you never have to sit your house as someone brakes in the front door and then attacks your family while you watch. I really do. No one should have to witness or suffer such an act. I DO resent the fact that you want to take away MY ability to prevent this from happening to my family.

PDB....you are delusional....it's a mental illness....turn in your guns....for the sake of anyone within gunshot of you.

Quite right, Sgt. Pepper. Kevin's hysterical paranoia does not excuse the genocide of gun violence that is sweeping our country. He seems unable to grasp the fact the Second Amendment does not exist merely to protect the perceived right of immature wannabe Rambos to accumulate pointless arsenals of deadly playthings.

So the NRA and gun activists think everyone should have a gun and be armed at all times, no gun free zones. Can you imagine the carnage and chaos that would take place if this madness were to happen?

So says the pink flamingo, and all other birds of a feather. P.S. Dancer you can buy the same video and the military use to train.

PBD,

To quote Ronald Reagan..."Now there you go again!"

Please tell me why you believe that Progressives are calling for a total ban on gun ownership.

Stop whining like a child and accept that responsible regulation of firearms is a win-win for America. Only the gun nuts who make the choice to scream "The sky is falling!" when elected representatives offer thoughtful legislative proposals believe that the Left is calling for a total ban on private gun ownership.

Are you one of those, and if so, you SHOULD give up your weapon based solely on your incapacity for rational thought.

police and military last post their training videos are available on 8mm,beta,vhs, and disc. Have been for a long time. Ever hear of news reels?

nobody asked for a "total ban" on anything. you have the right to own a gun in america. just not a military arsenal.

Sailcat, Genocide? Really? Think you need a new dictionary you pompous ass....... And once again with the insults when someone has a different opinion. Hmm.... I guess it's the curse of a small mind and an incoherent thought process.

> george pauljohn: nobody asked for a "total ban" on anything.

George - sadly, that's not true. There are many people who want nothing less than a total ban on all firearms. Many people believe that if we were to totally ban all guns, that would somehow translate into an elimination of all gun violence. Of course, criminals are not going to turn their guns in, and criminals will smuggle guns in. We have been unable to stop illegal drugs or illegal immigration, so we certainly won't be able to stop illegal gun smuggling.

So, if the only agenda was make gun use safer though a few reasonable safety laws, that would be one situation - and for many people on the gun-laws side of things, that is their only agenda. However, let's not kid ourselves, there is also an agenda by other people to try to ban all guns everywhere.

That is what many reasonable, responsible hunters and target shooters fear - that any movement towards gun laws will a) be ineffective on the criminals anyway, and b) will eventually result in an attempt at a total ban.

Let's not drag Rambo into the gun debate. The most iconic weapon of the First Blood movies was his knife!

ursa: "..you pompous ass....... And once again with the insults when someone has a different opinion. Hmm.... I guess it's the curse of a small mind and an incoherent thought process."

In one sentence no less. Good grief..........have we 'dumbed down' that much? Tell me it isn't so.

And todd; Wherever did you get the notion that 'many people' will eventually want a total ban on guns? There are 'many people' that want total, unlimited access to LAWS rockets and RPG's. Do you think either group is really worth mentioning? If so, why, exactly?

Kevin: COngratulations, you've managed to both avoid the topic of the article AND spew a buynch of sillly stereotypes - you seeem like a good NRA guy. Just think if the guy had been pullling out a real weapon he would have showered the show with real bulllets.

PDB says"I hope you never have to sit your house as someone brakes in the front door and then attacks your family while you watch."

So, I'm guessing he meant 'breaks' and not 'brakes' as in car brakes. Yes, I do speak Stupid in addition to English.

Your argument falls down immediately, because if guns were illegal, nobody would be 'braking' into your house and attacking your family. This is another 'more guns will fix gun problems' argument.

I understand if you don't get it.

Most gun owners never want to use a firearm against another human-being. Most gun owners practice to make sure they are safe gun owners. Some of you call gun owners idiots. I call irresponsible gun owners idiots...just like I call people idiots who don't make sure their family has well-practiced a fire escape plan from their house. Will my house ever burn down? No, probably not, but there's no point in even having an evacuation plan if we don't practice it from time to time. The same applies to firearms for self-defense.

mt-961676

you'll be eaten alive by the criminals and will have no one to cry to for help. good idea, just sit there. best thing for ya.

"Great point" but i'm guessing some of us has never been there yet !!!!

"What" waiting 5 mintes till the police arrive has no appeal to you.... Providing you or someone else saw the criminals and is able to call them....

Heres your solutions to all problems:::: Give everyone a gun and a lot of ammo and when its all done, problems solved.... "Just a thought" !!!!

People are always going to create problems cause that is a must in order to learn, even if everything was perfect this would still happen....

Ahhhhhhhh, I'M NOT A RETARD!!!!!!

