Somebody call the Waaaaaahbulance.

Why is is that the milita part is ignored? The Constitution specifically states that a well ordered militia is necessary, why is there not a responsibility to join the State militia and be trained in order to ensure a 'free State'.

Exactly what I was thinking as I read the article. Bring it on, LaPierre - keep spewing your nonsense and 2014 will see Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, once again. :-)

We have plenty of people in this country trained to use firearms. If you truly take every single word you read literally and don't consider when it was written you have serious issues with comprehension and application of what you are reading.

I think is says well Regulated Militia. As in regulate how many weapons type of weapons etc. Gun nuts would say I have to have what the gov does just in case. Well do want nukes and heat seeking missles as well?

As in regulate how many weapons type of weapons etc.

100% incorrect.

Well Regulated

The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.

2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

[obsolete sense]

b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.

This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:

Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.

In the passage that follows, do you think the U.S. government was concerned because the Creek Indians' tribal regulations were superior to those of the Wabash or was it because they represented a better trained and disciplined fighting force?

That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troops always ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.

Consider the NRA vision of America, an America where only guns can protect us from our neighbors. We should all own any and every gun on the market . . . hunting or military-style . . . Open carry is better yet. . . high count clips . . . . anything goes. And our neighborhood? Armed groups of young men ride around in their pickup trucks, assault-style weapons slung from their shoulders, cruising on a Saturday night. Every person straps on a gun to go shopping. Every home, every apartment has an assault-style weapon hanging on the wall. Take your kid in one hand, and your gun in the other, and walk to school. Every classroom has a gun for protection. And, of course, continue to improve firepower to meet the demand for more lethality, more accuracy, more carnage. We demand the ability to slaughter, maim, and cripple.

And why is all of this necessary? Because the NRA has successfully promoted the sale of guns, ubiquitously. Background checks not required. We all NEED guns because we've concluded that the only way to survive their insane world-view is to protect ourselves WITH guns.

We've become the joke . . . no the insane uncle . . . of the planet. Does any of this sound familiar? Somalia, Sudan and Beirut look safe in comparison. We're the most fearful, hateful, foolish and dangerous morons on earth. Welcome to the USA, gun capital of the planet. Guns, guns, and more guns. 2nd Amendment? No, not the musket 2nd amendment from 1776, but the revised and updated amendment of Alito, Thomas, and Scalia . . . assault weapons, semi-automatic weapons of a modern war in every home. As interpreted by the equally insane right wing, we need this ready-for-sedition militia to protect us against the government. Why is this? A self-fulfilling prophecy that will only come true if you keep voting for right wing wackos. Get rid of these anti-American tea-bigots and their right wing nuts and phony libertarians like the Ron and Ran Paul fools. They only wish to destroy America.

NRA = None Remain Alive Sponsored with thanks to the NRA from recent school killers James Holmes (killed 11), Adam Lanza (killed 27), Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (killed 13).

Dude, you seriously need to get back on your meds. If you liken the US to any of these other places, feel free to move there.

Manny,

Keep pushing the anti-gun agenda and blaming it on the Right. Reality is that a good portion of the left also have as you call it "xtreme views embraced, Blah, Blah, Blah....". Just because you continue to trumpet Right wing wacko this, and Assault Weapon that doesn't mean everyone agrees with you. The NRA does speak for many americans and your Democratic representatives aren't going to touch this with a ten foot pole in the senate.

Talking heads make my head hurt. Sheep keep moving to the left.....

What LaPierre said about Obama is a reflection of LaPierre's own views...extremist and over the top. Reagan's support of a ban on assault weapons is now described by the NRA as the views of someone who was senile. The NRA's leadership is sooooooooo out of touch with what most Americans now want.

Here are a couple “common sense” laws that have been proposed that make no sense.

1. National registering of firearms is completely impractical/ infeasible and will do little to reduce gun related murders. First we can’t even register the 300 plus million people in our country. Just ask a border patrol agent. Tell me how we can register all 300 or so million firearms that are in the country. I’m sure criminals will be the first to volunteer.
2. Mental health screening? Yes a paranoid schizophrenic should not own a fire arm. However, there is a lot of grey in mental health. Who would allow administer this mental health test? In our overly litigious society if a doctor “allows” a patient to obtain a firearm is that doctor responsible if the patient commits a crime? What if the doctor says no and the patient gets murdered? Can the patient’s family sue? What about patient privacy? Yep this is completely “common sense,” has no unintended consequences, will be easy to employ, and very cost effective.

The GOP's decision to choose Mitt Romney is what gave Obama the election. Even staunch conservatives had a hard time justifying Romney. Futhermore, I am presonally glad Obama won vs Romney ---> you ask why? Because Romney would be pulling the same Anti-Gun crap that Obama is, just the Congress would be more likely to be swayed under a republican leader. So thank God Obama won this round over Romney. Now, I wouldn't have minded seeing Ron Paul as the GOP candidate; I dont believe Obama would be in officer right now had Ron Paul been chosen.

@Ray Setzer, haha! why bother calling the whaaaaaaaahbulance ,most politicians are all brain dead anyway

@DawgFan

YOU must be stupid or an idiot, or both. Your point is that cars are more dangerous than guns. Really?

- What is the ratio of car/individual and what is the ratio of guns/individual. Assume (driving age) of 18 years old for each case. Now look at your numbers again. Which has the higher ratio?

- How many laws are there for driving vs gun control, please do include each state as laws vary from each one?

- How many of those deaths that you included for automobile accidents were actually pedestrians that were PURPOSELY run over? How many individuals killed by guns were PURPOSELY shot? What is the ratio?

You freaking morons want your guns to make yourselves feel like your weiners are not that small. To feel empowered and over compesate for your shortcomings. There is NO REASON on Earth that you can say that would validate your position. High powered guns belong in the hands of the military. You want to own a .45 or similar, by all means go for it. A hunting rifle to hunt your own food or for sport, please do! Any semi or fully automatic ANYTHING is unnecessary. Unless that deer you are shooting is coming at you with a vest.

And as for the Second Amendment?? How about this... The fathers of our nation were looking to empower its citizens to be able to defend themselves from the English... with muskets. If that is what you want, please knock yourself out. Get all the muskets you want. Leave high powered guns for those who know what to do with them.

@FreedomOverSympathy

Are you really that dumb? RON PAUL COULD NOT EVEN GET OUT OF THE PRIMARIES.

That means that he did not even get enough votes from within the GOP. How in the world do you think he would have won the General Election????!?!?

Wow... Stupidity does run deep in that stupid party of yours.

@fonze

Using your logic then I suppose if you think it cannot be done, then we should not do it. At the same time, we shouldn't go after Bin Laden either... I mean the world is a pretty big place, he could be anywhere... Oh wait....

Go back to your couch to eat your potato chips and watch FAUX News... Give up on your life because anything that can be done, but sounds hard, is not worth pursuing it.

PATHETIC

Pistol Instructor said:
It appears many of you don't want to deal with discovering the root cause of the violence, it's just easier to take away the firearms that you think are scariest.

Actually, we weren't allowed to do research into that. Congress passed an amendment in 1996 (backed by the NRA, of course) prohibiting federal funding to the NIMH to study just that. President Obama's executive orders that he signed last week look to override that idiotic legislation.

"Obama Demand Could End Research Blackout into Gun Violence"
by Donna Leinwand Leger, USA TODAY

http://www.floridatoday.com/usatoday/article/1840367

Manny-1995388 - What got Obama in the White House is continuing to feed the deadbeats that voted for him. 75% of Obama's support comes from those on govt assistance. He lets them keep it and they vote for him. You're just as big an idiot as the the rest of those who voted for Obama. The only reason gun control is at the forefront of everything right now is becuase Obama wants to take the focus off of his complete ineptitude in regards to the economy. He wants to tax and spend, tax and spend. He calls for tax increases then proposes to increase the debt ceiling so he can cash checks that his @$$ cannot afford to cash - that our grandchildren will have to cash. Obama is a socialist, left wing, radical nutcase. I have a proposal for him and all the uptight liberal @$$holes in Congress - why don't all of those guys just stop accepting your paychecks and donate the money to the Salvation Army or some other group that helps the needy, then give up their homes to the homeless, oh and quit paying for your health care and go on medicaide -oh sh!t that's right they don't have to pay for your health care like most working Americans do-your medicaide is paid for by my tax dollars and they get to go to the best doctors in the world. I can barely afford my health care plan and for sure cannot affor the deductibles (do you guys have deductibles for you families?). So come on Obama - if you're such an average Joe - come on down and start living like us average Joes. You dont need $500,000/yr, free room and board, medical, dental, security, etc. You can just get by on $50,000/yr right? RIIIIIIGHT!!!

