WORLDWIDE HISTORY OF GUN CONFISCATION

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

________________________________________________

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

________________________________________________

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

________________________________________________

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

________________________________________________

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

________________________________________________

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

________________________________________________

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
________________________________________________

I agree the mental issues need to be addressed but i am still convinced that the Media is to blame for a big part of these mass shootings. When you have a mentally unstable person who wants to end their life and craves attention this is what you get. Their name and picture is plastered all over the place.

The NRA shouldn't have to say a word. WE shouldn't be a country filled with so many idiots that they think banning something that is used by a murders to kill fewer than 400 people a year.. It'll do absolutely zero, the good news is it has zero chance to pass and you've really ticked off the gun owners in america. Surprise! That's about 45% self reported and in reality about 60% of voting adults. You're bills are screwed!

graham-2655070

Along with taking the violent video games OFF the market

Blaming video games is just as stupid as blaming guns. It's the neocon version of knee-jerk reaction.

We are a violent society... Games and guns don't commit violence by themselves, but their presence does influence our attitudes towards it. Figure it out...don't just dismiss it.

As violent video games and guns have increased... Drum roll.. Violent crime, homicides and crime in general have decreased. There is no causation and a negative correlation. If we considered it then we'd have to conclude that we should ahnd them both out like candy.

Gun control today is a feel good issue for those politicians that are too weak to tackle the problem of criminals using guns. How about going after those thugs instead?

That Idaho's of the World you speak of had 12 murders with the use of a gun in 2010. Thats .8 Gun Murders per 100,000 population. Distric of Columbia was at 16.5%.

Punish the guilty. Criminal do not get guns legally. Hold those accountable for their crimes accountable to the full extent and leave peaceful people alone to protect their life and liberty in the pursuit of their own happiness on their own property.

S&W 45

And the author insists on using assault weapons instead of assault style. Just the media chipping away at the definition.

The author also doesn't seem to have a clue what a REPUBLIC is or that we are one. The Federal government has no business getting involved with gun control.

I just want to "Thank" those that are "Anti-Gun", more gun laws types, etc. and President Obama, and most of his supporters. As a Co-owner of 2 Gun/FFL shops(one in LA, and the other in Billings, MT), I have not had one week since early January where we didn't sell out all or at the very least most of our ammo, and I have about 4 months worth of back orders on just about every type of firearm we carry, and orders on some we don't(but can and will)..So once again keep up the pressure..and THANK YOU!

and we thought Obama didn't know how to stimulate the economy...lol. Congrats on your thriving business.

Everyday, people are more and more suspicious of the steady stream of Manure that comes from the White House Socialist, despite the best efforts of the bought and paid for media machine that keeps oblammy's Teflon coating all polished and clean.

Every single pole reflects the fact that our Constitutional Rights are NOT to be undermined by anyone, including Mr. Clean of the Oval Office.

The continuous efforts of this media outlet and others in the mainstream of media gives evidence to the unlimited money and power behind the throne, and that is all. This type of media hype works in Russia and even China , to a degree, but not here in the US.

In Russia, the media can convince people that a meteor is a secret weapon being tested on them by the US.

But here, the Media and the Oval Office feels the need to employ tactics like posting the picture of a child to represent a thug that was shot while assaulting an armed citizen. The Oblammy even went on record to say the boy would look like his own son, if he had one.

These crude and obvious efforts to undermine the security of our nation by trying to divide the people need be addressed by congress as crimes against the nation.

Everyone who has an ounce of common sense and will admit it knows that it is not the number of guns or even what type, it is who is committing crimes with them. Make the laws and punishment so strong that anyone who uses a gun in a crime is NEVER allowed to do so again. Capital Punishment should be the law of the land and limit the time to appeal to one year.

This article does not explain that the states are not the idiots the White house would suppose. The states are populated with Americans who have earned their rights under the Constitution and know the difference between rain and Pee as it is applied to our shoes.

Fix the laws we have and stay away from the honest, taxpaying citizens of the nation. The problem is too many liberals and socialist. During Vietnam, the best of the young American youth died for our country while the druggies and commies were in training to go to Washington as we now see with Ke--y, Clinton and so forth.

Lazarus

Obama has succumbed to presidential psychopathic urge. He isn't the first, but that is no excuse. Those who support him are either ignorant or deceitful - fools for different reasons being fools just the same.

"before Adam Lanza brought a Bushmaster .223 rifle into a Newtown, Conn., elementary school and opened fire." This is what they want you to believe, that it started this whole gun ban deal.. This administration wanted this way before.. This is part of their agenda. Read on the front page where Detroit is going bust, well when those people get hungry, they will be at everyone's door. Sure hope you have protection, for you will need it.. But you liberals think protection is only for your sex life, but most don't use it there as well. Everyone best read up on that second amendment, allow it to soak in. Read your history books and find out why its there, for it was written for you. Its ankle time folks.

Jean

Are you claiming the shooting was an Obama administration conspiracy?

Or are you saying it never happened?

The 2nd Amendment related to a Government controlled Militia.

Read the Constitution.

Specifically:

Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States.

The 2nd Amendment says we can not disarm the WELL REGULATED (regulated by congress) militia which is made up of the people not a Professional Army.

This was necessary to account for that funding part where it says we cannot fund the Army for more than 2 years.

1. We needed a National defense.

2. We didn't want a full time Army.

3. The solution was to have a Militia.

4. To make that work we needed the members of the Militia to be armed.

5. We needed those that could be drafted into the Government controlled Militia to be armed.

In all honesty it is a system we do not have anymore. We are hanging on to that 2nd Amendment but in reality it isn't needed because we now have a standing Army. Our Militia, The National Guard, is well Regulated and Well armed.

@ JOregon

There are still militia's in most states that are not "The National Guard". I am joining the legitimate militia in Texas as part of the Home Defense & will be in the communications division. I am an older disabled female. I carry a gun most of the time for self defense. I have never pointed a gun at a human, but having one did save my life. My attacker had a heart attack when he realized I was armed and could defend myself. The Sheriff arrived about 5 minutes later & we transported my attacker to the hospital. He lived and never bothered me again. You never know when or where some criminal or crazy person will come from.

You may live in a gated community and have been lucky enough to never see a criminal or be attacked. It does happen everywhere though, sooner or later. I am a citizen, not a subject or slave. I respect your right and choices. I demand to have my rights, freedom and choices as well. I have neighbors that choose not to have guns and respect them. They also respect me and my choice to have guns. They do not even mind that I conceal carry when we are together visiting at their houses. I did ask them before going over if they minded me carrying a weapon. They said it was fine. They do not want their children to know if I am carrying and that is okay. I don't talk about it and neither do they. We get along just great and have a fantastic neighborhood. One block North of me has high crime rates, but my block is crime free. Criminals do not bother people they know are armed. It takes me 30 minutes to load my guns & ammo into my car for my monthly trip to the gun range. I also take yearly gun classes to keep up with the laws. That is not a requirement. It is just something I do because it makes sense.

I do not particularly like carrying a gun, but it is just a tool and it does help keep crime down. I do have a high capacity magazine in it as well. Being a free citizen of the United States of America, I refuse to be a victim. I also find all gun owners I know to be very courteous, responsible, helpful, friendly and considerate of others. If they ever do ban guns, I will be a criminal. I will never give up my freedom to protect my family, friends, property or myself. God bless America. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This is my opinion.

There are still militia's in most states that are not "The National Guard".

Yes there are, usually known as State Defense Forces (SDF). In all there are less than 15,000 people in these State defense forces.

Few States have them because the National Guard fulfills the need and it takes some money from the Taxpayers to support them.

As the politicians fight more and more to cut spending I have to wonder how much longer those few states that have them will continue to have them.

I have never lived in a gated community. I often forget to lock my door.

The idea of needing weapons for self defense always comes up, but nobody except the Gun Cult has mentioned total disarmament.

For instance do you need to carry a semiautomatic assault style weapon with a high capacity magazine with you?

That is the only weapon anyone has talked about getting out of the hands of the general public.

The founding fathers did not trust a standing Army. So they established the Militia as a means of first defense.

The CONSTITUTIONAL right to carry arms was addressed to the Militia. The people that have that Constitutional right to carry are those that are in a Government controlled Militia.

That doesn't mean the Government wants to eliminate the peoples personal right to carry. It is an implied right just because of the nature of this nation.

Their right to carry Arms shall not be infringed because they are in the Government Controlled Militia that was to be our National Defense.

Is that how we have it set up today?

Is that what the NRA is fighting for? Is that what the Gun Nuts are demanding? US government controlled Militias having the right to bear arms?

If so I am all for it.

@ JOregon

Jean

Are you claiming the shooting was an Obama administration conspiracy?

Or are you saying it never happened?

The 2nd Amendment related to a Government controlled Militia.

Read the Constitution.

Specifically:

Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States.

The 2nd Amendment says we can not disarm the WELL REGULATED (regulated by congress) militia which is made up of the people not a Professional Army.

This was necessary to account for that funding part where it says we cannot fund the Army for more than 2 years.

1. We needed a National defense.

2. We didn't want a full time Army.

3. The solution was to have a Militia.

4. To make that work we needed the members of the Militia to be armed.

5. We needed those that could be drafted into the Government controlled Militia to be armed.

In all honesty it is a system we do not have anymore. We are hanging on to that 2nd Amendment but in reality it isn't needed because we now have a standing Army. Our Militia, The National Guard, is well Regulated and Well armed.

#2.18

Maybe you need to work on those reading comprehension skills. I, in no way, read Jean's comment to be a "conspiracy", only that it fit into Obama's (or the Progressive's) agenda. If you have read anything about Fast and Furious, then surely you have read reports on the possibility that Obama was going to use it as a platform for gun control, until it blew up in his face. I have to wonder if the documents he is hiding on that subject might bear out those reports?

Nor did I read anything in those comments that we lead me to believe Jean said it never happened, only that the Sandy Hook shooting was the "so called" catalyst of the gun control debate, which, Jean believes it was not, but that the agenda preceded the shooting.

And You should read SCOTUS Heller v DC 2008.

You should also read what the Authors of the Constitution wrote about the right of the people, as in individuals, or Citizens, to keep and bear arms. You should also look up the definition or the meaning of "Regulated" as it applied in the 18th century. Gay used to mean happy or joyous, now it means homosexual. I don't think regulated means the same thing today either.

You should also read a little about FDR, and his affinity for Fascism, prior to WWII. It will become clear to you why he stacked the SCOTUS with Progressive Judges, and began the first steps to disarming Americans with the 1934 FCA.

There is no conspiracy, that lie has been spread through the Gun Cult by those that want to sell guns.

It is called marketing.

And You should read SCOTUS Heller v DC 2008.

I am familiar with the case. It was decided 5 to 4. It was a decision on HAND GUNS.

The 5 that voted for it were judges that were appointed by Republican Presidents.

The 4 opposed were 2 Republican and 2 Democrat.

It was a Political decision that bordered on abuse of power.

Justice Stevens (Appointed by Ford) was asked if he could fix one thing about the American Judicial system what would it be? He said:

I would change the interpretation of the Second Amendment. The court got that quite wrong. Gun policy should be handled by legislatures and by states, not by federal judges appointed for life.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2097390,00.html#ixzz2LPj2v8hc

Just because a bunch of Pro Gun judges were able to gain control of the Supreme Court doesn't mean that their decision was honest, just, or right.

If you want to consider conspiracies I would wonder just how much money they were paid for that decision.

The main judge that pushed it through was Justice Scalia who has been in the news lately. He isn't too happy about Blacks and other minorities having the right to be a voting power. Gotta keep them uppity Nig...um...Minorities in their place you know.

You should also read what the Authors of the Constitution wrote about the right of the people, as in individuals, or Citizens, to keep and bear arms.

What do you have in mind?

You should also look up the definition or the meaning of "Regulated" as it applied in the 18th century.

WHAT????????????

Are you claiming they made up a word based on the Latin word rgula that didn't have anything to do with the meaning of the Latin word?

WOW, just WOW.

What do YOU think it means? Kill? Charge? NRA? WOW!

Words like Gay, Cool, Cherry, etc have wandered AWAY from their original root words. Words don't become truer to their root word over time.

But, hey I'm always willing to learn something why don't you show me how they defined Regulate?

They actually were a bit more strict with the language then we are.

You seem to have swallowed the Gun Cult Propaganda. One thing common with all cults is the need to produce fear, the Gun Cult has done just that. Cults also play loose with the facts and twist things in ways they never intended to be used.

For instance many "quotes" are twisted manipulations on what was originally said:

For example it is often claimed Washington said:

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

What he actually said was:

A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies.

http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=324

Do you know what the word Amend means?

a·mend

1. To change for the better; improve: amended the earlier proposal so as to make it more comprehensive.
2. To remove the faults or errors in; correct. See Synonyms at correct.
3. To alter (a legislative measure, for example) formally by adding, deleting, or rephrasing.

The ONLY thing the 2nd amendment could have amended in the Constitution is Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States.

Specifically this part:

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

To provide and maintain a Navy;

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

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

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

The CONSTITUTION specifically states Congress is responsible for ORGANIZING, ARMING, and DISCIPLINING the Militia through each State. ---WELL REGULATED---They knew perfectly well what the word meant.

They were not prepared to pay for a standing Army because they didn't trust a standing Army. The first line of defense was to be a Militia which the Government controlled.

That is the heart and soul of the second amendment. A way to protect our nation without having a full time Army.

JOregon

There is no conspiracy, that lie has been spread through the Gun Cult by those that want to sell guns.

It is called marketing.

And You should read SCOTUS Heller v DC 2008.

I am familiar with the case. It was decided 5 to 4. It was a decision on HAND GUNS.

I am not going to argue with you. You failed English Comprehension with your first reply here.

I never said there was a conspiracy numb-nuts. I merely suggested it fit into Obama's i.e. the Progressive agenda. "reports on the possibility that Obama was going to use it as a platform" What part of that declares a conspiracy? I merely hinted it may be one possible scenario. Get a clue.