Brought to you by Palmolive, Leave's your hands soft and smooth,Not dry and itchy

All gun shows that allow privately owned weapons in clearly post warnings at the door that ALL weapons must be unloaded, and the really good ones require that you put a zip tie through the mechanism that prevents it from even being loaded.

Yes, I have been to a few gun shows. I own a few guns. They have gun locks on them. I am not anti-gun. I am anti-idiot. I am especially anti-idiot when they have a gun.

I also have a 9 year old daughter. If I had to choose between my guns and my daughter, it would be a pretty easy choice. (Yes, I understand that it is not necessarily that black and white.)

Let's not forget La Pierre's buddy Dick Cheney shot a guy in the face! Then the victim apologized to Cheney!!!

Let's not forget La Pierre's buddy Dick Cheney shot a guy in the face! Then the victim apologized to Cheney!!!

Damn straight he apologized. Cheney would've shot him again if he was a dick about.

Pun totally intended

Yeah, it's just like when someone gets attacked by a tiger then later when interviewed says that it wasn't the tiger's fault, but their own for being there. It wasn't the tiger's fault for being a blood-thirsty killer it was my fault for being in the way.

Its funny how quiet the people are who think its okay to own assualt weapons with 60 round clips. Normally they'd be spouting off about their rights, and some B/S about prying a gun from their cold dead hands....where are they now? lol

Im right here.....

In the United States, the Congress is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution. So all the AW's and magazines that are made before any ban are still going to be here from now on regardless.

That is correct Nora. People tend to forget that. They think that if there is a ban on weapons/clips, that they would be safer. NOT! They forget that criminals don't abide by the law. If an armed intruder broke into your home and you had no gun to protect yourself or your family, who would you call.....the police??? May as well call Dominoes for a pepperoni pizza, cause that deliveryman would be there before any policeman would.

now there's an idea! A gun show every month for every small, medium and large town/city, any state USA! It won't be long before the NRA loses a majority of it's support. The rest of us best stay home, away from the locations while the "accidents" go off.

Nora, since you are such a brilliant Constitutionalist, you should understand that there are over two dozen Amendments to the Constitution that could provide for such an exception.

Look at me. I'm trying to reason with gun nuts.

Arizona - yes, your state has a pretty well known reputation for producing/attracting idiots. Thanks.

Chrisk196, Where do you get those 60 round mags? God you sound like an Idiot!! Please never own a Gun, Please

Calm Up TIm, the incidents you cite have nothing to do with this story. YYour off-topic remarks about Billl CLInton expose you as a "crank" or "troll"

Yeah, and calling names is so mature...you liberals? You do know that many conservatives support reasonable gun laws, right?

And by your reasoning I think we should just tear up the Constitution, all the laws should be stricken from the books, and we should just give up entirely since every person doesn't follow laws. That should work well...lol.

How about laws that are reasonable and well-written? Oh yeah, we aren't allowed to do that because someone might not follow it. Run for the hills! We can't make any efforts to make things better since some will break the laws anyway. The sky is falling...eek.

Oh, and psst. The topic is guns and gun violence and not whether any given leader has morals...try to focus here beyond your obvious biases.

Sorry Dave,

You can't ban stupid.

Of course, the world would be a much better place if we could...

Tim thinks that Gore is a liar that Gore had said about global warning was a lie-- Ha

So we had the warmest yearever last year was a lie also and so far it looks as if this year will be also. We just finished up about two weeks in January with eighty degree temperature and guess my temperature gauge is lying to me. Tim really is a bad mental case and sounds to dangerous to own a gun. Lying about sex which in my book isn't any bodys business but the republicans think that lying about sex is worst than lying about going into a war thats cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars .

And since Gun Control in Chicago makes that the safest city in America?????

We need to start arming the "tards" at gunshows with WMD and then we don't have to listen to all their drivel and a$$backwards arguments anymore.

Skelly, is that in the Bill of Rights too? The right to be stupid? Darn the luck!

tim #16.1. You missed including the term 'liberal' in one of your sentences. Just an oversight, I expect.

ram: "you liberals"? What is your response when Jesse Jackson refers to 'you white people'?

Oh and by the way should Black People be allowed guns? Remember the Black Panthers. Didn't have much problem taking their rights away.

Clayton, Who did Gore sell Currant TV too? Don't you dare say big oil!!

Adam Lanza's mother was a "responsible" gun owner too....

The problem is that everyone thinks they're a responsible gun owner. (I own a gun too, by the way.)

Every gun owner should treats guns as if they're loaded at all times. I do. I still check my guns going into the safe and again when they come out again to make sure there is no ammunition in the chamber or the magazine before putting it in it's case to transport to the gun range.

What do you mean "legions"? Any other instances of something like this happening at gun shows?