I favor bow and arrow; give the victim a sporting chance.

For the five billionth time there are no proposals put forward to take away anyone's firearms. Why can't you people make an honest argument? Your thinking is neanderthalic. Better translate that for you - it means "like a cavemen" in simpleton terms.

Some of us will never own a gun. Try to put a bullet in my brain if you don't like it. Guns are for whimps. Just a big stick to make up for your inadequacies. Very few of you would want to deal with someone with my background without your guns.

OK....I'm listenin'

Clearly you are not listening to anyone but talk radio, the NRA and the Far Right. Your superior attitude is totally laughable.

Annie-322924

I like my guns & I like my bows. I think I will keep both.

Tactical nukes with background check.......... (sarcasm)

DCKeene213 do you even understand the term semi automatic?

Semi....means it fires after every trigger pull. So what, at least 100 rounds a minute?

We have the most guns, most violence with them, therefore, time to repeal the 2nd amendment

Good luck with that. We can't even pass a Budget.

There is no way in hell I'm giving up my gun! It looks like war out there now and the very same people the gun haters only want to be armed are the ones losing!

Like cars, you should be required to have a license and titles for all your guns, as well has a license renewal on the guns. We do it for cars, we can do it for guns.

Thank you Eric I know what Semi Auto means but the media tries to make it sound worse than it is. I can shoot 100 rounds if I take my time

DKeen,

So you strip Americans of one more right and enact laws to make guns illegal. How does that affect the criminals again???

Thank you Joe for acknowledging the carnage that could happen with a semi automatic weapon in a minute.

Try stabbing a crowd a hundred times in a minute.

Buy guns now. They won't be affected by any proposed legislation. No one is taking anyone's gun (unless you be loco), and no one is proposing banning all guns (except a very small percentage of people with no political clout).

We have the most guns, most violence with them.

DCKeene - You are only half correct. Yes, we have the most guns per capita, but we are far from being the most violent with them. Actually, Brazil and Mexico have around a 1/10th of the guns we have and much more gun homicides that we have. Brazil had over 34,000 gun homicides last year and they have a national ban on guns...whereas we had only 9000 homicides with 300 Million guns. Again...guns in America are not the problem...it's the psychos and criminals that our increasingly immoral society creates that are the problem. Tragedies like this won't go away just because we try to remove guns..the problem is deeper than that.

Eric is that a challenge?

BrainiacV

Cars are driven out in the open where Cops see them. You can see someone that hasn't registered their car right away. Do you think people like this are going to go register their guns? Or just hide them till they are needed? Here again we have law abiding people doing things the right way & criminals getting by with their unlawfull acts. Registration wouldn't help anything. How do we know that these guns were or were NOT registered? It ccould be a registered gun in the hands of a criminal. How would that help the dead guy?

A person is dead. Have some effing compassion and screw the gun argument on either side. Some of you guys make me sick.

A person is dead. Have some effing compassion and screw the gun argument on either side. Some of you guys make me sick.

People die everyday. Us not talking about guns is not going to bring the dead back.

Hummmmmmmmm .. Attacking persons involved in the "Justice System?"

People are angry & frustrated with their government ... Executive, Legislative, and Judicial .... and feel they are helpless to affect any change ...

I believe that we should expect to see a dramatic increase in personal attacks upon persons involved in this area .. as well as acts of domestic terrorism in a broad arena as a natural outcome of this ...

This is the primary reason for the push for weapons bans on private citizens ...

If their is a serious increase in effective acts of domestic terrorism, it will be a horrific denouncement of our internal policies & political system.

911 was a minor event compared to the devastation that could be unleashed by domestic terrorist ... imagine what would happen when they attacked important infrastructure features that our economy is dependent on ..

The shift from the production dry of fertilizer after the Oklahoma City bombing to liquid was aimed at just this possibility... to prevent the widespread possibility of such bombing from reoccurring ....

The disenchantment is spreading ... with a failing economy ..

Eric

If a person can fire a 6 shot revolver 12 times in less that 3 seconds(240 rounds a minute) would that revolver be an Assault Weapon?

Hi Slodon, you make my point why we need to ban high capacity magazines.....the answer to your question would be YES.

55plus40,

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has
full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and
the world will follow our lead into the future!"

Adolph Hitler
Chancellor, Germany, 1933

THIS IS WHY WE DON'T HAVE REGISTRATION. IT WOULD VIOLATE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT BY POTENTIAL CONFINSCATION.

If mental paitients can win a suit that having their medical records submitted to the govt would violate their 10th amendment rights, then registration, banning, or restricting our right to small arms is a violation of the 2nd amendment.

How can a militia defend Itself without practice? likely, just a pair of 'em practicing a tactical surge.