Yes the Heller v DC was originated from the Hand gun ban in place in DC. However, the SCOTUS did not limit its ruling to handguns:

(SCOTUS) Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

read more at: www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

As for the the rest of your reply, it is just more of the liberal gibberish. not worth responding to.

If you want to read something, read the Federalist papers, The Anti Federalist Papers, for starters. Then read some of the books by and about the Authors of the Declaration and the Constitution.

Then, if you can find some history books written in pre 1960, the earlier the better. Before the liberal revisionists got ahold of it.

I never said there was a conspiracy numb-nuts. I merely suggested it fit into Obama's i.e. the Progressive agenda. "reports on the possibility that Obama was going to use it as a platform" What part of that declares a conspiracy?

Semantics but still a conspiracy accusation. Pretty much like any gossip, in one side of your mouth you will say it might not be but out of the other the accusation.

I'm in the edit mode by accident so I'll finish this in a second post.

As for the the rest of your reply, it is just more of the liberal gibberish. not worth responding to.

In other words, you know it was a political decision.

Do you think it would have gone that way if 7 of the Judges were appointed by Democrats and 2 were appointed by Republicans - I didn't think so.

Any unbiased study of the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment corroborates Justice Stevens' (appointed by a Republican) statement that the court got that one very wrong.

It was 100% political and not a judgment of law.

It is not the supreme courts job to create law. Their job is to rule on law, Scalia is probably the most corrupt Judge to have ever sat on that bench.

It is convenient to simply quote it, but it will go down in history as one of the worst decisions ever made by the court.

If you want to read something, read the Federalist papers, The Anti Federalist Papers, for starters.

Why? About what?

I personally like THIS ONE from Hamilton:

THE President of the United States is to be "commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States WHEN CALLED INTO THE ACTUAL SERVICE of the United States."

In other words the Government has control over the Militia.

As Hamilton said in THIS ONE:

This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS."

This is essentially the same as what it says in the Constitution and it relates to the GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED MILITIA.

It is the people in the Government controlled Militia that have the right to bear arms. If you are in a Government controlled Militia your right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Since you seem to be so knowledgeable on these Federalist papers, and I am obviously not, maybe you can show me where it says those citizens that are not in a Government controlled militia have the right to bear arms.

joregon,

this is a government for the people , by the people. so your analogy is wrong, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. the people pay the cost of the government, do not the president and all the politicians live off of the peoples taxes? good try cowboy, thats the beauty of the constitution , it is simple and to the point, even us (uneducated heathens ) can understand it. you have some more info you wanna throw our way?

In the absence of a standing army, the government can fund and control a militia. Since we have a standing army, the government should have no need for a militia. This does not mean that the free citizens of each state are disallowed from forming up their own militias. If the sitting federal government becomes a force of insurrection against our own Constitution, we are obligated to replace it. It is unlikely that we would be able to compel that replacement peacefully, if we do not already have in our possession the ability through the bearing of arms, to credibly threaten to exact a harsh and potentially bloody penalty on the people, and their families, who would seek to subvert our Constitutional rights.

Thank You kilroy63, but it does no good, this guy is an idiot troll. My guess is he some college student that just stumbled across "some hither to unknown" insight into the Constitution.

Trust me it does no good to talk directly to a liberal, they have brain damage. The minute you get close to proving them wrong, they have to turn the argument 90°, change the subject or modify it to suit their rationalization.

This numb nuts will never understand that I am born with my Rights. The Constitution has nothing to with my Rights. The Constitution (the Bill of Rights) is an Enumeration of the limits placed on the Government restraining it from interfering with my Rights. This dim wit thinks his Rights come from the Constitution, well his may, but mine do not.

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." --
Samuel Adams

"We the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts--not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." --Abraham Lincoln

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." -- Thomas Jefferson

"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world." -- Thomas Jefferson

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." -- Thomas Jefferson

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." -- Thomas Jefferson

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

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

"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.."-- Thomas Jefferson

Kilroy

Nobody has suggested disarming the citizens.

You have the right reason to a degree, this is America. Certain rights are implied, as the "Land of the Free".

On the other hand using the 2nd Amendment to justify those rights is to misuse the 2nd Amendment.

I am someone that loves this Nation and what it stands for. When I see the misuse and perversion so many have heaped upon the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution it hurts my heart.

Most abuse the 2nd amendment as means to justify their purchase of toys. Gun sellers abuse it to sell guns. All they are doing is misusing it for personal gain.

Someone on this topic mentioned the controversy has caused his gun shop to sell lots and lots of guns at inflated prices. That was a result of the fear tactics used by the Gun Cult.

I repeat, nobody has mentioned disarming the citizens, but the Gun Cult wants you to believe they will, and if you can't keep your AR15 you won't be able to fight off the greatest military force this world has ever known (as if you would have any chance). In other words the Gun Cult is feeding you a line of Bull @!$%#, complete with comparisons to the USSR and Hitler. It SELLS GUNS. $$$

The 2nd Amendment was very specific.

*****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.*****

The 2nd Amendment spoke only to a WELL REGULATED militia. Regulated meaning; controlled by the Government.

Are you paying attention Paul-977599?

An Amendment AMENDS the Constitution. In this case Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States.

Specifically this part:

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

Sorry Paul, the Second Amendment does not support assorted citizens forming their own Militia's be they White Supremacist Militias, Muslim Militias, Anti Tax Militias, Anti Government Militias, New Age Militias. or any other type of Militia - BUT - The 1st Amendment does. As long as you keep it peaceful.

Amendment 1:

*****Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.*****

Paul you are right, because we have a Standing Army we no longer need the 2nd Amendment. Militias were needed because the Founders did not intend we should have a full sized Standing Army. They never trusted a Standing Army and they recognized the great cost of running an Army.

Maybe if you read from the following link you might have some idea on how and why they discussed this:

Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787

Maybe with the push for budget cuts we will go back to the original plan someday.

Paul-977599

If the sitting federal government becomes a force of insurrection against our own Constitution, we are obligated to replace it.

Think this through just a little bit.

1. Every election we can do just that very thing.

2. Do you really think you and a handful of your drinking buddies can take on the US; Navy, Army, Air Force, and Marines?

You wouldn't even have time to clean your shorts.

3. Don't you understand that is a Bull @!$%# line used by the Gun Cult leaders to sell guns?

Do you really like being manipulated by these guys?

Blows me away how so many can be so gullible.

........................................

You guys might want to try a little rational thinking.

First study up on the Constitution and our History.

JOregon

et. al. ...

Do you really like being manipulated by these guys?

Blows me away how so many can be so gullible.

........................................

You guys might want to try a little rational thinking.

First study up on the Constitution and our History.

#2.29

I know this will do no good, but at least I will try one more time. I am sick of you spewing this disinformation. You are reading the Constitution backwards, you are reading it as though it is the source of our Rights, and the Source of government power, rather than reading it as the limits placed on the Government.

You need to learn the true history, and the True Meaning of the Constitution, not this liberal Progressive revision of it.

Question me this then, If it is within the power of Government to restrict arms, then why did it take until 1934 (145 years) for the Government to make laws restricting arms? Do you think it had anything to do with the liberal Progressive FDR?

Watch this video, this lady spells it out pretty clearly. I doubt you will agree with her, since you are so blinded by your ideology, but she is in fact Correct in her interpretation.

publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/publius-huldah-shows-federal-gun-control-is-unlawful/

If you are a rational thinker, I don't want any part of your rational. wow, and you call us gullible,?

Project much? Projection: a defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own negative attributes by ascribing them to the outside world instead.

DumbFarmBoy

My guess is he some college student that just stumbled across "some hither to unknown" insight into the Constitution.

I was born in 1952. I might even have kids your age.

I remember when the US Militia (US National Guard) under the direction of President Kennedy, told George Wallace to step aside and allow black students to register for school..

I remember Kent State when several unarmed Students were shot by the Ohio National Guard under the direction of President Nixon. Four died.

I'm not really all that liberal (Pro Life for instance) but it just hit me. The Democrat used the National Guard to allow American Citizens to attend college. The Republican used the National Guard to stop American Citizens from engaging in their 1st Amendment rights.

The Sam Adams quote and the Lincoln quote are all about the points I have been making.

The Gun cult has twisted the constitution to sell guns. They love wealth.

You are brain washed by the cult. For you truth is a copy and paste of a spam email.

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." -- Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson NEVER SAID THIS. The first recording of this quote is 1986. Proof you really don't know what you are talking about.

"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world." -- Thomas Jefferson

What does this have to do with the topic at all? I take it you are having trouble finding relevant quotes.

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." -- Thomas Jefferson

Again an irrelevant quote - AND - INACCURATE. Copy and paste from the Cult.

Actual quote is:

"if we can but prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy."

Here it is in the authors own hand:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mtj1&fileName=mtj1page027.db&recNum=500

In case you can't read his handwriting:

http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/wasting-labours-people-quotation

"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." -- Thomas Jefferson

Again an irrelevant quote - AND - FALSE.

The first instance of this quote is 1913 by John Sharp Williams.

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

And NOBODY is suggesting they should be.

That was the first draft for what was considered to go into the Virginia Constitution.

The second and 3rd draft:

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]."

In the end they decided not to put it into the Virginia Constitution at all. Wonder why?

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

Total Lie. He never said it. First appeared in 1989, Jefferson had been dead for quite some time.

"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.."-- Thomas Jefferson

Irrelevant #1, but once again inaccurate. It deals with Religious freedom.

The Correct Quote:

*****That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness; and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards,*****

Kind of hard to whittle that down to something manageable. One of the longest running sentences I have ever run across.

You are brain washed. It is obvious by your continual posting of false and irrelevant information.

You have accused me of being a troll but I have given you truth. You have not.

You have suggested I read what our founders have said when it is obvious you have not.

You have accused me of turning the argument 90 degrees and modifying to suit my needs but I have tried to stay on tract while you bring up quotes on religious freedom, among other diversions.

I lost a friend to a religious cult back in the 70's he was the same way.

He joined them when they were in Malibu, then they moved to MONTANA. I lost all contact with him.

He wasn't able to listen to reason either.

So many lies.

If you have to lie to make a point, you don't have a point.

If you lie when you think you are telling the truth, you are brainwashed.

No reason to comment on most of your post just this:

Question me this then, If it is within the power of Government to restrict arms, then why did it take until 1934 (145 years) for the Government to make laws restricting arms?

Because the world had changed. We had gone from horses and feet to cars and planes.

That is really the problem today. One community can make a law about guns and the people just go th the next state during the weekend and buy what they want.

Talking to Cultists is futility.

@ JOregon

well I will give you this, you are at least persistent.

As far as the comment goes. "Because the world had changed. We had gone from horses and feet to cars and planes." Yet for some reason the 1st Amendment stays relevant. I wonder why you don't think the 2nd does as well?

And if the information I passed along was not entirely accurate, then I apologize. I have to trust that some of my sources have done their due diligence. I do not have time to verify every little tidbit of info.

To lie is to intentionally misinform, I have never intentionally tried to misinform.

As far as some of the quotes that you disqualify as coming from Jefferson, I really don't care who said them. They are still truism.

And Like I said, if you want to understand the True nature of the Constitution, read "The Federalist Papers" and the opposing arguments in the "The Anti-Federalist Papers"

And if you understood anything about the Authors of the Constitution, you would know that they all to varying degrees supported an armed populace, The Federalist, (those with more of an Aristocratic bent like Jay and Hamilton supported the militia concept (but still believed in the individual Right to Arms) and the others that supported the straight out view of individual Rights to Arms. And all supported these beliefs in resistance to tyranny.

And how is denying future generations the ability to purchase certain firearms based on lipstick features and mascara appearance not infringing upon our Rights? I guess to you a gun is a gun. Never mind what the Authors of the Constitution had in mind.

Go read some of this, and see who is brainwashed.

www.dojgov.net/Liberty_Watch.htm

catb.org/~esr/guns/quotes.html

I could forgive an idealistic youth, but you are old enough to know better.

The second and 3rd draft:

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]."

In the end they decided not to put it into the Virginia Constitution at all. Wonder why?

George Mason. I just read an article on that, I lost the link, and it is late, I will see if I can find it and pass it along.

But understand this, all of the Authors and those involved with the Constitution were for the Right of the Individual to keep and bear arms. Many of them thought this was so apparent that it did not need a special note in the Constitution.

To think otherwise is ignorant.

joregon, this is the deal. the 2A is what gives the constitution teeth, without it , the constitution is just words on a piece of paper. and they would have no power. a government that fears the people is a just government.

feeding the gun cult? sure gun manufactures make money selling guns, obama sold more guns than anybody by flapping his lips on how he, finestien ,and biden were gonna (fix the gun problem) they have accomplished nothing . because too many Americans know that their proposals were not gonna make it through the senate. and more importantly not solve a damn thing. our military is NOT going to turn on its own, obummer knows this , and that is why he is running around trying to get support for his gun ban and it is not working. the man is a complete failure at anything he tries.

i have utility guns, in other words guns i use all the time, about ten total, locked up in a safe, except for the home defense mossberg 12 gauge , and bhp 9mm hand gun . all these guns i have had for years. with a reasonable supply of ammo .

the thing is , when the government, the police, and the criminals give up their guns so will I

here in Texas we will not follow any federal mandates for gun control and any attempt by federal agents to enforce these unjust and useless laws will have them arrested and escorted out of the state.

GOD BLESS TEXAS !

I wonder why you don't think the 2nd does as well?

Other than the FACT that the 2nd was aimed toward a Government controlled Militia that was supposed to be our first line of defense in place of a full time Standing Army - which we have today - why would you think I don't believe the 2nd is relevant?

As I clearly said, in this era of budget cuts we might very well go back to the founders belief that the Militia and not the Army is to protect our nation. That pretty much makes it relevant doesn't it?

I have to trust that some of my sources have done their due diligence. I do not have time to verify every little tidbit of info.

You copied and pasted from Gun Cult websites. If you had ACTUALLY READ WHAT OUR FOUNDERS SAID, as you claim you have, you would have known the difference.

I had 4 children, all grown now, you can't pull those bull @!$%# lies on me. I heard all sorts of stories. I learned how to discern between truth and fiction years ago.