FreedomOverSympathy

- where do you come up with such crap? Romney is a conservative who would never take away any constitutional rights. He is a practile man and would never step into such a political mine field the way Obama has. Obama will do everything he can to turn this country into a Euro style socialist nation. Mark my words...

13,000,000 illegals is enough reason to keep Americans well armed.

It appears to me we should join the current hysteria and suggest the evidence shows that all Guns of registered Democrats should be confiscated.

We know who they are - they're registered!

Why is it that those who steal guns, who then go and kill movie goers and children in school have never been a conservative NRA member?

Ft Hood - Registered Democrat – Muslim

Columbine - Too young to vote; both families were registered Democrats and progressive liberals

Virginia Tech - Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff - Registered Democrat

Colorado Theater - Registered Democrat; staff worker on the Obama campaign; Occupy Wall Street participant; progressive liberal

Connecticut School Shooter - Registered Democrat; hated Christians

John Hinkley Jr. Hated Ronald Regan, Registered Democrat

Common thread is that all of these shooters were progressive liberal Democrats

Chicago: December 28, 2012 Murders reached 500 for the year 2012, and 2013 is ahead of that pace... Want to guess how many of the shooters voted for Obama?

All this rhetoric about banning high capacity magazines is just one more way of attacking the 2nd amendment. What's that you say? No one needs high capacity magazines for personal defense? According to the moron Governor on NY, seven rounds is sufficient and any magazine larger will bring the full weight of the bureaucracy upon your head.

Consider just a few of the many police shootings in New York these past few years.

Most recently, last August the police used 16 shots to kill an armed person.

I think many people remember around 12 or so years ago Amadou Diallo, an immigrant from Guinea, was gunned down in the doorway of his residence. The police unleashed a fusillade of 47 shots to neutralize him, and he wasn't even armed.

Then there was this fellow named Leroy Webster, a criminal that the police shot it out with, killing him. In that incident, the police shot 73 bullets.

The point is that the police are highly trained but still required many more than 7 bullets to neutralize a criminal threat. What is a homeowner to do when there is an armed intruder or home invasion? Does anyone think limiting the homeowner's defense of himself and his family to seven bullets serves any rational purpose? What if there are multiple intruders?

This anti-gun legislation pushed by Cuomo the moron is just one more transparent attack on the 2nd amendment using the leftist agenda of disarming the American people, one gun or one bullet or one magazine at a time, if necessary.

The impact of this legislation on the criminal element? Zero

Oliver,

@DawgFan

YOU must be stupid or an idiot, or both. Your point is that cars are more dangerous than guns. Really?

- What is the ratio of car/individual and what is the ratio of guns/individual. Assume (driving age) of 18 years old for each case. Now look at your numbers again. Which has the higher ratio?

- How many laws are there for driving vs gun control, please do include each state as laws vary from each one?

- How many of those deaths that you included for automobile accidents were actually pedestrians that were PURPOSELY run over? How many individuals killed by guns were PURPOSELY shot? What is the ratio?

You freaking morons want your guns to make yourselves feel like your weiners are not that small. To feel empowered and over compesate for your shortcomings. There is NO REASON on Earth that you can say that would validate your position. High powered guns belong in the hands of the military. You want to own a .45 or similar, by all means go for it. A hunting rifle to hunt your own food or for sport, please do! Any semi or fully automatic ANYTHING is unnecessary. Unless that deer you are shooting is coming at you with a vest.

And as for the Second Amendment?? How about this... The fathers of our nation were looking to empower its citizens to be able to defend themselves from the English... with muskets. If that is what you want, please knock yourself out. Get all the muskets you want. Leave high powered guns for those who know what to do with them.

The Car still has the higher ratio of deaths from illegal uses of each product. There are thousands of laws for each. Over 30,000 just on guns.

All deaths that I listed were from the illegal used of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol ALONE, and the gun deaths were homicides (illegal use of a firearm).

There's no need for compensation. You think only the military should possess certain weapons? Go live somewhere else that doesn't give the right to bear arms in their constitution. You do know that the .45 handgun is a more powerful round than what the military uses right? They use a 9mm. Rifles such as the AR and the AK are in civilian use as HUNTING rifles. Thankfully my rights under the constitution trump what you THINK someone should or should not have.

Our founders intended us to have equal arms as the govt, as to keep them in check so the govt doesn't oversteep their bounds and take our rights or freedoms away, and to defend our nation from enimies foreign and domestic.

Leave high powered guns for those who know what to do with them.

This is my favorite line you anti-gun people give. I can guarantee with about 99.9% certainty that I can handle any rifle or handgun the military has better than 90% of the people in the military. I was denied service in the military due to a knee injury I sustained playing football. A friend of mine went on to serve in the US Navy SEALS, and we regularly go shooting together. I can hit a target at 1,500 yards. Our Military Snipers are given a 1,000 yard requirement to become a sniper.

My wife is an avid gardener, and at her behest, I've extended an invitation to Mr. LaPierre to come and speak over her garden plot for a 15-minute period this spring.

I won't have to use fertilizer for years afterwards!

Bill-austin, Your first paragraph describes "The Hood" and why legal gun owners want to keep our guns!

Gosh as I read through so many assinine comments, I am blown away that too many of you have forgotten one important fact: Guns KILL!

Guns are purchased, sold gifted, or stolen for only one purpose---To Kill another or something else. Yes many purchase them for personal protection/defense, for precautions, for food or just for the fun of shooting a gun and possible killing an innocent animal or by stander.

Yet why shouldn't they be taxed---everything else is; including sneakers, so why not guns. The only reason is those who own or purchase guns don't want to pay the hire fees for owning a Lethal Weapon!

TOUGH!

I'd say TAX UM!

Bill - Austin -

Thank you for putting it so articulately. Ultimately for me the question we should ask is - do we want to live in a world as envisioned by the leadership of the NRA? Do we want to live in their gun-worshiping utopia? Bill, you described their ideal world perfectly. If these people have their way, this is how we will live.

Here's one for the NRA - You will pry my right to live in peace, without fear and hatred FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS.

Ignorance is what won obama his election, ignorance, nothing more

All the whinin' by the NRA crowd is kinda pathetic somewhat paranoid, and very discouraging(backlash, anyone?).
I would like to read some constructive comments about dealing with gun-related violence. Ramping up the rhetoric doesn't improve creativity or critical thinking.
I fired my first weapon when I was five and took gun safety and marksmanship classes as a young member of the NRA when was 12. I shot the .22 caliber in three positions, totaling 599 out of a possible 600. Nowadays, that would earn a rating of distinguished Expert. My older brother and older cousin also scored within three points of my mark. That was in 1958. They are still a little envious.There were a lot of hard and fast rules that accompanied the responsibility given us as children and gun owners. We were also "briefed" about what types of guns were not permissible. Looking back, that hasn't changed much in over fifty years.
I've been a gun owner and willing outdoorsman all my life, owing to the fact I put myself through college working every summer, weekend, and long holiday on a relative's ranch. I rarely traveled or walked a great distance outside without a firearm close by...right up there with a hat, some extra shells, and a dog or two.
These people running out to buy more guns at election time and railing against government seem somewhat frantic and fearful. I hear the obligatory chatter about Obama almost every day, but reasonable and responsible gun owners know that 1.) There will be more types of background checks targeted at the mentally unstable and criminal types and, 2.) most Semi-automatics that don't fall into the descriptive category(?) of "assault rifles" will still be available, and 3.) 30 round mags will be "off the shelves".
I know how easy it is to assume it's a slippery slope to give an inch, but ineffective and unpopular laws have a way of disappearing.
There is another important factor. Obama may not be your favorite politician, but he is not the least bit bothered or concerned that there of tens of millions of responsible gun owners who are not going to give up much(read "dammed little") that involves the rights of gun ownership. He is also well aware that citizens from a background like mine or yours, be they democrats or republicans, are waiting to see exactly what effect proposed legislation may have on the average gun owner.
We have all heard the arguments "pro and con" ad nauseum. Throw out an idea or relate something that makes sense from a policy standpoint.
I'm ready for some constructive dialogue from gun owners about things that can be done without feeling like our basic rights are abridged.
You never know..somebody important might be listening.

Please excuse the typos, poor sentence structure, and bad grammar from my above post. That all I'll apologize for. Also, never complete a sentence with a preposition.