THIS IS WHY WE DON'T HAVE REGISTRATION. IT WOULD VIOLATE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT BY POTENTIAL CONFINSCATION.

What part of the Constitution would it violate? If you could, please quote directly from the Constitution. Thanks!

Eric,

High capcity mags were banned during the 1994-2004 ban. How did that stop 152 people from being killed in school shootings? How did that stop over 230 instances of gun violence at schools where no injuries or deaths occurred? Here's an interesting stat for you.

Homicides in the US

1994-23,330

1995-21,610

1996-19,650

1997-18,208

1998-16,914

1999-15,522

2000-15,586

2001-16,037

2002-16,229

2003-16,528

2004-16,148

2005-16,740

2006-17,030

2007-16,929

2008-16,442

2009-15,399

2010-14,772

2011 -14,612

We have less homicides now than we did back in the 90's. Our homicide rate is at levels not seen since the 60's. The only difference is that now we have multiple tv's in every home, internet news, getting news on cell phones, and an anti-gun media that will highlight any shooting to push their agenda.

This is how criminal gangs take care of LE types in Mexico

...better get used to it, folks

It's time to declare the NRA a terrorist organization, bent on protecting the questionable right of irresponsible and immature "gun enthusiasts" to own pointless weaponry that is being used to murder our nation's people. Rise up against these criminals and protect our children, our families, and our communities by enacting rational gun control legislation! Now, more than ever, it is the right thing to do!

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow the people the ability to fight by against a tyrannical government.

A. The Federalist Papers, No. 28: Alexander Hamilton expressed that when a government betrays the people by amassing too much power and becoming tyrannical, the people have no choice but to exercise their original right of self-defense — to fight the government.[Halbrook, p. 67]

B. The Federalist Papers, No. 29: Alexander Hamilton explained that an armed citizenry was the best and only real defense against a standing army becoming large and oppressive. [Halbrook, p. 67]

C. The Federalist Papers, No. 46: James Madison contended that ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms. [Halbrook, p. 67]

D. There was no National Guard, and the Founders opposed anything but a very small national military. The phrase “well-regulated” means well-trained and disciplined — not “regulated” as we understand that term in the modern sense of bureaucratic regulation. [This meaning still can be found in the unabridged Oxford English Dictionary, 2d ed. 1989, Vol 13, p. 524, and Vol 20. p. 138.]

E. The Federalists promised that state governments and citizen militias would exist to make sure the federal military never became large or oppressive. To say that the National Guard replaces the notion of the militia runs contrary to what the Founders said and wrote.

F. The Third Amendment: Expressly restrains the federal government from building a standing army and infiltrating it among the people ...and at the people’s expense ... in times of peace. The Third Amendment runs against the idea of a permanent standing army or federalized National Guard in principle, if not by its words.

*********

CHALLENGE TO AMERICANS

As you read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights:

• (1) Look at the enumerated powers of the federal government;
• (2) Look at the express limitations on federal power as set forth in the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments;
• (3) Ask yourself, where does the federal government get any power at all to regulate firearms?
• (4) Ask yourself, why don’t the high school and college textbooks devote any time to the history, philosophical basis and practical meaning of the Second Amendment?

And then consider that law students and future lawyers likewise have received precious little education about the Second Amendment.

Realize, too, that the judges know just about as little. Then imagine how little the average American knows — based on the average public school coverage of the Constitution.

The protection of our sacred right of self-defense against both petty criminals and oppressive government — the right of civilians to keep and bear arms — is in your hands.

http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/six-about-2nd.htm

Bob,

The Ninth Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Our Right to Privacy?

While privacy is nowhere mentioned, it is one of the values served and protected by the First Amendment, through its protection of associational rights, and by the Third, the Fourth, and the Fifth Amendments as well.

How about the Fourth Amendment?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"

Confiscation would directly violate this amendment, and would violate our right to keep and bear arms.

""moonbeamracer"" - put your Erection away. its obvious that this unarmed person was Targeted for murder... and they Murdered Someone who was just doing his job, and for that He was Gunned down in cold blood... this was NOT part of Some twisted sort of backlash from the American People.

so please keep your SICK Anarchist Fantasies to yourself. I hope YOU GET WHAT YOU DESERVE.

My sincere condolences to the victim's Family, Friends, and co-workers who will Grieve, and suffer the pain of Loss....

voxrationis

For the five billionth time there are no proposals put forward to take away anyone's firearms.

There are no proposals only because they wouldn't stand a chance of passing. Feinstein is on the record saying she would have required people to turn in their "assault weapons" in '94 if she could have gotten 51 votes-

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."^{- http://www.policymic.com/articles/24126/dianne-feinstein-assault-weapons-ban-could-be-the-start-of-a-total-gun-ban}

LookingForward's paranoid fantasies don't appear to have anything to do with regulating guns for the purpose of saving lives in our country. His cut-and-paste is, therefore, pointless and irrelevant. When will the right wing lunatic fringe learn to think for themselves?