To lie is to intentionally misinform, I have never intentionally tried to misinform.

That's right, because instead of checking your sources you believed the lie. Remember when I said:

If you have to lie to make a point, you don't have a point.

If you lie when you think you are telling the truth, you are brainwashed.

That is the cult mentality, "the master is right so I must trust him."

As far as some of the quotes that you disqualify as coming from Jefferson, I really don't care who said them. They are still truism.

The Cult mentality strikes again. You believe what you believe because you think the Founders preached it. When you find out that isn't true your belief is so firmly planted that you begin to make up excuses to justify your beliefs.

I have talked to lots of cult people, usually relating to religion, yours is a classic tactic.

"The Federalist Papers" and the opposing arguments in the "The Anti-Federalist Papers"

In case you didn't comprehend I am probably more familiar with those writings then you are.

And if you understood anything about the Authors of the Constitution, you would know that they all to varying degrees supported an armed populace,

An Armed MILITIA made up of the populace but under the control and discipline of the Government.

Still they did not reject the general public from owning weapons.

For Gods sake they needed to eat. They couldn't go down to COSTCO to buy enough cans of soup for a month whenever they wanted. They didn't have freezers. They didn't have the society we live in today.

Maybe it is because I am 60 and have seen changes. My Grandfather was born in 1890. He almost lived 100 years (97). He saw mankind go from horses and buggies to Cars and Jets. When man walked on the Moon it blew his mind, Before they blasted off he kept saying there was no way they could make it,

He was a smart man, but it went against everything he had ever believed in. He saw TVs and Telephones come into existence.

I have seen Computers and Cell phones take over the world.

In every instance something dies out. The typewriter repairman is without a job, the teletype is gone. The Horse and Buggy is a hobby not a necessity.

Things change and in the process old ways are no more.

Still NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT TAKING AWAY ALL GUNS!

Just a sensible way to deal with the new technology that can kill many people in seconds.

Nobody needs a Semiautomatic Assault Style weapon with a large capacity magazine. Nobody.

Nobody needs the lax laws we have for gun ownership except criminals.

I have 3 Grandchildren, so far, and I don't want any of them to die because some clown that got rejected from the military thinks he looks cool in Camo blasting away with a military style gun.

Give me one GOOD reason why anyone NEEDS one of these weapons.

all of the Authors and those involved with the Constitution were for the Right of the Individual to keep and bear arms.

The problem is you haven't shown that.

You have given lots of bogus quotes but no real quotes to support that idea - that is how deeply you are brainwashed.

Kilroy

2A is what gives the constitution teeth, without it , the constitution is just words on a piece of paper.

What?

The 2nd AMENDS the constitution in relationship to the MILITIA. I really have no idea where you are going here.

obama sold more guns than anybody by flapping his lips

It wasn't Obama. It was the lies and fear promoted by the Gun Cult.

Obama never said we were going to take all your guns - the Gun cult planted that seed.

Obama never said he was going to send the military over the people - The Gun Cult came up with that one.

What exactly do you think Obama said to sell more guns?

our military is NOT going to turn on its own

Our Militia did - Kent State.

Our founders were concerned that the Army would.

ARMY 1783-1812

Congress subscribed to the prevailing view that the first line of national defense should be a "well-regulated and disciplined militia sufficiently armed and accoutered." Its reluctance to create a standing army was understandable; a permanent army would be a heavy expense, and it would complicate the struggle between those who wanted a strong national government and those who preferred the existing loose federation of states. Further, the recent threats of the Continental officers strengthened the popular fear that a standing army might be used to coerce the states or become an instrument of despotism.

Washington thought a very small Army might be a good idea BUT he felt the best defense was a Nationally controlled Militia.

General Washington, to whom Hamilton’s committee turned first for advice, echoed some of these fears. He pointed out that a large standing army in time of peace had always been considered "dangerous to the liberties of a country" and that the nation was "too poor to maintain a standing army adequate to our defense."

Hamilton’s committee listen to input from several then suggested a more ambitious Militia then what Washington suggested. In the end Congress rejected Hamilton's plan.

Typical politicians, they figured a large Army but cut their pay. That didn't fly either.

In the end they greatly reduced the Army but hung on to a few because the British had not yet surrendered all they were supposed to surrender; they needed to guard, West Point and the Springfield Arsenal; and there were those pesky Indians.

Finally in 1787 the Constitutional Convention got together to try and solve the military issue.

Even those like Hamilton who wanted to give the central government wide latitude in handling both purse and sword were also somewhat wary of standing armies.

Hamilton was one of the more pro Army people out there and even he did not trust a full time Army.

What they ended up with was a strong Naval force, A limited Army and a strong Militia force - "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."

i have utility guns, in other words guns i use all the time, about ten total, locked up in a safe, except for the home defense mossberg 12 gauge , and bhp 9mm hand gun . all these guns i have had for years. with a reasonable supply of ammo .

All good weapons and Obama doesn't want to take them from you. It is the fear of the Gun Cult gossip that makes you think they would.

That is a real problem so many gullible people thinking something that was never going to happen will.

Cults hold their people with fear tactics.

I don't deny anyone their right to own a gun.

I don't have any use for them because I don't hunt and I am a Christian. If I die I am with the Lord.

But I understand many people are not born again believers. They think they need a gun to save their life.

Most want them for hunting, but that is becoming less popular. So much easier to go to Jack in the Box. Or the store.

Others just want a gun as a toy.

A shotgun is a great weapon for protection, a hand gun is too. An AR 15 really isn't necessary.

If we strengthen our gun laws, as Obama wants, fewer criminals will have guns - that is a good thing.

If the world changed in 1934, then they needed to change the Constitution to adapt and codify that change. The notion that we can let ourselves just change our interpretation of the document to suit new circumstances is absurd.

The ability to form a militia, well regulated or not, is a right.

The Federal Government has a standing Army. The states have their national guards. The UN can place forces in countries whose residents may not want them there. A militia has peaceably assembled until the first shots are fired by it, not at it.

was anyone convicted for The Fascist Business Plot revealed by General Smedley Butler? They were plotting to change the world with guns and bloodshed, around the same time as the SCOTUS decision to weaken the citizens' response to attempts at domestic tyranny.

The notion that we can let ourselves just change our interpretation of the document to suit new circumstances is absurd.

The Document was focused on Government controlled - AKA, Well Regulated - Militias.

Any change was when people decided it was in reference to people outside of these Government Militias..

@ JOregon

Kilroy

2A is what gives the constitution teeth, without it , the constitution is just words on a piece of paper.

What?

The 2nd AMENDS the constitution in relationship to the MILITIA. I really have no idea where you are going here.

Then what does the 1st, 4th, 5th Amend, etc? What about the 18th? What part of the Constitution does it amend?

See, you are reading it backwards. The "Amendments", specifically the Bill of Rights, are list, an enumeration of limitations placed on the FEDERAL Government. Not necessarily pertaining to any part of the Constitution, such as 17th Amendment.

And the reason you have no idea where he is going with this, is because you have no idea where you are.

And if you are as familiar with the "Papers" as I am, why are we having this discussion? You already know that they believed in an armed society. Some of them wanting at least some control over the "Militia" not the people who make up the militia. And if you have read anything about the authoring of the 2nd amendment you know that it a compromise among several sources, all of which believed in the Right of the Individual to bear arms.

Let's look at some contemporary evidence shall we?

From the

Virginia Constitution basically the model of the 2nd.

XIII That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.

West Virginia 3-22. Right to keep and bear arms.

A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use.

Pennsylvania Section 21. Right to Bear Arms

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

North Carolina Sec. 30. Militia and the right to bear arms.

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; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice.

Massachusetts Article XVII. Right to Bear Arms

The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

South Carolina SECTION 20. Right to keep and bear arms

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. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it. No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner nor in time of war but in the manner prescribed by law. (1970 (56) 2684; 1971 (57) 315.)

Maryland Art. 28.

That a well regulated Militia is the proper and natural defense of a free Government.

Connecticut SEC. 15.

Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

Texas Sec. 23.  (1845) RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.  Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

Kansas 4. Individual right to bear arms; armies. (1861)

A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, for lawful hunting and recreational use, and for any other lawful purpose; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power

Notice how many say "a person", "citizens" or "the people" and since these are States, does not the militia, a "civilian army" so to speak, include the armed populace? Now then, given that many of these Constitutions were written during or shortly after the US Constitution, is it not then logical to presume that the people of the time looks at firearm ownership as a Right, not connected to militia service?

Now reference this website: (copy and paste into the address bar, I can not post direct links)

cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm

You want to sit back and nit pick a handful of quotes, out the hundreds I have read. And call me a liar for it. Like I said, I had no intention of passing along incorrect information. Now let's get back to the real argument. Do I, or Do I not have a Right to Bear Arms, as an Individual? Is there anything in the Constitution that specifies which Arms I may or may not have? Did the Framers limit the citizens to Rifles and Pistols, since at the time Cannons were available, and were in fact owned by civilians who could afford them. As well as armed private ships.

And who the heck are you to tell me what I need? I have no idea what you hold near and dear, but how would you like if I told you "You don't need that."? And since you are such a fan of the militia, and its purported duty to defend against tyranny of a standing Army, why are you for disarming it? What do you think that is the National Guards duty? Let me clue you in, since 1973 the NG is part of the Army.

Why do I need an “Assault Style Rifle”?

Can you tell me when the end of civilization will be? When the solar flare will strike? Youtube "Doomsday Preppers" I am not that paranoid. My guns are for putting deer meat in the freezer, and stress relief. (while you on Youtube, "Exploding Pumpkins") But seriously, do you know when the NEXT meteor is going to hit? While never a Boy Scout (4-H) I believe their motto, “Always be prepared”. I am not going to wait for FEMA to show up. (They have such a wonderful track record)

Let's take a look at reality, what if asteroid 2012 DA14 had been 3 times bigger and actually hit Earth? But it didn't right, and there is NO POSSIBILITY one ever will, right?

Evidently you are not a gun aficionado. The AR platform is a wonderful hunting rifle system. I have one AR lower with .243 Win. SSM for prairie dog(heavy barrel bench gun), and I was in the process of getting a 6.8mm (light barrel) for deer, .50 Beowolf for wild hogs and .223 for coyotes and just plinking. One firearm, 4 useful guns. It was cheaper to go this route until the liberals got their panties in a bunch.

The AR platform is completely modular. Push out two pins and the “Upper” receiver comes right off. Uppers are available (or they were) in a multitude of small, medium and large calibers, for a variety of purposes, from home defense, to hunting, to competition shooting, etc.

And I stand by my original comment about you being a troll. I thought you were some 20 something idiot, but you are far worse.

And I don't know why I am even wasting my time with you. So I will say this. this post is really not for you, but for those who would read it anyway.

Paul-977599

If the world changed in 1934, then they needed to change the Constitution to adapt and codify that change. The notion that we can let ourselves just change our interpretation of the document to suit new circumstances is absurd.

#2.37

funny how so many of these idiot liberals hide behind the 1st Amendment to protect the propaganda spewed forth by the MSM, TV, and Hollywood. To Protect the "Arts" like Hustler, and other porn (don't get me wrong what people want to do is their business, not mine)

But then they go on to say the 2nd is outdated, or it only applies to muskets, not modern technology. And I just have to shake my head, and acknowledge, yes, people are that stupid.

And I agree, if the law doesn't fit the Constitution, such as OADSI (SSi) or PPACA or the 1934 FCA then the court need to kick back to the people for an Amendment, to give them the Authority, not twist it around to make it fit.

Then what does the 1st, 4th, 5th Amend, etc? What about the 18th? What part of the Constitution does it amend?

Maybe it is time to define Amend once again.

*sigh*

a·mend

1. To change for the better; improve: amended the earlier proposal so as to make it more comprehensive.
2. To remove the faults or errors in; correct. See Synonyms at correct.
3. To alter (a legislative measure, for example) formally by adding, deleting, or rephrasing.

An Amendment can add to a document (the constitution) as in the case of the 1st Amendment.

An Amendment can rephrase, or improve upon as in the case of the 2nd.

It is obvious to all except the most ignorant (or brainwashed) that the 2nd Amendment and Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution are related to each other. They share language, they share concepts. They are bound to each other.

An Amendment doesn't always have to amend a certain portion of the constitution it can Amend the constitution itself.

Amendments were actually promised to Massachusetts in an effort to get the State to ratify the Constitution.

They had 9 changes they wanted added to the Constitution that would protect State and Individual rights.

First. That it be explicitly declared, that all powers not expressly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several states, to be by them exercised.

Secondly. That there shall be one representative to every thirty thousand persons, according to the census mentioned in the Constitution, until the whole number of representatives amounts to two hundred.

Thirdly. That Congress do not exercise the powers vested in them by the 4th section of the 1st article, but in cases where a state shall neglect or refuse to make the regulations therein mentioned, or shall make regulations subversive of the rights of the people to a free and equal representation in Congress, agreeably to the Constitution.

Fourthly. That Congress do not lay direct taxes, but when the moneys arising from the impost and excise are insufficient for the public exigencies, nor then, until Congress shall have first made a requisition upon the states, to assess, levy, and pay their respective proportion of such requisitions, agreeably to the census fixed in the said Constitution, in such way and manner as the legislatures of the states shall think best, and, in such case, if any state shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion, pursuant to such requisition, then Congress may assess and levy such state's proportion, together with interest thereon, at the rate of six per cent. per annum, from the time of payment prescribed in such requisitions.

Fifthly. That Congress erect no company with exclusive advantages of commerce.

Sixthly. That no person shall be tried for any crime, by which he may incur an infamous punishment, or loss of life, until he be first indicted by a grand jury, except in such cases as may arise in the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.

Seventhly. The Supreme Judicial Federal Court shall have no jurisdiction of causes between citizens of different states, unless the matter in dispute, whether it concern the realty or personality, be of the value of three thousand dollars at the least; nor shall the federal judicial powers extend to any action between citizens of different states, where the matter in dispute, whether it concern the realty or personality, is not of the value of fifteen hundred dollars at the least.

Eighthly. In civil actions between citizens of different states, every issue of fact, arising in actions at common law, shall be tried by a jury, if the parties, or either of them, request it.