First, for Oliverb, yes, it is statistically proven that cars are more deadly than guns. According the the last complete compilation of CDC statistics, 2010, this is the case: 31,672 people lost their lives to guns in 2010 (if we're discussing gun deaths caused by intentional violence then you must consider yet another CDC stat, that over 50% of firearm related deaths are suicides, as well as considering that nowhere do they factor in accidental-vs-intentional shootings) as opposed to 33,687 killed by automobiles. Amazingly poisoning beats them both at 42,917 in the same year. Now for those who like to argue and claim guns are never or rarely used to deter crime, according to the U.S. Department of Justice between the years of 1987 and 1992 (the last time span fully compiled) there were an average of 83,000 incidents per year where law abiding citizens stopped a violent crime with a legally owned gun. Break it down even using the aforementioned fifty percent you have a rounded 15,000 deaths a year attributed to use of a firearm by a criminal or a mentally ill person as opposed to almost eight times as many people who saved themselves from bodily harm or death by exercising their Second Amendment rights. All these statistics as well as their sources are listed in the article linked below.

HOWEVER...

I am a gun owner who BELIEVES WE DO NEED CHANGE. It needs change orchestrated by the RIGHT PEOPLE. I believe groups like Gun Control Inc or the Brady Campaign as well as the NRA should have no part in it. NO lobby who represents either extreme in the argument would be capable of even the notion of compromise. There ARE ways to legislate gun purchasing and ownership without banning all but the most extreme gun platforms and with very limited inconvenience to those of us in good mental health, clean criminal record, and extreme respect for the guns we own. I am not going to bore you here with my ideas. If you belong to either side of this debate and want to see a gun owners idea of compromise please go to (and this IS NOT ADVERTISING OR SPAM AND I MAKE NOTHING FROM IT)...

http://smokeater.newsvine.com/_news/2013/01/21/16449046-the-road-untraveled

Those are only my initial ideas. I am not an extremist who thinks we should be able to run to Walmart and purchase full auto machine guns or Stinger missiles or armor piercing bullets but neither will I support a ban on thirty round rifle or fifteen round pistol magazines. There are others, 100 round drum mags for AR-15 and AK-47 style rifles, that...no, they DO serve no legitimate sporting purpose. I use an M-4 (carbine style AR-15) rifle for deep penetration camping where it's not unheard of to face down a pack of a dozen or so coyotes or, worse, gray wolf/coyote cross breeds (nasty creatures...large and strong and aggressive with no innate fear of humans) and thirty rounds is just right. The gun is very light, very compact, and very effective. I do NOT support an all out assault rifle ban (assault rifles are used annually in 1% or less of crimes involving guns, per U.S.D.o.J).

Please, read the linked article.

And PLEASE, regardless of which side you are on, if you believe this can be accomplished...keeping guns out of the WRONG hands without disarming those of us who preach responsibility and practice what we preach...

STEP UP, BE HEARD, and BE PART OF HELPING TO KEEP AMERICA GREAT!

sillyshrinks

Gosh as I read through so many assinine comments, I am blown away that too many of you have forgotten one important fact: Guns KILL!

Guns are purchased, sold gifted, or stolen for only one purpose---To Kill another or something else. Yes many purchase them for personal protection/defense, for precautions, for food or just for the fun of shooting a gun and possible killing an innocent animal or by stander.

Yet why shouldn't they be taxed---everything else is; including sneakers, so why not guns. The only reason is those who own or purchase guns don't want to pay the hire fees for owning a Lethal Weapon!

TOUGH!

I'd say TAX UM!

Well you have a great philosophy there. Only one problem, there are many other objects that kill as well. Just found out that one of my friends was stabbed to death while taking money out of an ATM then thrown in a dumpster. Maybe we should tax knives as well cause all they do is kill. Furthermore, you tax comment shows your lack of understanding on firearms. When i have purchased one i still paid taxes. I guess you are getting at is what everyone other liberal is squalling and that is to tax them like the yearly car tax. Only one problem, that money is used to maintain roads, traffic lights, etc, so i will pay the yearly tax, i only have one request and that is a shooting range is constructed in every town. In your logic of thinking, we should also place a heavy tax on fast food because look at the health affects that this causes. We should also place a heavy tax on cell phones cause on my way to work yesterday i was dang near ran into a telephone pole cause a teenager found it prudent to text in heavy traffic and let his car swerve into my lane. Please do research and dont try to jump on the band wagon when you dont even know what you are talking about.

oliverb

@fonze

Using your logic then I suppose if you think it cannot be done, then we should not do it. At the same time, we shouldn't go after Bin Laden either... I mean the world is a pretty big place, he could be anywhere... Oh wait....

Go back to your couch to eat your potato chips and watch FAUX News... Give up on your life because anything that can be done, but sounds hard, is not worth pursuing it.

PATHETIC

Well noone is saying something cant be done but banning guns and high capacity mags is not going to stop the violence and if you believe this then i feel sorry for you. Your comment about Bin Laden is classic. I am active duty and you don't want to even know the body count of my brothers and sisters in arms that lost their life tracking down this Ahole plus it cost the taxpayer 100's of millions of dollars and over ten years. Guess what, this world is no safer from terrorists with him gone. Take him out the next comes in to take his place. You liberals kill me. I got into a face-to-face discussion with a liberal and he told me that if someone breaks into my house that i should just let them take whatever they wanted cause it never really belonged to me and they need it more than i do. He also had the nerve to say that if someone broke in and tried to rape a member of my family that i shouldn't shoot them cause that is what the justice system is for and that i should not be the judge, jury and executioner. That line of thinking is whats wrong with this country. Give the criminal all the fame and freedoms that they need.

Why is is that the milita part is ignored? The Constitution specifically states that a well ordered militia is necessary, why is there not a responsibility to join the State militia and be trained in order to ensure a 'free State'.

It's ignored because people who aren't completely ignorant twats have already read the correspondence written by the men who actually wrote the amendment. It's clear what they meant. Pick up a book. Typical Obama trash. MSNBC isn't a history book. It's a propaganda channel... and clueless twits, like yourself, eat it up. You're a disgrace to the Constitution.

I see.So this idiot woman[who is to blame for this] means I am irresponsible.SO-where is all the carnage from the other 80-90 million gun owners?Take kids out of the equation-say 50 million,and the illegals "11 million"-so from 311 million we're left with 250 million - say 80 million-leaves 170 million.So 1 out of three are gun owners.That still makes for an impressinvely low number of maniacs shooting up the place.As well as falling crime rates.Put on another depends and move along

So Sean you feel it is OK to infringe on my right to own and bear arms because of you feel your freedoms are being somehow reduced? What freedoms are you giving up or what rights of yours are being infringed on? Your suggestions infringe on my right because they make me jump through hoops to own guns. Owning a gun is a right.

"So 1 out of three are gun owners." -- Oh joy, any one of three could be the next to have a bad day and start firing. Ah yes, an impressively low number... to whom? You should not be allowed to play with numbers, words, or guns. The primary concern of the NRA is making money, using the right words when describing weapons while ignoring the body count, and praising killing/maiming efficiency--all while paying homage to their million bucks a year ranter in chief.

Another dead here, a few more dead there, reload and move along, nothing here, there, or everywhere.

How about a 60 day waiting period? Why would this help I already own a lot of guns.

How about mandatory / certified gun lockers. I already keep my guns in a safe except the one I use for home protection.

How about limiting the number of weapons that can be purchased in a 12 month period to two. Why would this help, it only takes one?

How about psychological evaluations and other simple safeguards. How about fixing the database so it would show up?

Tex what needs to happen is you must register all of your weapons. This means writing down the serial numbers of all your guns and providing them to officials. Also anyone caught with a unregistered firearm mandatory 5-10 years and felony conviction. If your weapon is stolen and used in a crime mandatory 5-10 years for the owner of the weapon. Easy if you are responsible.

How about mandatory / certified gun lockers and random inspections by federal agents to make sure all guns not in use are propoertly secured.

Guess you're unfamiliar with the Fourth Amendment.

So, Sean, You now want to violate my 4th Amendment rights in addition to my 2nd Amendment rights? How about we have random inspections come into your home to make sure any alcohol you have is properly secured??? Just to be sure it doesn't fall into the wrong hands, of course.... BTW - No one is saying that you have to carry a weapon into Wal-Mart, but that doesn't mean you can take away my RIGHT to do so, because apparently I wasn't given the same level of clairvoyance that you were. For some reason, I just can't tell exactly when and where I will NEED to protect myself and my family.

crushedu

This sounds a lot like Nazi Germany to me.

How about cracking down on the mentally ill obtaining guns? The law is already in place but they aren't consistently reported to the database for a number of silly reasons. The common thread in all mass shootings is mental illness. Too many times we find out the shooter shouldn't have been able to legally possess a gun under the current law but still was able to do so because some medical professional didn't report things properly.

Fact - The previous assault weapon ban had no significant impact on crime whether positive or negative. The expiration of the ban led to no impact on crime rates. We have 10 years worth of data during a ban and 8 years worth since it expired to prove this.