@Sailcat-2064101

Rise up against these criminals and protect our children, our families, and our communities by enacting rational gun control legislation! Now, more than ever, it is the right thing to do!

Considering the dozens of your posts that I've read, I'm not quite sure you understand the meaning of the word "rational"!

To Creek Dog....Yes. Lets fight fire with fire....Just like throwing gas on a burning building...Then all will be well.

55plus40 : Guns should NOT be banned!! We could, however, register them like we do our cars, boats, off road vehicles, eta... and increase the penalties for anyone who carries without registration.

Did you ever notice that this was one of the first steps leading to every genocide in the last 100 years or so?

Eric

to your response about how many people you can knife in a minute.

do you remember a little thing that happened back in 911.

terrorist took over three planes with nothing but box cutters.

Worked pretty good for them.

Why is it that gun control suddenly turns into banning all guns? Never saw anyone in America foster the belief that we should ban ll guns. BTW people who post that old federalist papers crap wake up this is 2013 Alexander hamilton never heard of or saw an ak47 or an uzi or and ar15 in action. had he then he waould have altered his talk. Then stop and think about what the government has to bring to bear on a miltia today before you are ever going to overthrow a government. Get real the reson your efforts to thwart meaningful gun legistlation is silly and the arms mechants backers are laughing all the way to the bank. The answer to gun violence is never ever going to be more guns.

@Sailcat-2064101 Debunk my comments, prove they are untrue. All you have is opinions and name calling.

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury vs. Madison 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

"The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land."

End of story, you don't like an Amendment, get it repealed via the proper channels (the legal way).

Backcountry,

Feinstein wasn't just talking about assault weapons. She was talking about ALL guns.

Also, what have we learned about Assault Weapons? They are responsible for less than 1% of crime. Responsible for less than 100 murders annually. Having one military characteristic makes a weapon an assault weapon. This makes a couple of my 12 gauges an assault weapon as they have pistol grips, collapsable stocks, and one of them has a forward grip on the fore-end. I could return all that stuff to stock parts and it would no longer be an assault weapon. Don't mind the fact that nothing within the firing mechanisim or ammunition have been altered. Only COSMETIC changes have been made.

Who the heck knows whether someone used their Second Amendment Rights to assassinate a "government" or if this was a personal act of murder. Lucky for us they did not use a 'high capacity' weapon and took out a bunch of others.

In Texas, mucho stuff leads to Mexico..........just saying $&$

Sailcat-2064101: It's time to declare the NRA a terrorist organization, bent on protecting the questionable right of irresponsible and immature "gun enthusiasts" to own pointless weaponry that is being used to murder our nation's people. Rise up against these criminals and protect our children, our families, and our communities by enacting rational gun control legislation! Now, more than ever, it is the right thing to do!

Let me guess... you're one of the guys who make a living hitting Stop & Robs.

Bob Freebird

THIS IS WHY WE DON'T HAVE REGISTRATION. IT WOULD VIOLATE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT BY POTENTIAL CONFINSCATION.

What part of the Constitution would it violate? If you could, please quote directly from the Constitution. Thanks!

-------

..."the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed"

There ya go! If you don't understand the 2nd Amendment, you should read the supporting documents our founding fathers provided in order to give insight to their thought processes and discussions regarding their actions.

You folks here that are here whining that " we don't want ALL your guns, just some" have clearly learned nothing from history. Our founding fathers did. Additionally, those of us that are able to discuss this without basing our argument soley on emotion over an evil incident, know that when the new regulations you want to add don't stop the next criminals evil actions, you'll want more....and again, and again, and again until its all gone. We've already seen it with past gun laws, just look at Chicago, LA, DC, NY, etc, etc.

We've seen your failed arguments and laws in action for too many years, and we're done with it. Posting a "Gun Free" zone sign and writing words on a piece of paper doesn't rid the world of evil. Never has, never will.

sailcat, your drivel is getting annoying.

what makes you think the NRA has anything to do with these killers. why don't we ban you and your family because you have kids that might grow up to become gang members and might kill someone.

see if we get rid of you and yours right now that can't happen.

what, you say none of you will kill anyone. well you might so lets get rid of you right now. that way we know that by getting rid of you you won't do anything that's wrong and neither will any body else right?

that makes about as much sense as anything "you" have come up with.

@ Eric

Semi....means it fires after every trigger pull. So what, at least 100 rounds a minute?

LOL. That's not what it means.

Semi-automatic means it is a gun which is fed by a magazine (it can be a detachable or fixed magazine) & the gun automatically loads the next round into the chamber from the magazine after each shot, making the gun ready to fire again. Yes, it does fire after every trigger pull.