Ninthly. Congress shall at no time consent that any person holding an office of trust or profit, under the United States, shall accept of a title of nobility, or any other title or office, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

These lead to the Bill of Rights. You will notice none of them can be developed into our 2nd Amendment.

There are different reasons for the creation of different Amendments, trying to lump them all together as having only one reason is simplistic at best.

Yes there are lots of various models that went into the creation of the 2nd, but looking at a model does not mean it was a clone of any.

Our 2nd Amendment took some of these ideas and perfected it.

This is actually a pretty common way of doing business even today. Concept Cars show ideas a manufacturer has in mind.

Apple failed with Newton. Got a home run with the iPhone.

The 2nd only says someone in the Government controlled Militia can have Arms. We can legislate what those arms are.

I am getting tired of your foolishness especially with your troll crap. I don't copy and paste spam emails, you do. You copy and paste from dishonest Gun Cult web sites I don't do that kind of thing.

In the end if we so chose we could REPEAL the 2nd. It has been done before (the 18th was repealed by the 21st). I doubt we will because we don't need to. Our constitution is flexible, and able to change with the times. We now have a Standing Army, making the 2nd somewhat irrelevant.

I went to your link:

http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason

And other similar quotes.

You still don't get it.

That was the Original plan for the protection of the United States - A Government controlled Militia made up of all the people in the United States.

There was to be no Standing Army.

Instead we were to have a militia and a body of people able to be drafted into the Militia.

Many Nations today have a similar system.

So, yes the whole people were to be the militia.

That idea is out dated. Today we have a Standing Army, and no draft into the militia. Though we are required to sign up for the Selective Service to possibly be drafted into the Standing Army.

It was to be a Defensive force that would remain here and not go running over there to hunt for fictional weapons of mass destruction that had not been used on us.

Moving down we find this one:

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

WASHINGTON NEVER SAID THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That pretty much sums up the bulk of your information and why it is a waste of time to read you.

This quote keeps getting edited from the Original, but no matter how much they edit it, Washington never said it.

Originally the quote read:

*****Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon, and citizen's firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference; they deserve a place with all that's good. When firearms, go all goes; we need them every hour.*****

One of the most obvious errors in the quote was the reference to Prairie Wagons. It was also obvious nobody said things like 99 99/100 percent at that date.

So they edited parts out, still Washington never said any of it.

Most important there was no Firearms controversy at that time. Most everyone owned a weapon to provide for their family.

It is the influence of these bogus quotes that has brainwashed people in the Gun Cult.

You are Brain Washed. I doubt I can ever convince you of that because people that are brainwashed want to hang on to their belief system.

I'm done, good luck to you. I really am sorry that you are shackled to a lie.

This is not for you JOregon, this is for the other readers who might see this.

And again, out of the several dozens of quotes on the website mentioned you pick out a couple which may or may not be accredited to the right people. My main argument is that GENERALLY speaking to the Framers and the people of that era The Right to Bear Arms was in Individual Right as witnessed by most of the quotes aforementioned, as well as the State Constitutions written at the time or shortly there after. You have chosen to discredit a relatively few cherry picked quotes, which may or may not be accurate, in order to discredit my argument. Your apparent logic being, if one little bit of evidence is false then it must all be false.

And you are still reading the Constitution from the perspective that it is what grants us our Rights and governs us. We are born with our Rights. And you are confusing a part of the duty of a citizen, to be a part of the Militia, with the Rights of the Citizens. You are clinging to this belief that the Right of the Citizens to be armed is somehow related, or can only be attained, while in the service of the Militia.

Yes - you are correct "That was the Original plan for the protection of the United States - A Government controlled Militia made up of all the people in the United States." Because as some many of the Framers pointed out, a Standing Army is a danger to Liberty. We now have a Standing Army, and how do we defend against a standing Army that goes against the wishes of the People? (A standing Army that endangers Liberty) Especially if those "People" have been disarmed?

The Congress shall have the Power:

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

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

I am also getting the impression now that I reread your posts, that you do not think of the States as Sovereign. They are. They have for the time however, suborned that Sovereignty, through the Treaty Portion of the Constitution *(1). This section of the Constitution dictates that the Federal Government may only "govern" the Militia while in the Service of the United States, (which is a separate entity, from the States) The Federal Government has no authority over the Militia of any State, otherwise. I think this is where you are running in to trouble understanding the Constitution. You think of the Federal Government as the government of the nation. We are not technically "One Nation", we are a Republic. And technically speaking, the Authority of the Federal Government (as it was originally intended) stops at the State borders. (with the exception of enforcing Individual Rights, as you mentioned, calling in the National Guard to enforce civil Rights)

*(1) Side bar, The US Constitution accomplishes three tasks. First, It creates the Federal Government. Second, it places limits upon the Federal Government, and third, It creates a treaty among the Sovereign nation States, which join the Union (a Republic). Article 4 Section 4.

This is not for you JOregon, this is for the other readers who might see this.

Of course it was for me.....what a joke.

You might try honesty sometime, but then why bother the rest of your cult doesn't.

As far as the quotes, I started at the top and worked my way down. I didn't cherry pick.

If this was the first time it wouldn't be such a big deal but you have pulled these dishonest quotes out of your ass several times.

which may or may not be accredited to the right people.

It is not a matter of accreditation they are FLAT OUT LIES.

Instead of looking at these pro gun propaganda sites for your references why not go right to the National Record? After all, if your cult masters found these quotes you could too.

The fact is you will not find quotes supporting the rights of regular citizens to carry arms because there was never a controversy about it. Most citizens needed their guns for food. Many also needed them for protection from the "savages". There was never any consideration about gun control until many years later.

As far as some mass conspiracy by the Army or Government to go against the people that is pure cult recruiting fiction.

This Nation has gotten too large and too complicated to pull that one off. Especially before the next election. We have a revolution every time we vote.

Besides the Army has not turned against the people but the Militia has - Kent State.

You are so full of BS it is just amazing, beginning with your opening line; "This is not for you JOregon, this is for the other readers who might see this."

Why do you need to lie?

People that lie to make their point do not have a point.

When you continually repeat the lies of others, believing them to be true - you are brainwashed.

Good Luck

i thought you were don MR oregon?

thats okay, clearly you have your beliefs seated in in your mind and are not swaying from, that is a good point in itself. i do not really care that i make a point or not, because this is just a discussion that generates opinions, some are truly brilliant, some not so, and others whoa nelly! waaaaaay out in left field. but yes we can agree to disagree. like i stated before the 2A is what backs up the constitution the voting process is not enough, there must be something in place that keeps the government from overwhelming the people and oppressing them.........that's what the 2A is for it keeps the government at bay

Don MR? Who's that? *confused*

You misunderstand the 2nd. It only covers a Militia that is UNDER the control of the Government.

By taking the 2nd without Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States, as it relates to Militias, you don't get the whole story.

there must be something in place that keeps the government from overwhelming the people and oppressing them.........that's what the 2A is for it keeps the government at bay

If that was true then why were the Militias placed under the control of the Government?

The Constitution is clear:

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

That is called a Well REGULATED Militia.

They did fear a standing Army, so they established the Militias as our #1 defensive force. They weren't idiots they knew to be a successful defensive force they had to be under a central control.

Our elections are designed so that we have revolutions on regular intervals - Truly a government For the People By the People.

Doesn't the fact that we have a standing Army, against the wishes of our Founders, without having Amended our Constitution, and we have a National Guard in every state, negate your argument that we are arguing about Constitutional Law when the Constitution on this matter has been ignored for 70 years?.

Since a standing Army can't be trusted, or at least shouldn't be, and Eisenhower told us not to trust the military industrial congressional intelligence COMPLEX. Doesn't it make some sense that we should see these forces as the same potential tyrants that Washington and Jefferson saw in the British Parliament and King George. A well regulated militia is required for a militia to hope to be successful in defending a free state, from external threats from National powers. If the standing Army is the potential threat to domestic life and liberty, an unregulated militia may be a reasonable deterrent to attempts at tyranny here at home. You were allowed to own a canon when the best weapon the Government had in its possession was a canon. We've been on a slippery slope of revisionism of the 2nd Amendment for more than a century.

If you want to reinterpret the 2nd Amendment to justify arms bearing being reduced down to handguns and shotguns, you'll need to change the Constitution, not mangle its meaning and obvious intents.

Doesn't the fact that we have a standing Army, against the wishes of our Founders, without having Amended our Constitution, and we have a National Guard in every state, negate your argument that we are arguing about Constitutional Law when the Constitution on this matter has been ignored for 70 years?.

No it just negates the argument that the people didn't trust the Government.

The people ARE the Government.

What they feared was not Government misuse instead they feared a take over by an individual. They remembered Cromwell, and Caesar.

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/52/army-clause

For most Americans after the Revolution, a standing army was one of the most dangerous threats to liberty. In thinking about the potential dangers of a standing army, the Founding generation had before them the precedents of Rome and England. In the first case, Julius Caesar marched his provincial army into Rome, overthrowing the power of the Senate, destroying the republic, and laying the foundation of empire. In the second, Cromwell used the army to abolish Parliament and to rule as dictator. In addition, in the period leading up to the Revolution, the British Crown had forced the American colonists to quarter and otherwise support its troops, which the colonists saw as nothing more than an army of occupation. Under British practice, the king was not only the commander in chief; it was he who raised the armed forces. The Framers were determined not to lodge the power of raising an army with the executive.

The issue wasn't the Government overwhelming the people, the issue was the Army taking over the Government.

Today our Nation has become too massive, and is well protected with checks and balances. It really isn't a concern anymore.

There was never a ban on a Standing Army, they simply chose to control it by voting for financial support every two years.

I am not the one reinterpreting the 2nd - but the Gun Cult sure has.

So , to your way of thinking, General Eisenhower was just a paranoid delusional. That makes perfect sense. The MIC took over "the government" in 1963. The people are not in control of much of anything.

joregon, its a typo. should say (done. ) one more time. the militia is under the control of the people, the government being for the people by the people. to have put the government in control of the militia as you claim, and the whole point of the militia was to protect the people from all enemies foreign or domestic (including the government itself) would that not be a really stupid idea to put the government in control of it????????? geeze man you can make all of these intelligent book writing posts crammed with facts , but you cannot grasp common sense? YOU are thinking way too hard. im at a loss as to why you cannot understand this. my guess is you just hate guns and thats that, and you are looking for answers that support your claims that are not there.

one more thing my delusional friend..............speaking of brain washing , i'm sorry but there is no gun cult. as you claim. just people who own guns and people who do not. companies make money selling guns. of course, and they sell them to civilians and to the military that then uses these guns to keep you and yours safe. and so us (GUN NUTS) buy them for hunting,collecting,target shooting, and for security to keep our loved ones safe. simple the fact that criminals use guns to ply their trade is no secrete, and the feds want to limit, ban, confiscate, out law etc. etc. to further reduce the ability to defend ourselves. why ? can you not answer that question, you have quoted a (book) on everything else why not answer that question for me? when you say the government does not want to take up the guns, what box are you living in? fienstien, pelosi, reid, biden, thats what they wanna do. and the stupid bullsh#t statement......we only want the assault weapons is a crock, some of them as they say leads to all of them. you know it i know it, and the rest of the country knows it . the difference is that there are too many ding dongs that think it is a good idea, because they are led by ding dongs. the rest of us say NO! its a bad idea and we do not want it. period. for once i would like to see obummer actually stick to something that matters and complete it, instead of running around with his idiot committees trying to fix tings using the worst possible solution and then saying well it did not work because, those damn republicans won't agree with MY agenda, and it's bushes fault..........freaking unbelievable.......hell i'm off topic now. but not by much.

@ kilroy and paul

You guys make some excellent comments, and points, but you waste your time with him. He is stuck on his (modern liberal) interpretation of the Constitution. He thinks the Federal Government is the "Government". I don't think he fully understands the true concept of the Republic, that we are fifty nation states, joined by a treaty. Each with its own Government, its own Militias. And that the US Constitution only applies to the Federal Government, restricting how it may use the States' Militias, and restricting its power to disarm the states militias, i.e. the people. How many states have specific statements declaring an individual Right to bear arms? If this were not the basis, or the main line of thought during the eras in which they were written, does anyone not think that these states would have written these Constitutions differently?

No, JOregon reads this all backwards. The armed citizen joins or is called to the militia, to be trained in group tactics and military protocols, not the unarmed citizen joins or is called to the militia, to be trained in arms. Why else are there some many references to bear arms in defense of self and state, by those who wrote the US Constitution, as well as those who wrote the States Constitutions?

Question me this, if the Federal Government went away tomorrow, what would we have? Fifty sovereign countries. Each one has its own government, and Constitution.

JOregon is the new paradigm. Today everyone thinks of the 'Government' as the Federal Government, and the states as "regional" governments, not as the semi-independent Sovereignties, as the Framer set them up to be. Why else do we have the 10th Amendment?

And I will question JOregon one more time, if I am brainwashed by the "gun Cult" then why does my understanding of the Constitution cause me to question the authority of the Federal Government; 1) to operate a pension fund (OASDI)? 2) mandate that in order to be a US Citizen, I must purchase a product? (PPACA) 3) to operate numerous agencies whose purpose is to redistribute wealth?(welfare, food stamps, UI, etc.) Just exactly which clauses give the Federal Government the Authority to do any of these things, given the 10th Amendment? None of them, only the artful manipulation by the SCOTUS.

But this is only my opinion, and think the Framers would agree.

joregon, its a typo. should say (done. )

Thank you, Kilroy for clearing this up, I was confused.

I was done with Farmboy. I tired of his Novels with fictional quotes and misconstrued ideas based on his belief of those fictional quotes. His posts were way too long and consistently full of bogus information. That is what happens when you get your information from propaganda sites.

Then to irk me he had the gall to call me the troll and dishonest.

I will defend my integrity, and the integrity of what I post. I will not continually wade through a bunch of BS. Once or twice, yes. But continually, no.