Fact - There are more guns than ever in this country and overall crime has been decreasing each year for a number of years.

Fact - The worst mass shooting (Virginia Tech) was carried out with no high capacity magazines and no weapons that would fall under the assault weapons ban. It was carried out by a mentally ill individual that would have been flagged in the background check had he been properly reported under current laws.

It's not very intelligent to do something that hasn't worked in the past and expect it to work this time. If it's truly about safety and not about a political agenda, they would be focusing on the specific problems and not focusing on blanket restrictions that are stereotypical of partisan idealogies. It comes down to not wanting to offend people with mental health issues. Rather than single out one demographic possibly hurting their feelings, we'd rather punish everybody and not solve anything while maintaining good PR with that one group.

Sean- I see your point but I don't think it will work. People who use weapons for home protection may need to access their weapon at a moments notice and can't take the time to unlock a safe or collect a magazine from one location and the weapon from another location. We need better ideas.

Chuck- I can only agree to a certain point with your stance. The privilege of driving a car requires a license and insurance. A similar requirement for weapons shouldn't be that far fetched. Your "rights" as a gun owner can come with limitations as they should such as criminals or certain violatons of the law. There has to be a way to satisfy the second ammendment and yet have a logical way to allow the removal of weapons from those who don't deserve the right or privilege to own one.

Tex what needs to happen is you must register all of your weapons

@crushedu

Weapons legally bought and sold are already registered, you do know this, right? Every FFL who sells a weapon has to legally record the guns serial number and the buyers name and address. But, tell me, how do you plan to convince the criminals to do the same...hmmm....waiting for the answer.....oh, wait, you have none. Criminals are not compelled to follow the same set of rules. Please do some simple research before posting and looking like a tool.

Sean,

That's their right of the 200,000,000 other people in this country who CHOOSE to not own a firearm. Just because they don't have one doesn't mean those of us that are GUARANTEED BY LAW shouldn't have access to comparable small arms as the govt.

chuck-1535339....owning a 30 pound 5 foot long single shot muzzle loaded rifle is a right, owning a pistol which fires one shot and is not accurate beyond 20 feet is a right, those are the only weapons that existed when the Constitution was written. They certainly did not have anti tank weapons, flame throwers, granage launchers in mind, neither did they have rapid fire assault type weapons in mind. They also did not have vehicle speed limits, because there were no motor vehicles. It is the 21st Century, not the 18th century.

NRA is a haven for paranoids.

MM,

You should do some research. Other than Rifles and Pistols, there were also Mortors, Howitzers, Cannons, and exploding projectiles. There were also attempts have pistols capable of firing more than one projectile before they had to be reloaded. These were known as pepperboxes. One successful design had 32 barrels. There were also rifles designed after the pistol pepperbox during the time of the Revolution.

MM, saying we only have rights to muskets and one shot weapons is ridiculous. But if you want to use that logic, if the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to today's weapons, then the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to Facebook or the internet, because, you know, the founding fathers couldn't have possibly imagined having the internet.

You libs are nuts. You're all about the rights of the people, until it's something you don't agree with. Before the election you guys were all about people's rights when you were spewing your fairy tales of voter suppression. The way I see it, if gay people have the right to tell the government to stay out of their bedrooms and women have the right to tell the government to stay out of their uterus, then don't bash my right to tell the government to stay out of my gun cabinet.

What's sad is most of you don't even see the hypocrisy that's right in front of your face. A bunch of elitist politicians who have 24/7 armed security trying to tell us that guns are dangerous and that lowly commoners like us don't need them.

By Random Checks - you mean violation of the 4th amendment? You people have never even read the constitution have you? Also, all of you "Gun Safers" out there.... do me a favor ... walk to the side of your gun locker and tap on the wall - do you notice any difference in the sound versus tapping on the door of the safe? AH LOL - yeah, a circular saw will cut right through that. Only safes upward of $7,000 have full four wall security. ----> you were tricked into thinking your guns were any safer.

Also, your freedoms are listed in the constitution. Security is not a freedom, though the right to defend yourself in a means of security is a freedom. Read Bowers vs Devito ruling ---> "There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen."

Reading - Its not just for me.

Obama Asks Military Leaders If They Will “Fire On US Citizens”

how about stuffing Sean O 'Keefe into one of those safes that he wants radom gov't inspections ,that he wants the gov't to tramp all over both the 2nd and 4 th ammendment rights ,knowing how the gov't runs they will never find him in time !!

Sean wants a police state almost as badly as Obama

All this rhetoric about banning high capacity magazines is just one more way of attacking the 2nd amendment. What's that you say? No one needs high capacity magazines for personal defense? According to the moron Governor of NY, seven rounds is sufficient and any magazine larger will bring the full weight of the bureaucracy upon your head.

Consider just a few of the many police shootings in New York these past few years.

Most recently, last August the police used 16 shots to kill an armed person.

I think many people remember around 12 or so years ago Amadou Diallo, an immigrant from Guinea, was gunned down in the doorway of his residence. The police unleashed a fusillade of 47 shots to neutralize him, and he wasn't even armed.

Then there was this fellow named Leroy Webster, a criminal that the police shot it out with, killing him (2011). In that incident, the police shot 73 bullets.

The point is that the police are highly trained but still required many more than 7 bullets. What is a homeowner to do when there is an armed intruder or home invasion? Does anyone think limiting the homeowner's defense of himself and his family to seven bullets serves any rational purpose? What if there are multiple intruders?

This anti-gun legislation pushed by Cuomo the moron is just one more transparent attack on the 2nd amendment using the leftist agenda of disarming the American people, one gun or one bullet or one magazine at a time, if necessary.

NRA is a business for profit...why would the clown say something else?.....Damn the public over profit......that simple....

Ban handguns.

The 200,000,000 other people still have the right to bear arms, regardless of whether they exercise it. Therefore, your argument is irrelevant. The Bill of Rights is intended to protect the rights of the minority, since a majority doesn't need protections by definition in a democratic system. Here's the only thing I will say on this matter. You have MILLIONS of ex-Marines out there who swore to uphold the Constitution. Your chances of @!$%#ting on the 2nd Amendment are ZERO. The Constitution has a process for amending itself, but you simply don't have the votes needed to do that, so you may as well give it a rest. When you start trying to circumvent it, you're just setting yourself up for catastrophe when everyone else decides they don't feel like respecting anything in it either.

Random Federal inspections at your home? LOL. You crapped on two Amendments in a single sentence. Traitors should be dealt with like traitors.

Well, the FBI knows there's about 80 million of us out there via NICS.

When the constitution was written, and specifically the right to bear arms, the founding fathers were talking about muskets. Fire once, take 5 minutes to reload and fire again. Not AK's and automatic weapons.

It does not appear to me that anyone is taking guns away, just to do due dilegence in making sure they end up in respnsible hands. Yes "outlaws" find ways to get guns, but if all sales are regulated, and the guns start in the hands of responsible people, doesnt it makes sense that the chances of these weapons ending up in the wrong hands decreases?

Is that not what everyone should want? To keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people?

I am so tired of the media and people on these message boards trying to scare and intimidate the American public into thinking that the government is trying to invade my privacy, take away my freedoms.

Here is an idea, if all of you people feel this way, move to Iran. Let me know how your right to bear arms, and freedom of speech are working for you there.

Do you think George Washington would not have used an M16, instead of a Musket, if they were available? You're an idiot.

If guns don't make us safer, than why does Dianne Feinstein have a concealed weapons license, in California?

If armed security in schools won't make our children safer, than why do Obama's girls go to Sidwell Friends School, where there are eleven armed guards, in addition to the Secret Service?

The Obamas, Dianne Feinstein, the Left & the Liberal Media are all hypocrites. They want to have the protection of firearms or paid security, with high tech firearms but they just don't want you too.

Go to: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/we-demand-obama-issue-executive-order-making-white-house-federal-buildings-and-events-gun-free-zones/JlLk2nfs and sign the petition to make the White House, Federal Buildings and Events Gun Free Zones. This includes all of Obama's and the Legislators Secret Service & Security. If they really removing guns makes us safer, they'll have no problem disarming their own Security. Maybe, Sidwell Friends School should be included also...

Obama = Hypocracy

I lean towards the right, but La Pierre is embarrassing as is Akin, Buchanan and some others. He sounds like a cartoon. (I am not far right and actually on some issues, I lean to the left, but all-in-all- leaning right)

Richie Every time I see one of you ill informed people spout stuff like that I can see that our education system has failed us.. It takes time but if you read all the letters the creators/signators of the Constitution and Bill of Rights wrote explaining exactly what each phrase and amendment actually was put there for you might have a clue.. Heck even the Ohio Constitution makes no bones about who should own a gun and what every last citizen between 17 and 63 is bound and responsible to do.. They made Militia a bad word but it is right there for you to read and how important they considered an armed citizenry to be.. You and your Socialist/Communist/Fascist ideals are incompatible with what they founded this country as.. The Federal Government has far outgrown their charge and become the Antichrist of freedom..