A revolver is not considered a semi-automatic, since it doesn't rely on a magazine to function. Yet a double action (DA) or double action only (DAO) revolver also fires after every trigger pull. DA/DAO revolvers are the most common revolvers sold.

You gun grabbers crack me up. LOL There is nothing wrong with semi-automatic firearms & they aren't going anywhere.

Slodon posted:

Eric

If a person can fire a 6 shot revolver 12 times in less that 3 seconds(240 rounds a minute) would that revolver be an Assault Weapon?

& in response Eric posted

Hi Slodon, you make my point why we need to ban high capacity magazines.....the answer to your question would be YES.

One more time Eric. Slodon was talking about revolvers (see info above). Revolvers don't have magazines. LOL

So now you want to call revolvers assault weapons? Basically, what you are saying is you want to ban all guns. Typical gun grabber.

The term assault weapon is meaningless & is nothing more than a term to scare people who don't know anything about guns. If I hit you in the head with a shovel that would be an assault weapon too.

If the details of the story are correct, this was probably an intentional "hit". If the shooter(s) is(are) professional - case may never be solved. Hope they bring in all the federal investigators available for this one.

Sailcat:

It's time to declare YOU a terrorist, bent on violating citizens' rights under the Second Amendment, and allowing criminals to prey on honest people who have lost their ability to defend themselves if you have your way. Pointless weaponry will always be in the hands of criminals that will continue being used to murder our nation's people. Rise up against terrorists like Sailcat, don't let anyone take away your weapons that provide the ability to protect your children, your families, and your communities. Stand-up against wack-job gun control legislation! Now, more than ever, it is the right thing to do!

But it would have only been the "banned" guns not your other "bad big boy toys", that also kill and should be sufficient to "hunt or protect your home and family" with.

And since it did not pass, did not happen, stop worrying since no one has even suggested taking any gun from any law abiding citizen, even if they possess any that would be included in the ban, stop whining.

Just step up, be a real man, or real woman, and register your guns, all of them, including your name, address, phone, soc sec # and serial numbers on all guns. After all, our government already has all that information except for the registration of your gun information.

How can any of you expect our police to do their jobs when they can't even track the guns being used each and every day all across our nation to take the lives of innocent people.

If you are a true law-abiding citizen, REGISTER YOUR GUNS. You have nothing to worry about. Stop making it difficult for our police to do their jobs. Stop putting your own selfish interests for your right to own whatever big boy toy you want, without registering no matter how dangerous it is, over the rights of our police and the security of our neighbors.

@breadex The forefathers would not change the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Its there to allow the people the chance, any chance of their own free will, fight against a tyrannical government, FOREIGN or domestic.

There is nothing you can say or prove otherwise that this is not what they meant the 2nd Amendment to do.

throughout history there are elected government that turned against the same people that elected them.

Mao, Stalin, Hitler, numerous African governments, etc, etc.

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

-Declaration of Independence

THIS IS WHY WE DON'T HAVE REGISTRATION. IT WOULD VIOLATE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT BY POTENTIAL CONFINSCATION.

...

Confiscation would directly violate this amendment, and would violate our right to keep and bear arms.

Oh, you're talking about confiscation. I thought you were talking about registration. So, registration equals potential confiscation equals confiscation? I see what you did there.

Here you go liberals!!!! You are starving our troops because of your Defense cuts:

http://www.washingtonguardian.com/not-so-hot-breakfast

During drawdown, Pentagon cuts cooked breakfast for some troops in Afghanistan

Bob,

Read some history books. All Hitler wanted was all guns registered. How'd that turn out for the Jews?

Stalin was more open about disarming his opposition. Worked out pretty well for those people didn't it?

During drawdown, Pentagon cuts cooked breakfast for some troops in Afghanistan

Is that better or worse than Republicans cutting security funding for embassies before the Benghazi attacks?

At Tinbashr

To Creek Dog....Yes. Lets fight fire with fire....Just like throwing gas on a burning building...Then all will be well.

Many Kuwait oil fires have been put out using dynamite, does that make you unhappy? Gasoline won't put out a fire but burning the area around a fire before it gets there will keep it contained, they use fuel for that too.

At breadx

BTW people who post that old federalist papers crap wake up this is 2013 Alexander hamilton never heard of or saw an ak47 or an uzi or and ar15 in action. had he then he waould have altered his talk.

Stupid and offensive. You are talking about men who witnessed a revolution while being armed with weapons of lower build quality, accuracy and reliability. In words you might understand THE OVERBEARING BITISH GOVERNMENT HAD THE SUPERIOR WEAPONS. You suggest that our founding fathers were ignorant to the fact that weapons would evolve. The wording stands as is so it can be applied to today, 2013. Where weapons of equivalent power and capability would STILL be used to deter tyrannical governments and defend citizens. Why would they say "the feds can have any killing machine they want but citizens are limited to X"? ANSWER: THEY WOULDN'T!!!