Besides I recognize cult mind control, I have dealt with several cult people in my life. Only one became a former cult member. Unfortunately the Harikrishna's messed up his ability to think things through for quite some time after he left.

the whole point of the militia was to protect the people from all enemies foreign or domestic (including the government itself)

The Gun cult says that on a regular basis - how about a historical reference? I suggest you get your quotes from someplace other than DumbFarmBoy.

would that not be a really stupid idea to put the government in control of it????????? geeze

So you don't believe in the Constitution?

I have given the links and quoted the Constitution several times.

#2.18 - Sat Mar 2, 2013 6:17 PM PST

#2.22 - Sun Mar 3, 2013 12:42 AM PST

#2.29 - Mon Mar 4, 2013 5:57 PM PST

#2.45 - Thu Mar 7, 2013 5:03 PM PST

No matter how many times I post the Constitution the gun cult brainwashing still has people claiming it doesn't say what it says - Amazing!

The Constitution places control of the Militia into the hands of the Government. Apparently you must think we are talking about some nation other than the United States of America.

i'm sorry but there is no gun cult. as you claim.

And the Harikrishna's don't believe they are in a cult, nor do the Moonies. Ask Tom Cruise about Scientology. I lost a friend to Church Universal and Triumphant he swore they were not a cult - they knew the truth and the rest of us were his "delusional friends".

The fact the Constitution says in very clear language that the Militia was to be under the control of the Government and you literally can't see those written words shows you are in a cult.

Cults use irrational fears to trap it's people. The gun cult tactics:

1. Obama or some other president will declare Marshal Law and run over the people.

2. They will take all guns away. (Outlaw guns)

3. Gangs of gun toting criminals are going to break into your home and the Government won't let you have a way to defend yourself.

4. Cults often change the meanings of passages or words. I don't know how many times I have heard some gun cultist claim that the word "Regulated" in the 2nd doesn't mean Regulated but rather something like "well practiced".

5. Cults take bits and pieces of truth and create their own truth - look at the quotes the cult has fed Farmboy. Another classic is how gun cultists will usually not quote the entire 2nd Amendment only this part.

*****the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*****

I don't know how many times I have had to correct them by posting the entire 2nd and then point out that it is to be a WELL REGULATED militia. But you guys are all blind to that part.

ETC

Cults use fear as a means to hold it's people.

Like most cults the leaders are into it for the money. How much are AR15s and other weapons selling for?

How much SHOULD they be selling for?

Ka-ching

Instead of feeding their family people are spending their money on guns. Fear. Irrational Fear. Lemmings. Fools.

to further reduce the ability to defend ourselves. why ? can you not answer that question,

That is a Gun Cult Fear Tactic.

Nobody is taking away your ability to defend yourself.

Do you really need a Rocket launcher to defend yourself?

A Bazooka?

A Tommy gun?

An AR15 with a high capacity magazine?

Couldn't you protect yourself with a handgun and a shotgun? Or a hunting rifle? All sorts of weapons are available.

Honestly you are more likely to kill your neighbor sitting over there watching Fox News with a rifle then you are with a shotgun.

You are also more likely going to hit your target at night pumped with adrenaline using a shotgun.

Gun Cultists have an irrational fear of having all their guns taken from them.

I just don't understand the need to have a military styled weapon. These are they kinds of guns that appeal to the mental cases that do these mass shootings. Sometime check on how many of these killers were rejected by the military, wore bullet proof clothes and/or camo to shoot innocent people with a military styled weapon.

.we only want the assault weapons is a crock, some of them as they say leads to all of them. you know it i know it, and the rest of the country knows it .

Nope just paranoid gun cultists think it. It's that fear thing again.

Please supply a true historical reference about needing protection from the Government.

Paul

So , to your way of thinking, General Eisenhower was just a paranoid delusional. That makes perfect sense. The MIC took over "the government" in 1963. The people are not in control of much of anything.

Eisenhower did not take over the government he was ELECTED into office and served his term then left.

Cult delusion?

MIC - Motorcycle Industry Council?

oregon you are hopeless you know? just plain hopeless!!! lord man dont get out much? a semi auto military styled rifle operates just exactly like a semi auto traditional style rifle . it just looks different

and why should these be banned ? because you and a bunch of other people dont like them? then dont buy them! simple! and try not to over think the problem. its not the guns , its the idiots using them .

it just looks different

Yes it looks different.

Sadly it is the looks that attracts the nuts.

Many of the mass killers were rejected by the Military. They wanted an IMAGE when they killed. The AR15 fills that image.

Clackamas Shooter.

Tucson Shooter.

Sandy Hook.

a semi auto military styled rifle operates just exactly like a semi auto traditional style rifle .

Then why do you NEED one? Just get a traditional style rifle......image problems?

I should have clarified the 3 links I was posting only related to them being rejected from the military and the need to have an image. Loughner did not use an AR but they all needed to have an image.

An AR fulfills a certain image,

then if there is really no difference in the two, then why ban them? so you and a bunch of other people can get that warm fuzzy feeling and think that for some reason the really useless law you just passed is gonna stop a crazy person from killing? you know that wont happen but are willing to pass such stupidity so you can feel better about yourself? whoa nelly!!!!! man you are in left field.

an AR fulfills a certain image? how? let me get this straight if me or anybody else owns an AR we have a mental problem? buhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

listen man i have a mini 14 with a composite standard stock...with a 5 rd magazine. and several 20 rnd and several 30, rd magazines......shoots 223 and 556..... just like most ARs just as fast and like the AR is semiauto only. banning the ARs means banning the mini 14 and all others like it the government and your (gun cult) have people screaming hatred for those evil (BLACK GUNS) and ban them ban them........and most of those people have no idea what a true assault rifle is . YOUR ignorance of guns is what they are counting on.........when you say, yeah your right, i really dont need or use THOSE GUNS so yeah take them you are opening the door to all the other guns to be banned its just a matter of time ............you know you dont really need a Ferrari......you could just as well drive a beat up hugo for transportation that the government and other people say should be fine for you to drive.. after all the Ferrari is an image thing right? so why do you need it ?

ps. cars kill way more people than guns do every year.........the lame part is that guns (according to the left) are meant for killing.......and cars are not. ha! so why are we not banning those high speed sports cars, and 4 wheel drive lifted off road pickups that so many people are killed in while driving under the influence ? that they really do not need but drive any way????????

cars kill way more people than guns do every year

Another stupid gun cult argument. So does old age. People don't (usually) use a car to deliberately kill. They certainty don't use a car to kill mass numbers of people. Guns are meant for killing, game, people, whatever. You can't fix stupid that isn't the issue with either as far as I am concerned. I am more concerned with deliberate mass killings done to make a point.

Apparently you don't understand the image part.

The Nut Cases that end up in these high profile shootings need an image. So they pick the Camo, the Glock with high capacity mags, or the AR15 and other such guns that "look" military (or scary). Like a lot of people that think they need a super gun they probably have compensation issues. They have usually been rejected in one way or another.

If these guns are the same as others, as you claim, then why do YOU need one? Image? Compensating for something? What is your reason?

I understand the difference between an assault rifle and an assault STYLE rifle. I suppose if you are planning a mass killing you might say it is all about being in STYLE.

The real issue is the high capacity mags. If you can limit the mag to 5 rounds then the shooter can't kill as many people. In fact because many victims were shot more than once you might just save most everyone.

We need to close the gun-show loopholes (we might have dealt with that one lately) and we need to register the guns.

Question:

How many children need to die just so you can be in STYLE?

are you really that dense? you totally missed the car point.....................

and to answer your question, none, because if it were up to me i would have armed police officers in every school. making new laws and banning certain guns will not work, my question to you is what are you gonna say to the survivors when this happens again and all you did was write on a piece of paper instead of taking real action ?

like i said these guns are the same. i like them for how they look and how well they shoot , for the very same reason you drive a nice car, and i can safely bet that given the choice you would drive the best car you can afford , and no way you would drive a piece of crap simply because that would never do for you image.

the funny thing is i do not need a gun to improve my image or compensate for something , they are simply tools. don't know why you would bring that up, dumb analogy .

if that is the only real argument you have then your point in mute........

are you really that dense? you totally missed the car point.....................

You're the dense one. I didn't miss the car point at all YOU did.

I don't care about accidental deaths be they from cars or guns. I don't care about drunk deaths be they from cars or guns.

I want to stop the deliberate "statement" style killings done in schools, malls, public speaking places, parks. bus stations, or anywhere else these nut cases want to commit them.

if it were up to me i would have armed police officers in every school.

So your plan is to have a cop at every school, every park, every mall, everywhere? - bonehead!

Plus it wouldn't work. The first target - the cop. Or change the venue.

I notice how Republicans are all against tax cuts until certain issues come up, then it's raise taxes. It wouldn't work.

making new laws and banning certain guns will not work

Worked in Australia. It was real action with real results.

It isn't just the banning it is the regulating and the control over sales through licensing. We don't need to be as extensive but by strengthening our licensing and eliminating HC mags and certain styles of weapons we can reduce needless killings everywhere not just where we have a cop. Not sure what they are like where you live but we have schools where you would need multiple cops.

i like them for how they look and how well they shoot ,

The EXACT reason these killers use them. They think like you do.

I don't drive a nice car, it is a functional car. When I bought it in 2005 I used it for my work. A 2005 Dodge Van doesn't qualify as a nice car in my book. In 2006 I changed jobs. I don't need a van anymore but it still works, so I still have it. In other words that car example is a good one. I don't like the way it looks and I don't like the way it feels, but it still works. I would really like to have THIS car.

I'm actually not much of an "Image" guy. Kind of got that from my father, he was an Engineer, "A car is to get you from point 'A' to point 'B' get the best car for the money", he wouldn't even get a radio. I think more in terms of Utility.

they are simply tools. don't know why you would bring that up, dumb analogy .

Then you say you want them for how they look and how they feel........sexy.

Hey! I'm still waiting for that true historical reference about needing protection from the Government. Remember?

I notice how Republicans are all against tax cuts until certain issues come up, then it's raise taxes. It wouldn't work.

Should have read - I notice how Republicans are all FOR tax cuts until certain issues come up, then it's raise taxes. It wouldn't work.

Sorry we all make mistakes.

you missed the car point my friend by a mile.....................................

guns were meant for killing and killing only the left says......yep. and the argument they say that cars killing more people than guns holds no water , because cars are not meant for killing.

the point is, cars being designed for transportation and not killing, still kill more people every year than guns which are meant for killing. your logic being that since we really need cars and not guns makes these deaths perfectly acceptable . part of the risk of having cars you would say?

for the record if your gonna quote me, get it right i said .....how they look and how they shoot.....not how they feel.

like i said you drive your van , but if you had the money you would drive the Lamborghini.....YOU SAID THAT

you wanna stop the shootings ? in your logic banning certain guns will work right? whats gonna stop the nut cases from just using a different gun if they cant get the (sexy) ones as you say? not a damn thing. having the guards present, is a good idea in the schools, as far as general public is concerned . concealed carry, is a good idea, and hanging the @!$%#s that do this crap from a gallows in the town square would help too. we do not have the punishment fit the crime when it comes to murder. too many bleeding hearts that feel bad for the murderers and not for the victims

I understand what you are saying about cars, it is a common cult twist.

Cars are not used for killing. Guns ARE used for killing.

Difference in purpose means a difference in control.

Nevertheless we are constantly making cars safer and safer. Ever try to drive one of today's cars without your seat belt on? Airbags. Crumple zones. Mufflers. Today's cars are loaded down with things to make them safer. Lots of laws on where, how, and how fast ..........All those restrictions = NO HC MAGS! No SemiAutomatic anything. That what you want?

The Lambo was a JOKE ......... it also wasn't STREET LEGAL!

I would not own a Lambo even if it was given to me, I think more in terms of Utility.

The Lambo costs a chunk of change ........... maybe that isn't a bad idea. Charge $2,000,000 for an AR15.

Any car that risks killing the public must be registered ........Register your weapons.

Driving a car in public requires testing and a license that is renewed .........sounds like a good idea.

Do you really want to compare cars and guns?

How they "shoot" is a matter of "feel". Recoil, weight, etc

whats gonna stop the nut cases from just using a different gun if they cant get the (sexy) ones as you say?

Because they do the shootings to make a style point.

The fact is removing easy access to guns, and eliminating the semiautomatic has saved lives in Australia.

The Australian Institute of Criminology found that gun-related murders and suicides fell sharply after 1996. The American Journal of Law and Economics found that our gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74 percent. In the 18 years before the 1996 reforms, Australia suffered 13 gun massacres — each with more than four victims — causing a total of 102 deaths. There has not been a single massacre in that category since 1996.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/17/australia-s-example-for-controlling-guns.html

BTW how are your history studies going?

banning the magazines did not work the first time .............won't work now

since there are not as many guns in Australia, they have fewer gun deaths.......they just switched to killing each other with something else, and the crime rate has increased just like in merry old england

we will agree to disagree...........the only thing we can agree on at this point is the lambo, me neither,

Aston Martin.......a very beautiful sexy car......aaaaaannnnddd.........a 1971 dodge hemi barracuda for honorable mention......the greatest muscle car..for sure

banning the magazines did not work the first time .............won't work now

It takes more time, and a more definite ban. For instance at one time fully automatic Tommy Guns were used in crimes - today nada.

The point in Australia is the drop off of gun deaths and the total end to mass killings such as Sandy Hook.

I do like looking at some sexy cars (if you have that much money why not?) but I know me, a car like that wouldn't get taken care of.

I have a few friends with Hot Rods, nice cars just not my thing. Well 2 of them are nice, the other..... well it goes fast.

When I get rid of the van I will probably get a 1/2 ton 4x4 PU. Last year I had to drive rentals several times and they suck. Who puts Highway tires on a 4x4? Also an automatic might be fine on the highway but not when you are coming down a mountain road with a load.

I take it you've conceded that the founders were not concerned about the people needing protection from the Government.

oh yes they were, concerned about the people being able to protect themselves from the government ,the people being armed keeps the government on a short leash, which is where they should be, thats why the 2A is in there.......here we go again right? lets just agree to disagree on that one too.....sorry not bending on that one, not in this life or any other.......

oh yes they were, concerned about the people being able to protect themselves from the government ,the people being armed keeps the government on a short leash, which is where they should be, thats why the 2A is in there....