The NRA leadership sometimes gets carried away with their task but taking each speach on its own will leave you scratching your head.. The liberals like poking out bits to rip on but the jist is that the politicians are messing with the Constitution and half the country is getting pissed and if you think Obama's grass root campain was somthing just wait...

@Richie: If Jefferson intended that the 2nd Amendment would apply to muskets, why wouldn't he write that in there?

Oh, and a tip: It helps to be accurate when you make statements, regardless of how silly they are. A person trained in the firing of a musket was able to fire every 8 seconds or so. Not once per five minutes.

Another tip: The law of the land here upholds the right to bear arms, so rather than telling other people to move elsewhere, why don't you do it instead?

So much passionate talk concerning firearms . . . it would seem the object is quite seductive.

But is a firearm able to make those sounds a man loves to hear when a woman reaches the height of her passion? Is a firearm as alluring as the look she has when she wants him, desiring nothing more than the attention of the man she loves?

Seduction is a funny thing . . . Enjoy your passions.

As one of those ftard rednecks with an AR and spouting about Jesus, when are you gonna show some class and realize those ftards are a bunch of good ol' boys who you could trust with your life. As to freaking the metrosexual frappachino characters, they're all scared of anybody who ain't a libtard metrosexo frappachino sipper. What's left, trust the left?

Good point, Rick....

Funny, even though I have never stooped to the name calling you folks use as freely as you breathe, I was banned for describing a group of people as "hypocrites" in a respectful response to a post that had about as much respect for the COH rules as you display.

Free speech on this vine only exists if you're on the "control" side of the debate. You folks have been put in your place using facts provided by our own government, knowledge of the subject matter, and common sense questions to your "solutions".

There is 1 main question you should ask yourself with every "common sense" solution you spout like you're the educated above the crowd thinker you have dillusioned yourselves to be...

What will this do to prevent a criminal from obtaining a firearm and committing the crime?

Gun Free Zones, bans, ammo limits, waiting periods, registration, licensing, etc, etc, etc. These ALL work for people that live their lives by adhering to and respecting the law, not one effects those that do not.

Start figuring out how to hold those responsible for crime accountable for those crimes. Just like we did for drunk driving. We didn't attempt to ban cars, alcohol, or fuel to reduce alcohol related homicides, we passed and ENFORCED laws to hold those responsible accountable. Guess what? We haven't eliminated it, but we have GREATLY reduced it.

You let somebody that commits a crime with a firearm off with a slap on the wrist, where are they going to end up? Right back in the community to do it all over again, to potentially walk right back through the same revolving door. Do you actually think banning "assault weapons" and "high capacity" magazines makes our children safe? Some of you do, others of you know full well it won't. This is just a baby step of more to come if these new laws actually pass and prove to make no difference like the previous ineffective laws you passed.

Obama has already made clear that his "hometown of Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, but MORE still needs to be done". (verbatum) The NRA has never made me feel like I needed to do anything other than be a member, on the otherhand the direct words of Obama, Feinstein, Bloomberg, etc, has made me feel like I need to make purchases that I wouldn't have normally made. So, keep blaming the NRA....this President has perfected the "blame game"

If guns don't make us safer, than why does Dianne Feinstein have a concealed weapons license, in California?

If armed security in schools won't make our children safer, than why do Obama's girls go to Sidwell Friends School, where there are eleven armed guards, in addition to the Secret Service?

The Obamas, Dianne Feinstein, the Left & the Liberal Media are all hypocrites. They want to have the protection of firearms or paid security, with high tech firearms but they just don't want you too.

Go to: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/we-demand-obama-issue-executive-order-making-white-house-federal-buildings-and-events-gun-free-zones/JlLk2nfs and sign the petition to make the White House, Federal Buildings and Events Gun Free Zones. This includes all of Obama's and the Legislators Secret Service & Security. If they really removing guns makes us safer, they'll have no problem disarming their own Security. Maybe, Sidwell Friends School should be included also...

Obama = Hypocracy

Everything is taxed, you are taxed just by being a citizen of this country. I lived in another country for a few years, paid them taxes as I was earning money in their country. When I got back to the USofA I had a nice tax bill waiting for me on the money I made when I wasn't living there. Think they cared I paid another country taxes already? Nope

Welcome to America

Ryan, I think you missed the point. How about you have to pay a tax in order to post your uninformed ideas. Also, there are several ways to eliminate, or at least reduce, federal taxes due to foreign taxes paid. Just because you are too lazy to figure it out on your own, or too cheap to pay someone else to do it for you, does not mean anything. BTW - You may be able to file an amended return to recature some of those taxes paid in excess of what was truly owed. No thanks needed.....

This is the problem with the internet, you take a few sentences and assume you know everything about someone. Jump to conclusions about me, I don't really care.

This world is hopeless

If guns don't make us safer, than why does Dianne Feinstein have a concealed weapons license, in California?

If armed security in schools won't make our children safer, than why do Obama's girls go to Sidwell Friends School, where there are eleven armed guards, in addition to the Secret Service?

The Obamas, Dianne Feinstein, the Left & the Liberal Media are all hypocrites. They want to have the protection of firearms or paid security, with high tech firearms but they just don't want you too.

Go to: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/we-demand-obama-issue-executive-order-making-white-house-federal-buildings-and-events-gun-free-zones/JlLk2nfs and sign the petition to make the White House, Federal Buildings and Events Gun Free Zones. This includes all of Obama's and the Legislators Secret Service & Security. If they really removing guns makes us safer, they'll have no problem disarming their own Security. Maybe, Sidwell Friends School should be included also...

Obama = Hypocracy

Hey Ryan, you just didn't plan & prepare for your foreign gig. Some years ago I took a job abroad but I did what you apparently didn't -- I filed federal income tax returns during my time abroad & properly claimed about $80k in "foreign earned income" as exempt from federal income tax. And that was the only time that my late wife & I filed separate federal income tax returns.

You have a right to life but who said it had to be a long life?

What about it you have it what's your point?

You have a right to life, nobody said that it was guaranteed safe.

You are 1000 times more likely to die from a 'medical mistake' and 100 times more likely to die in a car. Are you going to stop going to the doctor in your car?

Water kills more people a year than guns (and that includes the criminals and suicides), are you going to stop taking baths or walking in the rain?

Bad news is that your return ticket is guaranteed and there's no way out alive.

What about my unalienable right to LIFE, Wayne?

I agree.

Since cars are responsible for three times the deaths of guns, and since cars maim millions more, we should ban cars.

Cars, after all, are NOT constitutionally protected.

Just a question, do you need to pass a test to drive a car? Do you need to register your car with the government? Just curious.

What about my unalienable right to LIFE, Wayne?

What about the 3,000 unborn Children that are aborted every Month in the U.S.?

What about their right to Life?

I see people on the road with a license to drive, that have no business behind the wheel. Your car is taxed( registration fee) because it classed as real property. Same as your house or trailer. Guns are classed as personal property. Some thing you can keep or carry in your real property. When you can get the street thugs and gang members to register their weapons, I will be happy to discuss registering mine. When you get the non military government personnel to give up their fire arms, I will discus giving up my firearms. Should we tax your right to type silly comments on the inter-net? Or perhaps tax your right to go to church. Or tax you if you don't go? Silly is it? If you can tax one right, you can tax another. There is already a tax on guns and ammo. Sales taxes and federal excise taxes.

Take that up with the Supreme Court.

SenorPlaid,

If you are complaining about "your right to life", you are far more likely to die in an auto accident by a drunk driver than by a gun.

Should there be mandatory breathalyzers installed on cars required for ignition? Mandatory speed caps on cars, set the maximum speed ALL cars can go is 65mph? What about weight limits on vehicles? Imagine a Suburban getting into an accident with a Fiat 500.

rndLurker: except more people are MURDERED by guns (68%) than any other item including cars and doctors. You keep confusing dying and murder.

50% of gun deaths are suicides using someone ELSE's gun in the home. You may have a gun in your house but make sure no one else can get it...and make sure you're not suicidal, guns are very effective tools for suicide.

Quip: You are more likely to have an accident within 1 mile of your home than anywhere else...so why haven't you moved yet?

RealWorldProgressive

Just a question, do you need to pass a test to drive a car? Do you need to register your car with the government? Just curious.

Actually, NO you don't! ANY criminal can buy, steal, drive, use to kill, and/or use an auto in the commission of any crime they choose, and never have to do any of the things you question! Guess what? They can get caught, and still go buy another car legally without any of the questions you asked applying!