Now please post some stupid diatribe about tanks, nukes, mounted machine guns etc..... Nobody is talking about those. 99% of us are happy NOT OWNING automatic machine guns, we don't need them (even if we know we want one for fun). Nobody is advocating to own nukes or B52 bombers or stealth tactical fighters and apache helicopters.

@DrAlchemy Well said. I am happy as well not to own a .50 machine gun or mortar tube.

Breadx is what would have been considered a "Tory".

LookingForward..... oh stop with the defense cuts hurting our military. This past summer the DOD said they did not ask for and did not need the increase the House was trying to give them. And are some facts for you:

1) DOD pays military personnel much more than they would pay a civilian to do NON-NATIONAL SECURITY, such as accounting, etc. And it can be as much as double what they would pay a civilian.

2) Near the end of their budget year, no matter how much they don't spend, and they have an overage every year, each military location and even each ship, finds ways to "spend" the overages only because they don't want to risk having the budget cut if they actually show they don't need what they are already getting (hence not asking for more). One of my children is in the military (Air Force National Guard). She also works on the base in the accounting/financial department for the base. She is being paid double what the rate would be if a civilian did her job. She also has told me of how they are ordered to purchase $600 office chairs for each person on the base along with other high tech office equipment and find a place to store it. They don't need the chairs or the equipment. They buy them over and over every year. They have now run out of places to store. And our ships even toss "extra" things over into the ocean to get rid of them, so they can be bought again in order to "maintain" current budgets.

The DOD does a TON of NON NATIONAL SECURITY tasks and if those jobs were treated as they should be, NON NATIONAL SECURITY, then no matter who does the job, the pay should be what any American citizen would get for that job. LOTS AND LOTS OF SAVINGS.

If any area of the DOD, base, ship, etc. has an overage from the budget any year, GIVE IT BACK. Let it be redirected to some other government area that is needing more funding. Doesn't mean your budget needs to be cut. You can have the same budget next year. If you spend it all, efficiently, great. If you have any left over, give it back. And this should be the rule for ANY government agency. AGAIN, LOTS AND LOTS OF SAVINGS.

Criminals will ALWAYS HAVE GUNS. A friend of mine is an assistant DA in our county and he gets death threats weekly....he carries...go figure.

Criminals hate being prosecuted and seek revenge.

Sailcat;

While we're at it let's also declare the ACLU, SPLC, NAACP, UN and the rest of the communist organizations that coddle criminals as just "misunderstood" and actively seek to destroy the constitution of the U.S. you are the stereotypical socialist brainwashed Brahman. The NRA my unenlightened friend oppose criminals with guns, they have always and will continue to advocate for harsher sentences for criminals using guns.

Counting all federal, State, County, City and District of Columbia gun control and regulation laws, they currently number 27,738. Why does the leftist call for more laws when these are largely no enforced? It might interest you to know, Brahman, that a felon in possession of a gun is supposed to go back to prison for ten years for mere possession of a gun. Why are they not so charged? A felon using a gun to commit another crime is supposed to get a sentence three times that of a first offender, in addition to the ten for possession. Why does not the current administration not enforce these laws. They have been in effect since 1934!!! Moron.

The same people smuggling in the drugs and people are now smuggling in guns by the truck load. The profit margin makes it doable. They have plenty, the U.S. government has been selling them to Mexico and Central American for decades. Those governments, most of whom have been in bed with the cartels for decades, then give them to friends and family running same cartels. Clinton sold 3.6 Billion in arms to Mexico, most of which ended up in the hands of the cartels.

Extremism on either side is dangerous, only the stupid believe either side. Our politicians have only two things in common. 1. If they're mouth is moving, they are LYING to you. 2 they're only concern is money and power, and holding on to both. And yes, that includes the current resident of the white house. Eric holder is guilty of "gun walking" also spelled out i the National Firearms Act of 1934. The same act that made civilian ownership of full auto and machine guns illegal.

Do some research you brainwashed drone, stop drinking the drug laced kool-aid and use that greatest of human gifts, independent thought and reasoning. After with drawl fro the drug induced indoctrination you will see things a little clearer. Or remain a dependent surf to those who lie to you, steal from you, commit endless atrocities in your name. I know you and the rest of the socialist crowd will still seek to destroy this country and the peoples right in pursuit of your agenda and your murky sense of the "greater good". It is what the left has been after since the 1960's when this great social experiment was commenced in the public schools.

I, for one, am pleased the internet brings accounts to our attention of how guns in the U.S. are killing and murdering innocent people every single day around the country. The more guns the gun manufacturers produce the more killings committed. And, to voxrationis, I applaud your comments above (#1.5). It's those like you and I who must keep speaking out against guns so that we can help this nation become civilized.