I keep asking anyone to prove it. Where are the historical accounts?

The 2nd speaks of a WELL REGULATED militia. It is regulated BY the Government as per the guidelines in the Constitution of the United States.

You don't bend because you would rather believe a lie if it agrees with your personal fears.

The militia needs to be "well regulated" in order to have any hope of defending the free state. If it were badly regulated, internally or externally, it would likely fail in its purpose. It is about efficacy, not control by the federal government. Funding doesn't necessarily grant control, because the Constitution mentions, and mandates, one without the other. Not to mention this is all in lieu of having a standing army, which we have had for 70 years now.

Not to mention this is all in lieu of having a standing army, which we have had for 70 years now.

That's funny. Who was it that we sent to war during World War I (over 90 years ago), the militia? Or, perhaps the Army didn't actually 'stand' until 1943? And who put all those Naval vessels in Pearl Harbor in 1941? Aliens?

As usual, you have your facts wrong again. The current military was founded by an act of Congress on September 29, 1789, about 3 months after the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, was proposed by Congress (June 8, 1989), and over two years before it was ratified and officially became part of the Constitution. You were only off by over 150 years.

Duh.

The current military was founded by an act of Congress on September 29, 1789, about 3 months after the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, was proposed by Congress (June 8, 1989)

...correcting a typo - that's June 8, 1789...

We have had a standing Navy since our inception. The Navy is not the ARMY. The Army we have now is not the Army of 1789. I believe we had a draft to fill the Army for World War 1 and 2. If the Army was already standing, why did we need a draft?

If we had a standing Army 150 years ago, then I am correct that we had a standing Army 70 years ago. DUH!

Paul the CONSTITUTION is very clear:

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

To provide and maintain a Navy;

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

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

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

We have had both a standing Army and a Navy from the beginning. The difference is we did not trust a standing Army and the founders recognized the enormous cost of a standing Army so we did not want to finance the Army in increments of more than 2 years. That was debated because some wanted one year.

As far as control look at the words in that last paragraph:

The US Government was to ORGANIZE the militia.

The US Government was to ARM the militia.

The US Government was to DISCIPLINE the militia.

The US Government was to GOVERN the militia with the appointment of officers to be done by the States.

The AUTHORITY of TRAINING the Militia was to be Congress.

That, Son, is called WELL REGULATED.

Sorry Paul - It really is cut and dry. The US Government had full control of the militia from the very beginning.

Sorry Kilroy - If the people didn't trust the Government they wouldn't have let them control the Militia.

sigh............................................

I feel your frustration, Kilroy.

JOregon still thinks the Federal Government is the only Government and that the States are just regions. He will never understand that the 'Militias' are a State thing, and are not under the control of the Federal Government, except when in actual service of the Federal Government. He doesn't understand the concept of a Republic.

And as I tried to explain to him, (and he keeps asking for proof), that many if not most State Constitutions (#2.39) say specifically that it is an individual's Right to bear arms. But since these are State Constitutions they don't matter to him. Nor do I, since a couple of the quotes I used were allegedly attributed to wrong people, I have only his word to go by. (I have not yet had time to substantiate his claim) Even if it is true, the sites I posted had dozens of quotes, of which most of them are accredited to the correct people, and they all said the same thing. (out of the 13 quotes on one site, only one was discredited {I concur with JOregon, that it did not come from George Washington, but it came from some one. Which is why I say it is only mis-credited, not a lie})

You would have better luck trying to convince Jesus that God does not exist than convincing JOregon, the 2nd Amendment is a restraint placed on the Federal Government, not to restrict individual possession of arms. In true liberal fashion he ignores the facts (like I said, What do State Constitutions have to do with anything) or change the subject.

If you haven't already, I would suggest you read "The Federalist" AND, The "Anti-Federalist" Papers, the "Anti_Federalist" I think are more enlightening. And read page 296 of the "Federalist Papers", you too JOregon. And page 221 of the "Anti-Federalist Papers" 17th of the Proposed Amendments.

But hey, I am just a lying cult member, what do I know about history? My guess is these references are inaccurate too. Some one just made them up. Which is why I am not going to post them here, for fear of being accused of taking them out of "Context".

Remember you are arguing with idiots, and I applaud your stamina here. Keep up the good work.

@ JOregon,

I still stand by my accusations. You must resort to using Argument from Fallacy, to discredit my entire argument. I suggest you work on your reading comprehension skills, and your History. You will need the one to understand the other.

Back to Newtown. Now they are changing the official story again, just as we knew they would. Now they are saying that Adam Lanza did not shoot himself with the "Bushmaster", which we always said made no sense. They claim that the now "know" that he shot himself with the handgun. We also now have 7 eyewitness survivors amongst the kids, never to be heard from. And two teachers who were wounded in the lower extremities. He allegedly shot his way through the glass of the main entrance, which should have been bullet-proof. And rather than look at the video feed of the front door, the Principal ran into the hall, "to confront" the man with a semi-automatic weapon. Brilliant. He fired 151 shots in less than 5 minutes. His ears must have been bleeding.

Dumb

You are being dumb.

JOregon still thinks the Federal Government is the only Government and that the States are just regions. He will never understand that the 'Militias' are a State thing, and are not under the control of the Federal Government, except when in actual service of the Federal Government.

The Constitution is very clear:

..........training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;......

You are so brainwashed it just isn't worth even reading the rest of your post.

JOregon

Dumb

You are being dumb.

JOregon still thinks the Federal Government is the only Government and that the States are just regions. He will never understand that the 'Militias' are a State thing, and are not under the control of the Federal Government, except when in actual service of the Federal Government.

The Constitution is very clear:

..........training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;......

You are so brainwashed it just isn't worth even reading the rest of your post.

#2.75

So, I was correct, you think the Federal Government is the only Government and that the States are in you opinion only regional "supervisors".

Do you not understand that each State is in fact Sovereign? And therefore in charge of its own 'Militia'?

But you are correct. When the Militia are in the service of the US Government, there are under the control of the US Government. However, when they are not in direct service of the US Government, the US Government has no control over them, control reverts back to the State. And as I pointed out, (I have not gone through each individual State Constitution, but I believe) most States have an Amendment dictating an individual citizens Right to bear arms and those that don't, specify a Militia, which according to the Authors of the time, were the People.

The Articles of Confederation did not give the central government enough power to enforce equality and fairness among the States. The Constitutional Convention was a meeting to Frame a Government with only enough power to enforce the new agree called the Constitution, i.e. a Treaty among the States, and no more. The Federal Government was to be the Arbiter of disagreements among the States and a central place for Treaties with other nations. If you have read the "Papers", then you would know that to the Framers, the Federal Government and the States were to share Co-Sovereignty. It is only in the last 3/4 century or so that this interpretation has been corrupted by the Liberal Progressives.

So who is brainwashed now? Like I said, if you are as familiar with the "Papers" as you say, why are we having this conversation? It is perfectly clear, in both books, what the Framers were trying to accomplish.

You should study Grover Cleveland's Administration. here is one example, [www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1329]

Also:

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

WASHINGTON NEVER SAID THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I will concede Washington never said this, but ask yourself, do you think Washington would disagree with the sentiment of the statement? Not that I really care what you think, you are the one projecting your brainwashed cult belief onto me. I have documented history on my side. Numerous State Constitutions that declare an Individual Right to Bear Arms, (direct decendents of the US Constitution) Numerous actual and real quotes for the Authors of the Constitution themselves.

I think the author has confused Aurora facts with Newton facts. Again keeping it in your face guns are evil and need to be eradicated once and for all crap.

Charlie, you said assault "style," weapon; either it was or was not. Which is it? How about you find out if it was an assault weapon, since you live 15 miles away.

Sorry Charlie...The authorities said that the .223 was found in the trunk of Lanza's car, ie. he did not use it.

First they say the kid used an AR 15.

Then they say they found an AR 15 in the trunk fter the shooting.

Now this article says he used an AR 15.

When you tell lies it is hard to keep the story straight!

Don't believe the Liberal media lies.

first we need more investigation on why the 3 murder's look like they have been hypnotized and or looked drugged, kinda strange how all this happened in a row, then obama coming and saying right out of his head in newtown, we need more gun control, wonder he controled these murderer's.

The mass media always leaves out the true fact that Adam Lanza killed his own mother to get the guns and the Bushmaster was found in the trunk of the car after the shooting was over.

A black man used a so-called Assault rifle to shoot at random in Milwaukee and he was already a convicted felon. The weapon that he used was traced back to The Milwaukee Police Department's property locker. it was stolen from a house in a burglary.

CaliCynic, He did use handguns. I watched 10 hours of coverage that day and every lawenforcement officer there that gave an update said there were handguns and the AR-15 was found in the car. The next day the story changed that's when Obama's big plan went into action.

He did but that does nothing to fit the agenda!!!

What I read was that the shooter at Newton first tried to get in through the door, was carrying an AR-15, but couldn't get in. He went back to his car, left the AR-15, and broke a window, and climbed in with three pistols and extra magazines. This story has changed since day one.

tex2c2, you have no clue about converting a semi-automatic weapon to an automatic. You are like all the other pinhead liberals. You obviously get all your information from MSNBC.

I half read this article. One thing I have noticed, anytime someone writes about Newtown, CT they talk about assault rifles. This article says he had a Bushmaster. He was not carrying it, it was in a car many yards away. But still with an assault rifle in the vacinity the assault rifle gets the blame, not the hideable guns that where taken from their owner and carried, in this case, into the school and exposed for use

LOL.. No you can't convert a semi to an automatic for $5.. You can do it in some cases but it would take a lot of home made parts in most cases and in others you could just make a full auto 9mm in your basement from scratch anyway.

An ar-15 wasn't even used to kill 100 people out of the nearly 12,000 people..

Any "assualt style" rifle weren't even used to kill 400 people..

Still you guys have the fantasies and delusions about them, stop watching so many movies. Facts.. Ehh why bother...

Facts? Facts are that under 100 people are killed by an ar-15 or bushmaster every year. Ignore them all you want. stick your head in the sand and keep yelling" but in this relatively isolated case".

Facts???

Facts do not matter to somebody who has their mind made up.

Facts are that under 100 people are killed by an ar-15 or bushmaster every year.

So I assume you would support a handgun ban, which is responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in this country. But I know better. The argument you're making is unproductive because it isn't a step towards a real solution.

The real solution is simple. Felons are responsible for 70 to 85% of murders, period. Don't let them out if they cannot be trusted. Violent felons that have been convicted of murder, violent rape, or non-custodial kidnapping account for 30% of all murders. Lock them up and never let that sub group out.

I wouldn't support a handgun ban but if you think going after ar-15s is the answer because 100 people would have been killed by something else, well that logic is really flawed.

Ted,

There are other measures that can be taken. Go after gun dealers who sell to convicted felons. As of 2003 (the last time the ATF was legally able to release a report on this) 1% of gun dealers were responsible for over 60% of firearms used in crimes. And that's just from traceable firearms.

I just told you how to absolutely stop 3600 people from being murdered by simply locking away murders , kidnappers, and rapist, and you're talking about enforcing current existing law. Of course we should! What we shouldn't do is go after guns that are only used in 400 murders a year and mostly used to put holes in paper. These guns would be needed in the event of a collapse of society or in the event of invasion or if our own government loses it head.

tex2c2

PS: An assault style weapon is a weapon that looks like a military assault weapon (designed that way to boost the sick egos of the purchasers) but can be made to fire automatically with a $5 component change that can be obtained at any gun show, any week, in any metropolitan area of the USA. Another way to know if a weapon is an assault style weapon is if it is useless in any situation except where the owner wants to kill lots of people in public place

Tell me where you got that little tidbit of crap? If that $5 part can had so easily why aren't there Automatic AR15's being used to commit crimes? Why didn't the theater shooter have an AUTOMATIC AR? Why didn't the Sandy Hook shooter have an AUTOMATIC AR?

BTW. I want one of those $5 parts for my AR. But I can't find them anywhere on line. WHY IS THAT??

tex2c2, if you and you infinite wisdom would have read my post you would know that I was asking that question and quoting charlie. Just to let you know I was in the military and I can teach you a thing or two about weapons and their usage.

Now move on with that bit of knowledge, OK

Sorry, Dave, I understood you to be taking the usual gun fanatic's line that there is no such thing as an assault style weapon. We all know they are sold everyday at Walmart as Bushmasters.

As a learned expert, I am sure you would not mind spending a few hours to put everything you know about life and guns into a 30 word sentence for us. Please try not to repeat yourself too many times... Oh and please use spellcheck so we have some chance of figuring out what you are trying to say...Thanks...

Tanenka....Wish in one hand and sh-t in the other...see which comes first. You to tex2c2...

And Tex displays his lack of understanding of assault style weapons. It sounds like he got his information from Hollywood.

Pete Williams of NBC is on camera saying that he has confirmed information that Lanza wa found with FOUR handguns, and no mention of an AR 15 or Bushmaster.

I will believe the Newtown Sandy Hook shooting story when they release all FOIA requests and we get to see all of the surveillance video. I want to see when the State police and DHS "authorities" first got into town and when they arrived at the Firehouse. Witnesses state that they were there 45 minutes before the shootings were reported.

Iamnotyou

A black man used a so-called Assault rifle to shoot at random in Milwaukee and he was already a convicted felon. The weapon that he used was traced back to The Milwaukee Police Department's property locker. it was stolen from a house in a burglary.

Saying a "black man" makes it more heinous? Maybe not heinous, but surely strange, not common, as black folks in America are typically not 'mass-murderers.'

Very interesting read:

Nice White Boys Next Door and Mass Murder

Standing in line at the California Science Center the day of the mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary school, my students wondered aloud about the race of the shooter. "More than likely he was white," they agreed. As the only people of color waiting to be admitted to the exhibit, their open question about race elicited visible unease from a group of elderly white women across the line from us.