Being a "Real World Progressive" I'm sure the reality of this response has went completely over your head though!

Cars aren't in the Constitution, nor is it a basic Right.

If guns don't make us safer, than why does Dianne Feinstein have a concealed weapons license, in California?

If armed security in schools won't make our children safer, than why do Obama's girls go to Sidwell Friends School, where there are eleven armed guards, in addition to the Secret Service?

The Obamas, Dianne Feinstein, the Left & the Liberal Media are all hypocrites. They want to have the protection of firearms or paid security, with high tech firearms but they just don't want you too.

Go to: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/we-demand-obama-issue-executive-order-making-white-house-federal-buildings-and-events-gun-free-zones/JlLk2nfs and sign the petition to make the White House, Federal Buildings and Events Gun Free Zones. This includes all of Obama's and the Legislators Secret Service & Security. If they really removing guns makes us safer, they'll have no problem disarming their own Security. Maybe, Sidwell Friends School should be included also...

Obama = Hypocracy

"David Noah
What about my unalienable right to LIFE, Wayne?

What about the 3,000 unborn Children that are aborted every Month in the U.S.?

What about their right to Life?"

An Abortion which is done early enough in pregnancy does NOT kill a Child, it simply removes a Tiny Cell from the woman. I am an Independent, would be called "Right Wing" by some because of my stance on firearms and gun control, but Im middle of the road. I am Pro-Gun and Pro-Choice.. Why should the Government be able to tell someone what they can or can-not do with thier own body?

You have to join first...

If guns don't make us safer, than why does Dianne Feinstein have a concealed weapons license, in California?

If armed security in schools won't make our children safer, than why do Obama's girls go to Sidwell Friends School, where there are eleven armed guards, in addition to the Secret Service?

The Obamas, Dianne Feinstein, the Left & the Liberal Media are all hypocrites. They want to have the protection of firearms or paid security, with high tech firearms but they just don't want you too.

Go to: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/we-demand-obama-issue-executive-order-making-white-house-federal-buildings-and-events-gun-free-zones/JlLk2nfs and sign the petition to make the White House, Federal Buildings and Events Gun Free Zones. This includes all of Obama's and the Legislators Secret Service & Security. If they really removing guns makes us safer, they'll have no problem disarming their own Security. Maybe, Sidwell Friends School should be included also...

Obama = Hypocracy

LOL!! You point out that the people who did the study state that is does not prove that gun control causes higher murder rates, yet you present it as proof that it does. It doesn't. It doesn't. It doesn't.

So you just repeat no it doesn't 3 times and it cchanges the content of the study. It DOES prove a corralation between gun ownership and lower crime rates. However the scientists were being good scientists and saying one piece of data neither proves nor disproves something.

Ban handguns.

If guns don't make us safer, than why does Dianne Feinstein have a concealed weapons license, in California?

If armed security in schools won't make our children safer, than why do Obama's girls go to Sidwell Friends School, where there are eleven armed guards, in addition to the Secret Service?

The Obamas, Dianne Feinstein, the Left & the Liberal Media are all hypocrites. They want to have the protection of firearms or paid security, with high tech firearms but they just don't want you too.

Go to: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/we-demand-obama-issue-executive-order-making-white-house-federal-buildings-and-events-gun-free-zones/JlLk2nfs and sign the petition to make the White House, Federal Buildings and Events Gun Free Zones. This includes all of Obama's and the Legislators Secret Service & Security. If they really removing guns makes us safer, they'll have no problem disarming their own Security. Maybe, Sidwell Friends School should be included also...

Obama = Hypocracy

jmsmith.

So sad you can't see the difference between a threat against the president's family and everyone else's.

So sad you want to militarize children's places of learning.

So sad you can't read what the president is proposing will NOT take away all your guns.

So sad.

.They expected the citizenry to be able to keep the government in check.To basically be able to WREST the govt back if need be.Theory DENIED.I bet that they would also think we couldn't possibly believe 2 guys are 'husband and wife'

I would suggest that muskets and muzzle loaders were the "assault weapons" of that period.

Theory denied? lol you are a joke. Let's bring back Rome which they based this government on, they allowed gays. =p Go back to the Middle East with your views.

I do not believe you have the RIGHT to those types of weapons. There is no legitimate use for them.

Fortunately, what you believe means nothing.

I got mine, and you can't do a thing about it.

How does that make you feel?

.

lol another idiot. I do not feed things under the bridge! How does that make YOU feel? lol

Since the 2nd amendment was written with a militia in mind, it wouldn't be too far fetched to argue that they intended for the citizenry to have military/militia type arms. It doesn't state "Hunting large game being necessary to..." so I don't think they were concerned with deer rifles.

@jonal11: You are claiming to know the intent of the same founding fathers that you claim other people couldn't possibly know. I'm sorry, are you posting as under an alias, are you actually a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States?

I base my opinion off of their strict interpretation of the Constitution, which, gee, are the words of the Founding Fathers.

Matt, maybe you should actually read the 2nd Amendment. WELL REGULATED(You don't have the right to anything you want) MILITIA(Seems to me you need to be part of a trained group)

So yes, I do understand the intent of the forefathers. You people always seem to ignore the Well Regulated Milita part.

jonal11 you do realize that Leonardo da Vincini invented a multi-barelled Machine gun in the 15th century correct?

This Idea that the Founding Fathors never invisioned guns like machine guns, or airplanes, or tanks, etc is absolutly absurd.

@jonal11: I've read the 2nd Amendment, and just because you interpret it to suit your own needs, doesn't mean that is how the Supreme Court of the United States interprets it. I'm sorry, did I miss the part where they changed laws that Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution only hold up if jonal11 agrees too?

Maybe *you* should read the 2nd Amendment:

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

First, the phrase "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" meaning a private army of regulars. Many argue that this is the entirety of the amendment, when it is merely qualifying that people need to be able to form a militia, should the need arise. This does not say they must form a militia, nor that joining one is the prerequisite for firearm ownership. It is merely addressing that in their time of need, the people must be able to form a militia, which has arms and the training to use them.

The second part of the amendment, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This is about as clear cut as it gets. First off, it says "right of the people to keep and bear arms." It does not say, "right of the military," "right of the people to keep and bear a select list of arms," nor does it say, "right of the people to keep and bear arms for hunting." This is pretty clearly the idea that the Framers of the Constitution wanted the people to be able to organize with their own private arms in an uprising against a tyrannical government.

Now the greatest implication is in the carefully worded "shall not be infringed." The purposeful wording of that phrase has significant meaning -- mainly that the right of the people is not provided but the Constitution, but that it is an inalienable right of a free man (woman), and the Constitution is guaranteeing that right, not creating it.

You bring up the intent of the founding fathers in the bill of rights. If you would read the published papers they left us, and read their opinions in the federalist papers, you might have a grasp on their intent. The idea behind the second amendment was two fold. One part was the militia. The militia was and still is a pool of individuals that could be called upon in time of emergency to back up and augment the regular troops. Since the National Guard is now by default, the reserve forces of the regular military, they are no longer the militia. The militia, in the strict reading of law, are all non- military,eligible persons, generally male,between 18 and 45 years of age. Did you fill out the selective service card when you turned 18? Then you are the militia. The second part states that the right of the people shall not be infringed. The idea was to leave weapons in the hands of the civilian population so there would be a counter force to any militia group that gets too heavy handed or in a last worst case, if the government becomes tyrannical or falls into a dictatorship. If we lose the right to depose our government, we also lose all our other rights. Yes, at this point, we can vote people out of office, and we can live our lives without fear of some visit from the secret police in the night. Can any of us guarantee that will be the case in 50 years? Or do you not care, because that won't affect you? Do any of you saying that because they had flintlock muskets and rifles, the authors of the bill of rights could not imagine that guns would become better or more capable? Do you think we should also go back to manual single page printing presses and dip pens as well?

jonal11 stated;

Matt, maybe you should actually read the 2nd Amendment. WELL REGULATED(You don't have the right to anything you want) MILITIA(Seems to me you need to be part of a trained group)

You should probably look up the word "militia", the FULL meaning of which the word can apply, not just the ones you choose. Additionally, you should read the supporting documents provided by our Founding Fathers, as it addresses the thoughts behind the intent of their words. Perhaps if you did, you wouldn't come off as badly as you have.

Here Jonal11, I will save you the leg work of looking in a dictionary..