Why would they say "the feds can have any killing machine they want but citizens are limited to X"? ANSWER: THEY WOULDN'T!!!

Read Scalia's majority opinion on D.C. vs. Heller. He said precisely that.

Yes Freebird he did say that. thank you for providing me with proof that the 2nd ammendment is being violated.

Technically they already violated it by restricting heavy artillery, large guns and corresponding weaponry.

@Geanie Tilley no proof to back your statement up

http://www1.salary.com/Accountant-I-Salary.html

The median expected salary for a typical Accountant I in the United States is $44,761. This basic market pricing report was prepared using our Certified Compensation Professionals' analysis of survey data collected from thousands of HR departments at employers of all sizes, industries and geographies.

Military pay:

http://www.goarmy.com/benefits/money/basic-pay-active-duty-soldiers.html

Private (E1)
$18,194**
—
—

Private (E2)
$20,398
$20,398
$20,398

Private First Class(E3)
$21,449
$24,178
$24,178

Specialist or Corporal (E4)
$23,756
$27,659
$28,840

Sergeant (E5)
$25,913
$30,359
$32,490

Staff Sergeant (E6)
$28,285
$33,833
$35,226

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/money/pay_charts/

Current general pay calculator

• $1516.20
  (BASIC)
• +
• $348.44
  (BAS)
• +
• $756
  (BAH)
• +
• $0
  (COLA)
• =
• $2620.64
  per month

http://www1.salary.com/E3-Seaman-Navy-Salary.html

The median expected salary for a typical E3 - Seaman (Navy) in the United States is $21,252. This basic market pricing report was prepared using our Certified Compensation Professionals' analysis of survey data collected from thousands of HR departments at employers of all sizes, industries and geographies.

There's been a shooting at an Atlanta Middle School.

LookingForwardtotheFuture,

I abhor guns, and I hope to never have to use one.

However, in a rather scary way, I find myself agreeing with your post.

That is because I believe that the people who wrote the constitution were no dummies. After all, they founded the most complex country in the history of mankind, and wrote a supporting Constitution that has stood the test of time. Some of the articles in the Constitution talk about issues that seem unfathomable. However, the founding fathers must have had good reasons to address them in the Constitution. I wouldn't be too quick to remove, modify, amend, or repeal any portion of the Constitution.

Jeanvaljean: OMG! Look at how many forks and spoons are making people obese. Thank you for brining this to our attention; now the government must ban silverware to save the obese children.

This sounds just as stupid as your argument. Think it will make our country slimmer?

breadex: Why is it that gun control suddenly turns into banning all guns? Never saw anyone in America foster the belief that we should ban ll guns.

Then you've not been paying attention. They're plenty who want this, and some of them are actually elected officials.

breadex: BTW people who post that old federalist papers crap wake up this is 2013 Alexander hamilton never heard of or saw an ak47 or an uzi or and ar15 in action. had he then he waould have altered his talk.

Alexander Hamilton knew what he was talking about, and he well knew the difference between a musket carried by the Colonials and the 6-pound field pieces firing grapeshot at them by the most powerful military in the world at the time. Did he realize that technology would overtime lead to advancements in weaponry, increasing both the accuracy and lethality? To assume otherwise would imply Hamilton didn't know the difference between a musket and an English Longbow. He did. He also knew that technology would be used by tyrannical governments to suppress the people, just as it had been in his time. Far from a failure to consider changes in weapons systems, as you've aserted, Hamilton's focus was on governments and people, all of which can become corrupt and turn on the citizens in order to maintain power, just as they had in his time, and just as they have ever since.

breadex: Then stop and think about what the government has to bring to bear on a miltia today before you are ever going to overthrow a government.

You mean like the Patriot Act that now allows the government to imprison you indefinitely without the right to counsel, torture you, and even kill you without trail. I doubt Hamilton would have ever thought our elected officials would have passed such an act, or that we would have allowed them to do so... But they did... and most of us remained silent.

breadex: Get real the reson your efforts to thwart meaningful gun legistlation is silly and the arms mechants backers are laughing all the way to the bank. The answer to gun violence is never ever going to be more guns.

No... it has more to do with fear. Fear of a government whose leaders have too much to lose should the electorate actually turn on them. Fear of a government which has for years enacted legislation that does not apply to them, which has set aside the rule of law on numerous occasions to hand the keys of the public coffers to their corporate supporters, and fear of a government which has enacted laws allowing them to eliminate even our most basic right, the right to life, and without ever having committed a crime.

breadex: Get real the reson your efforts to thwart meaningful gun legistlation is silly and the arms mechants backers are laughing all the way to the bank. The answer to gun violence is never ever going to be more guns.