According to a Mother Jones timeline of mass shootings from the 1980s to the present, the majority of American mass murderers have been white males. The most infamous young killers—the Columbine High shooters, Jared Loughner, James Holmes, and now Adam Lanza—share a common cultural theme and national narrative. "Deranged" loners who came from lower to upper middle class nuclear families, their murder sprees forever shattered white suburbia's veneer of normalcy. Over the past decade, the post-mass murder mantra has been grindingly familiar—"this couldn't/shouldn't/wouldn't happen HERE, in our idyllic (white) suburban community." Catastrophic violence is implicitly marked as the province of the other, the inner city, the cesspit jungle where poor children (of color), according to GOP sage Newt Gingrich, have no work ethic and thus no "habit of I do this and you give me cash, unless it is illegal."

And yet, methodically plotted acts of epic violence committed by young white males with mini arsenals aping video game assassins are increasingly the hallmark of "HERE". So no doubt the elderly white women's unease came from a sense of deep existential displacement. When you've been suckled on Ozzie and Harriet, its "hard" to have your whiteness referenced as a source of violence; especially by people of color.

As the unraced universal subject, white people are simply unaccustomed to being explicitly identified as white. For many, the tired colorblind party line of white privilege means that just talking about race is racist. Universal means normal, and even the most heinous white criminals (Gacy, Bundy, Dahmer, and the list goes on) are humanized by a back story of psychoanalysis, cable TV biopics, books, and pop culture reportage. The wages of whiteness means not having to know the classic people of color ritual—i.e., that when big crime news breaks its pro forma for many African Americans and Latinos to find out the race of the perpetrator and then those of the victims. If the perpetrator is white there is a collective sigh of relief that Middle America won't have another dark savage, immigrant or Muslim community to demonize. If the victims are of color, there is a short window before the media's attention fades (ala the August massacre of six at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin) and shifts to more important matters like Lindsey Lohan or missing white girls.

Black and brown children learn very early on that perceptions of race and criminality are intimately connected. In high school when my friends and I found ourselves at the business end of Inglewood PD officers' rifles because someone in our car "looked" like a burglary suspect, it was a rite of passage initiation. The killing of African American teenager Trayvon Martin was a lightening rod because American youth of color saw the failure to bring his killer to justice as symptomatic of the devaluation of their lives. Guilty until proven innocent, youth of color never have the privilege of being universally perceived as the "nice" boy (as Lanza has been described) or girl next door that wouldn't hurt a fly.

According to a 2010 Blair-Rockefeller survey, many whites in post-racial America believe that blacks and Latinos are more lazy, unintelligent, and untrustworthy than either whites or Asians. If white Middle America views people of color as not having "white" values and "white" aptitude levels, then it's no mystery why mainstream media pathologize people of color as naturally criminal and violent. Black criminality can be boiled down to a rancid stew of shiftlessness, absentee fatherhood, and irresponsible motherhood. Latino criminality stems from too much babymaking and gangbanging. But like the moribund immigrant urban jungle of 19th social reformer Jacob Riis' nightmares, it's the "inner city" that's the guilty co-defendant.

Nonetheless, mass murder in an urban context is rare and mass shootings in schools of color are virtually unheard of. Homicide is a leading cause of death for young African American men. But contrary to the rap stereotype of Glock-toting men of color, an overwhelming majority of people of color are pro-gun control, while the majority of the white electorate is not. The high school assailants in the Littleton, Colorado, the Jonesboro, Arkansas; and Santee, California shootings were steeped in a NRA besotted gun culture that fetishizes readily available firearms as the ultimate medium for violent white masculinity.

However, these youth were instantly transformed into symbols of troubled, tragically "misunderstood" teens. National conversations about the perils of bullying dominated the airwaves. It was accepted that these tragic figures were "our boys," our recklessly wasted youth. It was conventional wisdom that preventive mental health resources could have minimized their inner turmoil. As the bloggers Three Sonorans note in their piece, "White Privilege and Mass Murder in America," "whenever white men commit mass murders it is just a freak isolated incident, but when we look at other crime statistics for minorities the reason given is that it is something innate to their culture, to their family. It is those people."

With Columbine there was tacit understanding that these boys' acts were symptomatic of a potentially imperiled national heritage. Conversely, any time violence erupts in a black or Latino context it's a racial indictment, an indictment of a community, not a reflection on the rogue acts of lost boys from salt of the earth homes.

As my students and I left the Science center, bracing for more news about the scope of the attack, it was clear that the tragedy would dominate the news for weeks to come. The senseless slaughter of children from the "perfect" town may finally prompt serious bipartisan legislation to curb the barbaric gun lobby. But it will not prompt analysis of the violent masculinity at the heart of whiteness. And if any of these nice white boy shooters had been black the national sentiment would have echoed the biting comment made by my student Jamion: "Send those @!$%#s back to Africa."

Sikivu Hutchinson
DEC 16, 2012

I just told you how to absolutely stop 3600 people from being murdered by simply locking away murders , kidnappers, and rapist, and you're talking about enforcing current existing law. Of course we should!

Many gun enthusiasts get upset about a crackdown on gun dealers, because it is spun as another attack on the 2nd amendment. Even though these gun dealers are breaking the law.

I will argue that there is a need for at least further inquiry. The ATF is barred by act of Congress from inspecting gun dealers more than once per year. The problem dealers out there ought to be under much more scrutiny than a once per year inspection at most. Is there the political will for this common sense approach? I don't think so. Gun enthusiasts would spin it as harassment by big government against constitutionally protected commerce.

What we shouldn't do is go after guns that are only used in 400 murders a year and mostly used to put holes in paper. These guns would be needed in the event of a collapse of society or in the event of invasion or if our own government loses it head.

No gun will protect you against a government entity that wants you dead. They have tanks, artillery, armed drones, helicopters, snipers, nukes, planes, bombs, etc. The little Bushmaster won't even fire a single round before its owner is neutralized. Our best hope in a government gone crazy is that the military doesn't follow the government.

I'm not one of these people saying we need to ban a type of gun. But doing nothing isn't working.

moshuluu: "Saying a "black man" makes it more heinous? Maybe not heinous, but surely strange, not common, as black folks in America are typically not 'mass-murderers."

So those 500 (mostly black persons) shot and killed by mostly black persons in Chicago is not mass murder?

Ted,

No you can't convert a semi to an automatic for $5.. You can do it in some cases but it would take a lot of home made parts

So, can you or can't you. You seem to be a little confused here. Please elaborate on your confusion so we can figure out if we can or cannot. I have been told numerous times by gunsmiths that it is easy if you buy the $5 plans at any gun show and have the mental stability to figure out how to make up your mind.

Libtards are out in droves today,polishing up their jackboots,well i for one support the fact that libtards should be disarmed...after all all the mass shootings were committed by registered ,mentally ill libtards or generational libtards in libtard run states....hows them facts tex2c what ever

after all all the mass shootings were committed by registered ,mentally ill libtards or generational libtards in libtard run states

I call BS. Site your source now.

Look it up yourself, Prag. Maybe tex can help you. I know he is around; I can smell his BS from here. Yours too.

prego,Conn :democrap ,some of the strictest gun laws on the books, Colo:shooter ;register dimocrip, ,parents from San Diego,registered dimocrips,Ore:democrap parents, registered Libtards. Az: parents also registered as democraps,Ill: democrap: chicago:democrap 508 murders last year by convicted felons....Queerafornia :democrap, highest crime rates per capita in America, seems that your socialist utopias, are hard on law abiding tax payers,and easy on criminals......source main stream media.

Tex2c2,

You seem to be the confused one here. First you say you can buy a $5 component to convert a semi-auto into an automatic. Then you change your tune and say you've "been told by gunsmiths you can buy $5 PLANS". So which is it a component or plans to make a part? And since the vast majority of people don't have the machine tools or the knowledge to use them to make these parts from plans so you are safe from the evil automatics.

PS, some but not all model semi-automatic rifles with enough changes could be made into a full automatic. But, that would be an illegal conversation and such it isn't being done by people that are law abiding. It is also very unpractical. It is very hard to aim and wastes a lot of ammo.

There were murders before guns. There are murders with guns. There will be murders after guns. What guns do is equalize. If I'm away and a man breaks into our house, however unlikely the scenario, my wife will at least have a chance at defending herself because of our gun.

Without armed citizens, you give the government and criminals (who obviously don't abide by the law) carte blanche to do whatever they want. Guns are also great for prevention. You think someone who breaks into another person's house isn't worried that the owner has a gun? They say that people were a lot more polite in the wild west because everyone carried. I tend to agree.

Magazine capacity limits and "assault style" weapons (or whatever you want to call them) bans aren't going to do anything to curb overall violence. It just means we'll see an uptick in stabbings or poisonings and the like.

I live in a nice area. The likelihood that my house will be broken into, or that an intruder will attack my family is remote...but we've seen bad things happen in nice places before. I can't believe that given the choice, some of you would take away my right to defend my family. It is completely irrational.

Oh, and the Police in Newtown have confirmed that there were 2 pistols (A Glock and a Sig) and a .223 semi-auto rifle (bushmaster) found in the school, while a 12 gauge shotgun was found in the trunk. Take it for what it's worth.

Nobody is talking about disarming people - Only in putting restrictions into what guns those are.

The chances are a handgun will be most peoples weapon of choice. Nobody wants to eliminate hand guns, that is a scare tactic used to sell more guns.

As much of an ass as Biden made of himself, he is somewhat right, in most every case where someone might consider a semiautomatic assault style weapon a shot gun would actually work better.

If you miss you aren't going to kill your neighbor across the street. In a high adrenaline situation of an attacker, or even several attackers, a shotgun is more likely to hit the target. When that shot gun goes off the sound itself will send people running.

The reality is if you need a gun they probably already have one aimed at you.

And hitting what you aim at.

Most of the people who want to ban guns are the ones who make over $100,00 and can afford to pay a cop to stand guard 24/7.

I don't make more than $100k, but I really don't think that amount of money goes as far as you think.

If some people had they way everything deemed "not good" would be banned. Including free speech, tasty food, cars, and sharp knives.

$100,000? LOL

Sorry, but you can't afford personal bodyguards if you only make a $100K. More like $1,000,000/yr. Then you might be able to afford to hire one, but even a $1 million/yr. doesn't make you rich...Comfortable yes but not rich.

Gneisenau

If some people had they way everything deemed "not good" would be banned. Including free speech, tasty food, cars, and sharp knives.

If you cannot figure out how to use free speech, tasty food, cars, and sharp knives other that to kill lots of folks in a public place, maybe you should turn in your guns.

@tex2c2

If you cannot figure out how to use free speech, tasty food, cars, and sharp knives other that to kill lots of folks in a public place, maybe you should turn in your guns.

Since the vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens who have figured out how to use their guns without killing lots of folks in public and/or private places then they should be allowed to keep their guns.

I'm glad that you finally agree that people should be allowed to own & keep their guns.

Since the vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens who have figured out how to use their guns without killing lots of folks in public and/or private places then they should be allowed to keep their guns.

There are gun owners who are not law abiding. I would say the most common crime that is never prosecuted is one of vandalism. Ever seen a sign with bullet holes in it? I also knew a Google engineer and he was always complaining about hunters shooting his antennas.

Yes your vast majority of gun owners will never do wrong. But the juvenile acts of adult gun owners can really contribute to a bad perception. Further contributing to this bad perception are folks who talk tough, in which they freely admit that they'd break the law in a certain situation. Further contributing to this bad perception are the folks who are loud and proud of their irresponsible ownership.

@ Eric the inbred

Why dont you take a walk off the edge? If you want to live a certain way, so be it. I will not infringe upon your right to do so. But do not attempt to tell me how to live. And your use of the term "Redneck Rambos" was uncalled for. I have the upmost respect for any peace officer, even my own local sheriff, who states that they will not enforce any laws attempting to remove weapons from law abiding citizens.

Eric,

My first loyalty is to Almighty God, I do not bow down to the Almighty State. When the government violates my God-given right to self-defense, then the words on paper of the Constitution no longer have any force. Free Men have the duty to rise up and overthrow tyrants; there is no virtue in blind loyalty to a corrupt government or in obeying unjust laws just to feel that you are "a good citizen".

You also can't pass laws when the law itself restricts it. Like say oh the constitution and that pesky "shall not be infringed" thing..

The hypocirsy is amazing. States can't pass laws restricting the federal government because the constitution says .. but then ignoring that the constitution says that the feds and the states cannot pass any firearm laws. But hey.... You don't like that part we'll just make arguments like "milita" without looking up the legal definition and then when called out say "well-regulated" and then when shown that congress regulates the heck out of us, well hey.. "its a dumb piece of paper poopy head"

Like say oh the constitution and that pesky "shall not be infringed" thing..

But in the 2nd Amendment, there is also a 'well-regulated' thing as well. Sorry...reality is a hard thing to get your head wrapped around when you see the world only from an ideologue's NRA sales promotion stance.

Let me help you out and save you some time. just move forward to calling me a poopy head and the constitution an old piece of paper that should be tossed because that's where all people that lose this argument go.

Tex2c2. Congress regulates us to the point of telling us how much water we can flush down the toilet. This is the same path every uninformed idiot anti-gunner takes.

We are well regulated by congress. That regulation doesn't pertain to the arms, but to the militia itself. If you don't think being told how much water we can use to flush our feces down the toilet is 'well regulated" than I'd really would hate it if you were in charge.

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

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

So sad Eric that you feel that all gun owners are traitors....... like the rebels that freed us from the tyrany of England............?

You insult your own inteligence by "assuming" such things. I, like over a million other gun owners have never seen the need to raise my gun in anger or (until now) even thought of tyrany as a reason to own a gun. I am an avid hunter... spend thousands a year as a member of Ducks Unlimited and other organizations. These very organizations preserve wetlands, train hunters and are a vital part of the economy. Have you done your part to ensure the viability of wetlands, fund research to maintain herds and train hunters? Millions of us "traitors" have spent thousands a year to do just that. Our "traitorous" ways inject millions/billions into our economy. The taxes and fees we pay for hunting licenses, training courses and permits... allow those of you who choose not to partake.... the beautiful and vital wetlands, research into diseases that affect wild animals.... and parks that your $5 entrance fee isn't even enough to cover the porta-potty emptying....