Copied and Pasted from www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary

mi·li·tia noun \mə-ˈli-shə\
Definition of MILITIA
1a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

Look at number 2.. What do you know... Citizens... NOT military (Army, National Guard etc..)...

jonal11

I love how people bring up the founding fathers. I bet if you were to bring them to life right now, they would go crazy that owning this high capacity, high rate of fire guns are NOT what they meant when they gave the right to bear arms. They still had muskets back then. If you were to ban all High Capacity Magazines and high rate of fire long barrels. None of my guns I have for personal protection or hunting would be effected. I do not believe you have the RIGHT to those types of weapons. There is no legitimate use for them

It says the right to bear arms. Not the right to a musket. I am sure they would go alot more crazy over other directions this country has chosen to go in. Like taking God out of everything. So are you willing to give up your cell phone, internet, electricity, car cause they did not envision these things back then. You make it sound like our founding fathers were idiots. Get off the musket band wagon its getting old. Maybe the U.S military should only have muskets as well dont think that would work out all that well. Let me ask you this, why all are of you so wrapped around the semi-auto and the high capacity mags? I thought a life was a life. It seems you people are concerned more about numbers than anything. There is no legitimate use for a sports car or bike, no legitimate use for a cell phone (our founding fathers did just fine without them), facebook (your imaginary friends dont care what you do everyday), i could go on but its pointless. They are used for sport shooting, target practice and home defense (criminals and animals). Also, ever wonder why the military is what it is. I have been in combat and you people think you just need one shot. When you are put in that position of preserving your life, your adrenaline is pumping and the criminal/enemy is not going to just stand there and let you place that one well placed round.

Much less than the average Congressman/woman.

What do Unions do with dues that you don't have a choice in paying?

Don't they take that money to support Democrats even if your not a Democrat and don't agree and support Democrats?

The NRA is a optional organization. A person willingly gives the $25 or $35 dollars a year, to have a "Big Dog" in the fight, for the protection our Second Amendment Rights. Obama wants my money to give to the lazy, non-productive, white, mexican & ghetto trash and all I get is higher taxes.

ElkMeadow - Your division strategy is pathetic and transparent.

You should be focusing on hypocrisy...

If guns don't make us safer, than why does Dianne Feinstein have a concealed weapons license, in California?

If armed security in schools won't make our children safer, than why do Obama's girls go to Sidwell Friends School, where there are eleven armed guards, in addition to the Secret Service?

The Obamas, Dianne Feinstein, the Left & the Liberal Media are all hypocrites. They want to have the protection of firearms or paid security, with high tech firearms but they just don't want you too.

Go to: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/we-demand-obama-issue-executive-order-making-white-house-federal-buildings-and-events-gun-free-zones/JlLk2nfs and sign the petition to make the White House, Federal Buildings and Events Gun Free Zones. This includes all of Obama's and the Legislators Secret Service & Security. If they really removing guns makes us safer, they'll have no problem disarming their own Security. Maybe, Sidwell Friends School should be included also...

Obama = Hypocrisy

Yes, if I sell you my car you have to register it and have a license to use it. It isn't a big deal with other items, but you say "gun" and some people get all panicked. If my crazy aunt wants to buy my gun I can just hand it over and she can blow the family away that same day. No records? No responsibility? How does that make sense? I have to carry insurance on my car and if it's used in a robbery or someone gets run over with it I will be held liable unless I have filed a police report that it was stolen. But if my gun is stolen I can just "forget" to mention it and that's okay if someone is killed with it later that week?

If I have to do paperwork to buy it from a dealer, I should have to do paperwork to buy it privately. In my state, paperwork is required for a private sale of a handgun but not a long gun. That's stupid. Why one and not the other? Buying the same exact long gun from a dealer would require paperwork so what makes a private sale any different? Transfers between spouses or between parents/children don't require paperwork here, either. I'm fine with that but think that the door should be left open for some liability of the original owner. If I transfer a gun to my child or spouse without doing the paperwork and they use it shortly after in a crime, I should be liable. If they use it in a crime years later, not so much. Any relative beyond the immediate relation of spouse or child/parent should be treated as any other private sale.

Forget to mention stolen guns? Would you forget to mention another expensive item that was stolen? I don't quite understand the premise that all gun owners have several hundred to several thousand dollar items we can just afford to forget was stolen. If your lap top or I-phone was stolen, you would report it. If for no other reason than to have a police report to show your insurance provider in hopes of either getting it replaced or getting it back. If you don't report a car or a gun as stolen, yes you can be held responsible. Because you did not report it it is assumed that the person or persons using your car or gun are doing so with your knowledge and permission. Which means you knew what they were doing and gave them the means to do it.

"I don't see how making a gun as complicated to purchase and register as your car is even an issue. It is amazing that you can buy a gun and give it to someone else without having to do any background check."

I dont see any person who is doing a Private sale on thier Automobile doing a backround check on the person purchasing it. For all you know the guy you sell your car to in a private sale had his license taken away a week prior for his 5th DUI charge and is out on bond. Also how do you know that person will actually register/insure the motor vehicle that you just sold them? For all you know, just like with a firearm, they could go out and intentionally mow down a group of people, then turn and say that you gave them the car or what ever. There is a very large amount of people driving a car illegaly with no insurance/registration.. just like those idiots who carry a firearm illegaly and dont obey the law.

David M ArmyVeteran, do you live in an area where private sales of an automobile don't require having a notary do transfer paperwork? Or is it supposed to be done but common practice that it isn't done? I'm just curious. Where I'm at, the only time somebody would make a legitimate sale of a vehicle without going through a notary to transfer the title would be if they are selling the car to a junk/scrap yard.

Joey, I live in Connecticut.. We can do a personal sale of a car so long as we have the title for it.. We sign the back of the Title, write in the Sale amount, and the purchaser signs as well.. At that point the car is legally owned by that individual. Does not Require a Notary or any other official..

Folks seem to have 1 notion they get fired up about.What the hell is the man supposed to do?He is our president,SH happens and he's gonna say nothing? I still hold some of this as wrong.In folks mind tho-they're equating what the pres has said with what crazy pants Cuomo did in NY

All Obama wants to do is take money from hard working people and give it to all of the lazy SOB's that don't like to work for it.

It's funny, the people claiming Obama are giving gifts to lazy SOB's are always from places that get more from the Federal govt then they give. Guess what, YOU are the lazy SOB's.

your comment means nothing you are from texas..

No Tex, Obama wants to tax obscenely rich oil executives and give hard working people a living wage.

Bad Bad Leroy Brown,

Sorry, Obama's name isn't on the bottom of my paycheck. Maybe yours but not mine.

Lapierre is not the problem. He is simply taking the positions he is told by the gun manufacturers to take, just like anyone else in his position would be required to.

Except even the gun manufacturers don't give a rats @ss if I have to register the gun or not (especially used guns!). They only care about the sale of which LePierres rants won't change one way or the other.

How about a license to buy a gun? And how about a periodic psychological profile to have that license?

How about an ID to Vote?

How about a peridical pshychological evaluation to make sure your competent enough to vote?

While were at it how about mandatory monthly drug testing for everyone recieveing State or Federal Benifits?

I dont know about you but I work for a living , I Dont do drugs, I have family to support, and lets face it doing drugs is a waiste of money and brain cellls.

I'm not the one that drives a Black market that is the cause of 50,000 Deaths in Mexico's war on drugs to supply Americas Illigal drug addictions.

Can you say the same? How many people die every year just so America can get High.

Everytime you get "High" you are the cause of tens of thousands of deaths...

How about the NRA stop trying to "deball" the ATF that helps enforce existing gun laws? They haven't had a full time director in 6 years (NRA). Quit having their minions slip in legislation that prevents enforcement, then bitching about how existing gun laws aren't enforced?

If I were Obama, I'd find a way to get an ATF director installed, then quadruple the number of current agents to ten thousand, then sit back and see how the NRA responds..

its people like this jack-a$$ above me (Texas_Born & Bred) who makes all gun owners lumped into this debate. and if you look at what he said in the above comment (1) I already own a lot of guns....(2) and then he says "it only takes one?" so why do you need so many if it only takes one. and you arent a responsible gun owner if your gun isnt locked up and loaded by your bed.

M DAVIS

its people like this jack-a$$ above me (Texas_Born & Bred) who makes all gun owners lumped into this debate. and if you look at what he said in the above comment (1) I already own a lot of guns....(2) and then he says "it only takes one?" so why do you need so many if it only takes one. and you arent a responsible gun owner if your gun isnt locked up and loaded by your bed.

He was making a point about registering them so why does that make him your little intelligent nickname you called him. I own guns and the government doesnt need to know what i own. I bought it legally. You dont have to register all the knives you own. How many people are stabbed to death. You dont have to register your cell phone. How may are killed from texters. You dont have to register how much alcohol you have. How many are killed by drunk drivers.

"let's say no guns what if this guy had made it to the kitchen and grabbed a butcher knife" Join the actual debate, no one is taking all the guns away.