The answer to gun violence has nothing to do with guns. It has everything to do with violent people. It has everything to do with a nation that is plagued by poor parenting, lower morals, irresponsibility, little regard for the rights of others, and an ineptness to face reality head on. Until you deal with that, the killing will continue regardless of the weapon. But in a fight between good and evil where size makes a difference, a firearm can be an equalizer. In other countries, it could have made the difference between life and genocide.

I'm surprised this doesn't happen more often. Lawyers and judges railroad and rip people off on a daily basis then strut down the street with their nose in the air like they are above everything else and are untouchable.

@MarsRover 10-4!

I have guns, but would never want to have that on my heart for the rest of my life, if God forbid I had to use one ever.

I've heard plenty of stories from vets that have and they don't like it. Even Vietnam vets don't talk about that.

My purpose is to make sure people are educated about what the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was for so that they realize that its not something to do away with, no matter how old of a nation we are.

And also that we are a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy like so many people think we are.

We weren't meant to be ruled by the majority.......

@veteran55:

Your argument is seriously flawed so much so that I am lowing myself to even respond to it: Obesity is something that is usually brought on by one's own deliberate desire and one's own self destruction. Adversely, guns and their killings and murders are brought on by deliberate acts of others inflicted upon someone else. Finally, because you choose to stoop to name-calling in your post, you exposed who truly is the stupid one.

Hmm. The school shooting in Atlanta probably won't make national headlines. Looks to be black on black crime. The media never reports on that.

If we lose our 2nd ammendment there will be nothing to stop the government from taking the rest too.

The 2nd ammendment is the only ammendment that gives a citizen the ability to defend themselves,their property and their freedoms.The rest of the ammendments are just paperwork.The pen may be stronger than the sword but,in this case the sword is what protects the pen.

This just makes me want to get even with the shooter(s).

Geanie: The avg civilian accountant, or whatever they may be are not on call 24/7/365 like the military. Even civilian govt employees aren't on call, if only the Congressional Acct (all civilians no doubt) would just get that through their thick skulls and let it sink into their brains there would be no call for reducing mil. pay.

I'm not a gun owner, have considered buying a .40 cal or 9mm but have no objection to it being registered by Fed. govt if I purchase one. The NRA claims they don't want criminals armed but yet just yesterday Mr. NRA (LaPierre) flat out said he is against anything that would make it easy to trace gun ownership. So in otherwords they can go out and rob/steal weapons from some law-abiding citizen and continue on their way killing themselves (gang-members), and innocent people as well just like that 15-yr-old girl in Chicago that had just participated the previous day in the inaugural parade. The problem with Chicago, and some other places that have strict gun ownership is gun trafficking. Stricter gun registration would help solve that I truly believe.

While we're at it let's also declare the ACLU, SPLC, NAACP, UN and the rest of the communist organizations...

This sort of insane raving is typical of the right wing lunatic fringe. They simply choose to fabricate imaginary bogeymen to take their minds off of the genuine issues facing them. Let's spell it out for you: any organization that would promote an agenda that is responsible for tens of thousands of violent deaths and injuries in the United States would be declared a terrorist group and hunted down like dogs. Yet that is exactly what the NRA is doing. The only reason the feeble-minded followers of this criminal organization are eager to defend it is because they fear that their toys will be taken away from them if they don't. That sad fact exposes gun enthusiasts as immature, self-absorbed, and lacking the moral courage to do the right thing. Shame.

There you are Sailcat-2064101!!!

Still waiting for you to debunk the 1.43 question :-)

breadex

BTW people who post that old federalist papers crap wake up this is 2013 Alexander hamilton never heard of or saw an ak47 or an uzi or and ar15 in action. had he then he waould have altered his talk.

And you base this OPINION on what exactly??? Or have you failed to realize that the Founding Fathers allowed for us to posses the most advanced, state of the art weapons available at the time? Weapons that were routinely banned in other countries using the same excuses people try to use to ban weapons today, because they were too powerful.

moonbeamracer:

The disenchantment is spreading ... with a failing economy ..

You hit the nail on the head. No matter what, the government will make sure they get their money, and on time:

"Today, Jan. 31, is the last day for people to pay property taxes without a penalty. Radcliffe said even though the office is locked down, people can still use dropboxes, pay by phone or make payments in person at sub-courthouses until the lockdown is lifted."

breadex:

BTW people who post that old federalist papers crap wake up this is 2013 Alexander hamilton never heard of or saw an ak47 or an uzi or and ar15 in action. had he then he waould have altered his talk.

The authors used the words "shall not be infringed" because they couldn't have known the future; thereby leaving it open and available for the future.