Ignorant, broad statements like yours... are why we have re-elected a president who has been proud owner of a lowered credit rating, record debt and taken the "shame" out of food stamps... all while bailing out failed business models and rewarding stupidity.

And Ted... let's not forget that the gov't regulates our lightbulbs... you know... banning the old ones and requiring us to put those ugly, mercury filled ones in our house now......so we now have commodes we need to flush twice to be effective and toxic waste in the livingroom lamp......per the gov't....

We have way too many people interesting in PEOPLE CONTROL, this is a serious psychological disorder, these nuts need to be put away.

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

Megalomania is a psychopathological disorder characterized by delusional fantasies of power, relevance, or omnipotence. 'Megalomania is characterized by an inflated sense of self-esteem and overestimation by persons of their powers and beliefs'.^[1] Historically it was used as an old name for narcissistic personality disorder prior to the latter's first use by Heinz Kohut in 1968, and is used these days as a non-clinical equivalent.^[2][3] It is not mentioned in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)^[4] or the International Statistical Classification of Diseases (ICD).

@Ted...

Now, now, keep President Obama out of the discussion. :-)

Tex also shows his misunderstanding of the 2nd amendment. The courts have already declared, several times, the second amendment speaks of two different elements. The militia and the individual. Why do people spend so much time rehashing what has already been decided? It's always meant two different objects, it still means two different objects, and it will in the future until traitors take over the SCOTUS. At that point you can be sure all hell will break loose.

until traitors take over the SCOTUS

They already have. Under Reagan and the two Bushes, the SCOTUS was plagued with right wing Republican ideologues. There are no Democratic justices on the court. But the Republican ones admitted that they are part of a biased political party when they repeatedly attended Republican fundraisers over the last few years.

Please allow me to quote what the dissenting four justices thought about the most quoted case that the NRA thinks the 2nd Amendment gives individuals the right to overthrow the Constitution.

JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE SOUTER, JUSTICE GINSBURG, and JUSTICE BREYER join, dissenting:

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.

Guns are used to hunt, for self-defense, to commit crimes, for sporting activities, and to perform military duties. The Second Amendment plainly does not protect the right to use a gun to rob a bank; it is equally clear that it does encompass the right to use weapons for certain military purposes. Whether it also protects the right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunt- ing and personal self-defense is the question presented by this case. The text of the Amendment, its history, and our decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939), provide a clear answer to that question.

The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable

When the court returns to sanity (it does not look like there will be another Republican president let alone another Republican Justice any time soon) we will likely see the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment changed back to rationality. Get ready, at that point you gun zombies will have to decide if you are willing to run out into the cannon fire as traitors or accept the law of the land.

To show that at least one of the Republicans on the court is not sane:

Scalia: “Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached”

---- HELLO?!?!?

WOW! Sounds like the former USSR to me.

I always find it amusing that people who oppose stricter gun regulations on the grounds that their weapons provide them with a defense against a possible tyrannical police state are quick to propose an alternative to gun regulations in the form of armed guards and checkpoints in every public place, effectively creating a police state.

Apparently they have no sense of irony.

So you want a HILTER way of life??

Except that you're wrong on so many points its rediculous. We are far safer today than since 1967! Are schools are also safer. There is less crime of nearly ever type that existed since we've been keeping stats. I don't know what world you live in but I would move if I was you.

We are far safer today than since 1967! Are schools are also safer. There is less crime of nearly ever type that existed since we've been keeping stats

Well, "safer" is by definition a relative term and in this case quite ambiguous. Although the violent crime rate overall has been in decline, especially since the 80s, gun violence has not.

According to an article in the Berkeley Law School Scholarship Repository written in1968 entitled "Games with Guns and Statistics" by Franklin E. Zimring of the Berkeley School of Law, the average gun homicide rate from 1960 to 1965 was 2.7 per 100,000 population, and trending upward steadily. It currently stands at about 3.5 (between 3.21 and 3.7) depending on which statistical source you use. That's a huge increase - at least 20%.

Furthermore, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (of the DoJ) using data through 2005,

Homicides are most often committed with guns,especially handguns. Like the homicide rate generally, gun-involved incidents increased sharply in the late 1980's and early 1990's before falling to a low in 1999. The number of gun-involved homicides increased thereafter to levels experienced in the mid 1980's.During this same time period, homicides involving weapons other than firearms have declined slightly.

So, how's the weather on your planet?

;-)

Tim - You are absolutely wrong that gun violence has not been declining.

According to the DOJ Gun Homicide Victimization Rates per 100,000 (pg 148 of link)

1976 - 5.6

2005 - 3.8

We had some peaks to the mid 6.x around early 80s and then again early 90s but we've got the lowest rate for at least 30 years starting around the year 2000. I can't verify your 1960-1965 numbers, but using a cherry picked five year data set from 40 years ago isn't a reliable comparison.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/htius.pdf

JOE....I hope your in one of those "safe" zones when the criminals come knowing theres no guns around...

I was responding to the specific complaint, not cherry picking. You, on the other hand danced around the fact that gun violence has remained the same for over a decade, since 2000, and hasn't significantly declined at all. That's nearly a third of the time since 1967, and quite significant.

Funny how often we hear that same tired logic: "only the criminals will have guns, blah blah, blah. . . ".

Most of the perpetrators of the horrific violence exemplified by the Newtown shootings were not criminals until they committed their one infamous crime. Yes, jpoochoo and everyone else out there who subscribes to his all-or-nothing attitude, the criminals - burglars, hitmen, carjackers, gangbangers, etc., etc., ad nauseam - will always find a way to procure the tools of their trade. I think most of the people you characterize as 'liberal gun control freaks' recognize this immutable fact of violent crime-ridden America. We do not hope to diminish that kind of crime - although it would be a pleasant side effect; we only hope to be able to deny easy access to weapons used in mass murder to the mentally unstable, those most likely to commit such atrocities.

Distasteful as it is to admit this, I find myself agreeing with Wayne La Pierre on this point. The failure of our mental health system, in both diagnostics and treatment, bears a greater responsibility than the prevalence of guns for massacres like Newtown. But face it: with all the (alleged) crazies walking around, it's just too damned dangerous to allow them such easy access to carry out their senseless murders.

@ Eric

There are these minor things called HIPA laws.

I think you and many others can thank Dupont, Monsanto, Pfizer, and many others for their wide ranging help in poisoning us all.

You know that new drug they're selling on all the TV channels? I'm Brain Dead, will help you keep those demons out of your head. However, If you have episodes of wanting to kill everyone, stop taking "I'm Brain Dead(dumadowndaphibin) and call your Dr. immediately

Eric, you're uniformed, you need to do some serious reseach.

First <400 people are ever murdered with these normal and common rifles youre talking about each year.

WAY less than <100 people are ever murdered with an ar-15

CRIMINALS ARE THE PROBLEM!

30% of all murders in this country (3600) are done by someone that was convicted of murder, attempted murder, rape, attempted rape, kidnapping or attempted kidnapping and released.

Historically over the past 30 years 70-85% of all murders were done by a convicted felon on a convicted felon while committing a felony (other than the firearm/murder) That's between 8400 to 10200 out of 12000. Lets just take the conservative number . 3600 people were killed that weren't felons last year.. We don't know how many of that subgroup were justified or no. we don't know what killed that subgroup but lets assume that it is balanced. that means 2160 people WITHOUT felony where killed by someone with or without a felony and some had felony but where killed by someone without a felony with a firearm. Lets assume again fair share. that 70% of them were killed by someone with a felony (fair share). That leaves 648 innocent people killed by individuals without felonies from 12000!.. How about we don't let people out of jail with felonies? On average only 23 non felony people are murdered with a rifle by someone without a felony and at that only 6 with an ar-15. We obviously had a 2 years in a row that defied the averages but that happens to all averages.

Now all those numbers are nothing but fair share numbers, which means they can be way off but I always use the conservative numbers, I cannot adjust for overlap because that's not in the data the DOJ or FBI gives us.

Either way... Seriously. Not too many non-felons are killed doing nothing illegal at all by people without a history of crime.

Ill just sum up my mess.

in 2010 ~ ONLY 648 people without felony were murdered by persons without felony.

Of that only 23 were murdered by any type of rifle including these "Assualt rifles" and only 6 of them on average were by an ar-15.

We obviously saw a huge bump this year with sandy but if we made it additive that means 45 were murdered by rifle by people who didn't have a felony conviction, not engaged in a felony out of the 12,000 murdered every year its sort of ridiculous to even fantasize that and AWB is needed or would be effective at all in saving innocent lives.

It won't make a bit of impact.

Simply don't be e felon and don't hang around with them.

Want to lower the murder rate by 30%? Never let kidnappers, rapists and murders out of jail. Period. That would do far far more to protect lives.

Ok, you never mention where you're getting your numbers, but even if they are accurate and the vast majority of homicides are committed by felons (it doesn't matter if their victim is a felon or not), then a universal background check should have a major impact, because the vast majority of guns used to commit a crime are purchased within the current laws of the jurisdiction where they're bought and right now we don't do that.

Locking up all felons forever is simply not fair, it's not even practical. We already have the largest incarceration rate of any country in the world. (per the UNODC)

Yeah, I'm not gonna pay more taxes so more thugs can get three squares and shelter for life. Then people will intentionally commit crime to be provided for.

How about all the innocent people who are unarmed and have no chance of defending themselves who are slaughtered like sheep every day?

I have. How about 2 A.M. on a Friday night a few years ago, the wife and I were sitting in our living room watching a movie. The door was locked, but most of our lights were on. Then came a loud pounding on the front door and the handle shaking. A man in his mid-twenties was yelling through the door to let him in. Completely startled by this, I told my wife to call the police and I went to see what was going on. What did I do? I grabbed my AR15 and ran to look out the side window to see. The man was at the front door still beating on it and holding a gun in his left hand. I told my wife quietly to go into the back room and hide while talking to the police. I then stood in the hallway and yelled back at the man to leave. I also warned him that if he took one step into my house, I would shoot. Luckily he never did, but it took police nearly 10 minutes to get there. One of the most frightening 10 minutes of my life.

Does stuff like this get reported? Will you hear about these kind of things on tv? Newspapers? Internet? Unlikely. So yes, take your anti-gun propaganda and stick it.

What is the leftist sheep hangup about the NRA, how did that group become some kind of bad guy? It doesnt matter whether there was 50 or just one person who used a firearm for self-defense, it doesnt matter whether a firearm is ever used at all or ever needed for any purpose whatsoever. The leftist sheep is like the religious nut on the subject of abortion, no logic just ranting about something that is none of their business. You dont like firearms? Great, dont own one. You dont like abortion? Great, dont have one. In the mean time let your fellow citizen make up their own mind on the issue and stay out of other peoples life. You get right down to it, the individual against abortion has stronger ground to stand on than the anti-2nd amenment crowd. Using their logic there are many more (potential) lifes ended.

Another opinion from someone who hasn't had to deal with a burglar. Your opinion changes...

[quote]Ines-1159800

Excluding law enforcement officers and the military, find me a fifty people on any day in the U.S.

that have protected themselves or their family from death by using a legal handgun in a legal manner.

I say you can't. All the NRA types are blowing smoke.............. re self protection.

In 2011 54 million people used a gun to stop a crime.

there is talk of people rioting,,gov.t purchase of sniper rifles 308's and a billion bullets for use on us..and u want are guns ,,screw u

I have 3 friends who have each used a firearm in self defense on seperate occasions...

Friend 1: Was driving through an Indian Reservation at night time when he almost hit a ~12 yr old kid walking across the street. The kid was fully dressed in black and the streets were not lit. He was the only person on the road. He slammed on his brakes and the kid pulled out a gun and fired at him. His passenger window was blown out and the bullet exited his single cab truck through the sliding glass window (in other words, it was almost a homicide). My buddy pulled out his gun and shot back. He didn't hit the kid. He called the cops after the incident but the kid got away.

Friend 2: Just finished filling his car with gas and was sitting parked to fill out his gas mileage log. He noticed somone coming up to his car from the side view mirror holding a gun. He pulled out his gun and when the guy opened his car door for a carjacking my friend shot him.

Friend 3: My friend was in his bedroom just waking up in the middle of the day ( he was working nights). Just as he woke up someone came into his bedroom. He had his gun on his night stand and grabbed it and pointed it at the guy. The guy looked at him and the gun and just turned around and walked out.

There you go...

Ines, Maybe you should spend less time on here and more time reading the news then something that dumb wouldn't come out of your mouth.

Been there, done that.

We're living in a ground floor apt at the time and I'm awakened by noises. I wake my wife, tell her to call the police then hide in one of the closets. I grab my Rugar single 6 w/the 22 win mag cylinder and head to the noise. I discover a shadow on the curtains of someone trying to break into the sliding patio door. So I grabbed the curtain open with the gun aim right at the dudes head and ordered him to stop. He froze. No shots fired. Eventually he took a ride.

Uh.. Wow yes you can easily fish up more than 50 stories of people protecting themselves everyday with a firearm.. How about you do some googling yourself their smarty..

Well ines, not everyone lives in Wonderland.

I have 6 friends who used a gun to protect themselves and their wives from a drunk with a pipe who busted down their front door angry that they failed to invite him to their party. No shots were fired, the drunk was arrested at the scene 15 full minutes later, and everyone lived, had no injuries and went on with their lives.

Could they have taken him down without threatening him with guns? Yes. Uninjured? No. All alive? Maybe, maybe not.

win/win.

"I say you can't. All the NRA types are blowing smoke.............. re self protection."

Then by all means feel free during your next break-in to dial 911...and die.

@ Ines

Excluding law enforcement officers and the military, find me a fifty people on any day in the U.S. that have protected themselves or their family from death by using a legal handgun in a legal manner.

I say you can't. All the NRA types are blowing smoke.............. re self protection.

Congrats, you win top honors for the dumbest comment ever, as far as I'm concerned.

Guns save more lives than they take.

A study by Gary Kleck & Mark Gertz found that:

Guns were used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.

As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.

Anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.

Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606). And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high.

"Shall Not" is the wording "Will Not!" is the action. good post.