That's what they said at first in the UK, just the assualt weapons. then they took all the guns away from the citizens. I find it useful to look at countries that went through similiar and to see the results of those laws years later. So this is with the actual discussion. Or is looking at results non beneficiary?

So, he shot at an unarmed naked man. Clearly, he shouldn't have a gun.

Guns were kept in the son's room? She starts firing but hit the wall? Good thing the husband wasn't standing by that wall. Weird.

Rick, did you read the story? It was the wife who shot. If you walked outside your house, somebody jumped on top of you from your roof, ran in your house totally naked grabbing your tv, throwing it on the ground, grabbed your vacuum cleaner and started eating the dirt in it then went towards your wife while playing with himself. You would be mad at your wife for grabbing a gun? Is he supposed to rape your wife strangle and stab her before she can?

Dear If he kills you, then yes you should protect yourself, but don't do anything until then for he could be harmless and just faking the madman thing.

Ram I agree, it is an interesting story, that would makr for a great discussion on both sides of the Aisle.

Yes, I read your story. So, she shot at an unarmed, naked man. She shouldn't have a gun.

Cit Libery, if you want to look at the UK as a "what not to do" then you should realize they have one of the lowest gun fatality rates in the world.

However, I think you will find if the government tried to take away gun rights all together, people who are moderate will join with you to say "enough is enough". I am all for making people jump through hoops to own a gun and make sure that they know how to use it, it is a privilege just like driving and living in America. If you don't like the rules you can move to Mexico and have what ever guns you want.

And yet people still get murdered there at about the same rate as before. Meanwhile assaults are through the roof.

I have two primary weapons for home protection. A 12 guage coach gun and a Judge. My back up weapon is a 1911A which I am a pretty fair shot with, but if I have to get up in the middle of the night I don't know if I would instantly be accurate so that's the reason for the coach and the Judge. 7 rounds of shotgun and then I will be awake enough to be accurate.

00 buck has a tendency to just plow through drywall and keep going. Same thing for hollow core doors.

Most places don't allow centerfire cartidges smaller than .24 (.243) for deer hunting. I have an AKm that I took whitetail hunting, because in those wooded areas, the shot is generally less than 75 yards, and a red dot helps with quick acquisition. I took it because the round is perfectly fine to take a deer, the optic was no-magnification (as opposed to my other rifle), and it's a whole lot lighter and shorter than my other rifle. I have no problem carrying either around through a few miles of woods, but when you add in a 200 lb deer carcass to the mix, I can see the weight and bulk actually making a difference.

LOL @ "00 buck is better, close is good enough and won't carry thru to the next room." In the normal distance that self defense shootings occur in a house (less than 25 feet), 00 buck will spread about an inch and a half. It will blast through sheetrock, doors, and anything else in its way. People always start beating the "overpenetration" drum when talking about home defense, but the truth is, if it's good enough to stop a perp, it's good enough to blow through drywall, doors, etc. At least with .223 or 5.56, it will start tumbling pretty quick after impacting a person or object. What do you think those little round buckshot balls will do??? Keep on trucking...

Thank-you for that post Marine, and your service.

Agreed. I am an Army Veteran, and all my guns would not be effected because I have legitimate use for them. Personal home protection and hunting. There is no legitimate reason people should have access to high capacity clips or high rate of fire long guns.

I"m a former Marine as well.. I agree.. High powered assault rifles have no practical civilian use. And yes, Lapierre is a whack job.

Thanks. Me too, we are happy with shotguns and revolvers for protection and hunting. There are people here who keep treating others like idiots because of the definition of "assault rifle, semi-automatic vs. automatic, etc. I have fired all types of weapons and "to me" any weapon that can fire 4-6 bullets per seconds is not a semi-automatic. I had a Browning Semi-Automatic Shotgun...I stll had to pull the trigger each time i shot and 5 rounds did not just magically pour out of the barrel.

I am a Navy veteran, in the eighties our main rifle was an M-14. An AR is NO "High powered assault rifles". First the very definition of a true assault rifle is that it is select fire and shoots an intermediate cartridge. A cartridge that falls between a pistol round and regular military rifle round. We don't hunt deer with it because it is consider under powered. The AK47 round is just about on par with a 30-30 cartridge which is the most popular for deer in the country. This is still much lower on a balistics table than all the main military rifle rounds of WW2; our 30-06, Brit .303, German 7mm., Japan's 6.5x50mm Arisaka and Russian 7.62×54mmR. The AR is a 5.56x45mm round.

While there are high capacity clips (actually magazines, clips are different) such as 100rd drums and Surfire magazines in sixty and hundred rounders they are not very prevelent due to cost. A thrirty round magazine is the standard for the AR. Back in the early days it was twenty.

RandogM I not even sure to start with your post.

There are people here who keep treating others like idiots because of the definition of "assault rifle, semi-automatic vs. automatic, etc. I have fired all types of weapons and "to me" any weapon that can fire 4-6 bullets per seconds is not a semi-automatic. I had a Browning Semi-Automatic Shotgun...I stll had to pull the trigger each time i shot and 5 rounds did not just magically pour out of the barrel.

Definitions ARE important:

I stll had to pull the trigger each time i shot

That is the definition of semi automatic. That is what an AR does. That is why it is not an asault rifle.

So let me get this straight. This is the same group that wants you to show ID to vote, but not to purchase a weapon that can kill?

Anyone can play this game, its easy. Breaking News: The NRA hopes all your children are killed.

And if banning doesn't work how come I don't see any RPG or Grenades in civilian hands? I've never passed a tank on the highway either.

You want to fire assualt weapons, join the military.

HX1 this is not directed at you my general comment got placed under yours as a reply.

It baffles me the ignorance on both sides of this issue. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting - absolutely nothing! Quit letting the politians and talking heads with a one sided agenda brainwash you. The Second Amendment was designed to protect us from Governments - not just our own but foreign Governments. The problem with registering guns (background checks) is we dont want government overreach or other governments to know who has a gun. Think of it as phsycologial warfare that acts as a preventative.

I am for keeping the metally unstable and criminals away from guns - this is already in place (the problem is enforcement). Driving your car is a privilege - not a right. Gun ownership is a RIGHT!. You can call it paranoia but it still serves as part of the check and ballances. If you were a criminal, would you break into a rednecks house in Texas? Would you break into the Whitehouse? Face it - guns deter criminal activity.

Automatic rifles are already illegal. Have been for decades. Because you hear the word assault rifle, and then you see a picture of one on TV, and then it looks just like the ones our brave soldiers use; well it must be automatic. NO! It is not. The average person can barely shoot a round a second.

I saw on TV where the AR 15 was designed to shoot 16 rounds per second. WRONG! The military versions are able to do that. Not the simi-auto versions. We cannot purchase the military versions

Why should we be able to own military type weapons? Because all firearms are derived from military weapons that were widely used at the time. i.e. muskets/blackpower rifles = revolutionary & civil war; bolt action rifles = WWI; browning BAR = WWII, Vietnam/Iraq = AR-15. Weapon choice as it pertains the the second amendment has no basis with reguards to the second amendment.

The Supreme Court ruled in the 1930's against someone owning a sawwed off shotgun. Why? Their resoning was the purpose of the second amendment was to provide an allowance for a civilian to be ready if called upon with weapon of war that is current and in popular use at the time. The sawwed off shot gun did not fit that discription - therfore he lost. The AR-15, however, Certainly does fit that description. It is current and widely popular as a weapon of war.

Fix the mental healthcare system.

Fix our correctional facilities.

Enforce what is on the books - stop adding crap to it you wont enforce.

funnystuff888-what an idiot you are. Nobody ever said anything about an ID. 99% of all gun transactions (legal ones) are made by licensed gun dealers that require a background check. All the NRA chief is saying is that if I want to give my son a shotgun to go hunting for his birthday and he is not a convicted felon with history of mental illness, then I should not have to pay a hefty fee (aka tax - ala Obamacare) and have him fill out a bunch of paperwork and wait in some long line at some stuffy government office where the people don't give a $h!t about me, for several hours only to have them close and say come back tomorrow. I am all for background checks as are most legal gun owners. This has nothing to do with legal gun ownership or law abidin citizens. this all about criminals who dont obey laws and never will. They are the problem and they will get guns no matter what legislation is enacted. Legislation and gun control will only affect law abiding citizen the way speed limits only affect those who obey them. Anyone who does not believe this is just a big a moron as you and Obama are.

Well then put a sin tax on all the fast foods. I am tired of having to fund their emergency room adventures and doctors visits cause their arteries are plagued with plaque. Maybe they will think twice about eating the double burger. WHile your at it, put a sin tax on alcohol cause i am tired of having to bury my deceased friends because of it.