"Or have you failed to realize that the Founding Fathers allowed for us to posses the most advanced, state of the art weapons available at the time"~Backcountry#s

care to cite the passage that denotes we can "posses" the most advanced, state of the art weapons"? I would think these then must included nuclear and other sophisticated weapons to be the most advanced and state of the art as you suggest. Or did you want to rephrase your post to mention "at the time" or split hairs over such an assine statement......btw, which time revoluntionary war or modern era? Thanks for the message you sent me the other day, I checked your facebook page again to check on the tattoo removal your girlfriend had............I liked her better with the face tat

Bob Freebird

Is that better or worse than Republicans cutting security funding for embassies before the Benghazi attacks?

Could you please explain exactly how this is considered "republican" cutting when there were actually MORE democrats who voted for it??

marklepew

care to cite the passage that denotes we can "posses" the most advanced, state of the art weapons"?

"Shall not be infringed". Care to cite absolutly anything that would contradict that??

I would think these then must included nuclear and other sophisticated weapons to be the most advanced and state of the art as you suggest.

And where are people going to get such weapons? As usual your yammering is pointless and senseless.

Thanks for the message you sent me the other day, I checked your facebook page again to check on the tattoo removal your girlfriend had............I liked her better with the face tat

Yawn. How exactly do you figure that admitting that you are an idiot is somehow an insult to me?? Surely if I had mistakenly added you to my "friends" list I would have removed you by now. Are you actually too dense to understand that? Don't answer, I already know.

Seriously dude, if you are going to post for no other reason than to harass me you need to come up with some excuses that don't make you look so stupid.

@Deerhunterbow1

Repeal the 2nd amendment! Hell why don't we just throw out the constitution you damn commie prick!

Still waiting for you to debunk the 1.43 question

We are only one little Supreme Court decision away from a complete reinterpretation of the Second Amendment, little guy. Stay tuned!

so in your world "shall not be infringed" also means you can "posses the most advanced and state of the art weapons"? I wasn't the one who stated this absurd position so what do I need to cite. I asked that you back up your statement and you have failed.......miserably. Additionally just because you have difficulty acquiring such weapons, that I mentioned, is it still your contention that everyone has the right to them? Nice deflection but not really an answer to the question. Seriously dude if you are trying to look intelligent you are not providing the proof so far.

I would like to thank for the private message you sent me. I will take your offer of oral sex as a peace offering but will have to decline. While I appreciate the gesture, I am very much straight. I am flattered and even a little curious but feel it would be better if we refrained from giving in to desire at this stage of our relationship as I would not want to risk damaging our friendship - of which I have come to value very much

Sailcat, You had a few typo's in your rant so I fixed them for you....

It's time to declare the DNC a terrorist organization, bent on usurping the right of responsible and mature "gun enthusiasts" to ban weaponry that is being used to unsure the civil rights of our nation's people. Rise up against these criminals and protect our children, our families, and our communities by enacting rational policital control legislation! Now, more than ever, it is the right thing to do!

@Sailcat-2064101 Thank you! Was waiting for you to say that!

This is how liberals/communists/socialist work people. They will take over the courts and use them and twist the power given to the courts in ways that were not intended. I provided facts and history that shows what the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was for and the liberals have spoken.

Sailcat-2064101

We are only one little Supreme Court decision away from a complete reinterpretation of the Second Amendment, little guy. Stay tuned!

And that is how feeble minded right wing lunatics ignore reality, Looking. The current interpretation of the Second Amendment was established in the 1970s with The District of Columbia vs. Heller and it was controversial then and it is a disaster now. America is looking forward to another, more rational, reinterpretation to fix the errors of the past. If that means you have to be responsible for your toys, so be it. Just stop whining about it, okay? It makes you look even less mature than usual.

Gun control. Now, more than ever, it is the right thing to do.

marklepew

so in your world "shall not be infringed" also means you can "posses the most advanced and state of the art weapons"? I wasn't the one who stated this absurd position so what do I need to cite

I was pointing out what was said and written by the Founding Fathers. I'm not surprised that it went over your head.

that I mentioned, is it still your contention that everyone has the right to them?

Never said everyone has the right. The SCOTUS has ruled on this, that is part of their job after all.

I would like to thank for the private message you sent me. I will take your offer of oral sex as a peace offering but will have to decline. While I appreciate the gesture, I am very much straight

LOL! If I were gay I have little doubt that I could do FAR better than you! As I've suggested, you should come up with some material that doesn't make you seem like such an idiot even though I thoroughly enjoy you making such a fool of yourself.

They will take over the courts and use them and twist the power given to the courts in ways that were not intended.

You make yourself look more ignorant with each mindless post. Thanks for your unwitting help to make my point.

Dr Alchemy...I work in the oil patch...Have done so for 30 years...Fighting fire with fire...Guess you can tell me all about how it works in the patch....And believe me, it does NOT always work out...The same as fighting guns against guns... Does this make you unhappy?