I like the idea, but I don't see how they can enforce it. I can just see the cop comming up and saying. SHOW ME YOUR GUN. I do know why they're trying to pass the law.

show me your gun?..........well there is a new cop in town and she is hot so,,,,,

( GM, CD, Mary)

She would say. What do you think your going to do with that BB gun. GM Tramp

mary

I can just see the cop comming up and saying. SHOW ME YOUR GUN.

Yea, then the cop shoots them.

If and when all the criminals know "everybody" was armed, they would think twice about a home invasion.

Two points:

First, this would attract criminals because they know they could get a gun breaking into any home when the homeowner isn't present.

Second, western Maine isn't exactly a high crime area. If you are the victim of a home invasion, odds are good you know who is breaking in.

CD,Exactly.

@different---- Your right but the lawyers will make some bucks. That's the way our system doesn't work.

every head of household to have a gun

I wonder how many head of households are in jail for violent gun offenses.

The scariest part of gun ownership is the uneducated, inexperienced person who just figured out which end of the barrel the bullet comes out is going to be considered a protector. These people also create the supply of guns for the criminal through their lack of concern and carelessness.

It's not necessarily a "Bigger Gun" Prokhor.....it's reaction time and the ready availability of the homeowners defensive weapon that wins the day. Bigger isn't always better. Availability is.

Take a look at Kennesaw, GA. Similar legislation was implemented back in the 1980's due to a growing crime concern spilling over from nearby Atlanta. The result was an instant reduction in crime within the city, and continues to be one of the safest cities in the country. There is no way to inforce that particular law, and another city just up the road Nelson, GA is passing the same thing. The proposal in Nelson gives residents who oppose guns the option of not having them. Criminals tend to stay away from an area that they know might have a gun waiting on the other side of the door.

If you but what you are saying then why did the NRA get so upset when some gun owners address where given out in NY.

Thing and facts show some one is most likely get into your house when you are not home. Maybe they will leave you a thank you note for that gun(s) they take. Maybe not.

dawg

The result was an instant reduction in crime within the city,

I keep hearing that argument. But I have never heard one person who can say what the crime rate was before the law and after. Do you know?

What I heard the other day spoke volumes of what is happening in this country. Friends of mine that never would have thought of owning a gun are going out and buying them. The idiots in congress and the moron mayors have accomplished the exact opposite of what they want.

SHOW ME YOUR GUN. I do know why they're trying to pass the law.

The law is meant to be symbolic, but I can't help but think there would actually be some dumbass trying to fine people for NOT having a firearm.

That's why you don't write dumb laws like this. They're set up to be abused.

dawgfan,

So the crime rate decreased during a time when the crime rate was decreasing nationwide. That isn't a very compelling argument.

All I know is that this country, and its people, and especially its gov'mint representatives... HAVE LOST THEIR FRIGGIN MINDS!

dawg

The result was an instant reduction in crime within the city,

Here you go dawg. I knew you wouldn't look it up.

"Kennesaw crime statistics report an overall upward trend in crime based on data from 11 years with violent crime increasing and property crime increasing. Based on this trend, the crime rate in Kennesaw for 2013 is expected to be higher than in 2010."

http://www.cityrating.com/crime-statistics/georgia/kennesaw.html#.UT3cqlfJJro

If and when all the criminals know "everybody" was armed, they would think twice about a home invasion.

or they wait until the person is not home and break in specifically to steal the firearm which will fetch a hefty price on the black market...

Great idea...It's time for ALL American to rise up and oppose a government that is trying to takeover every aspect of our daily lives. It is now running rampant in NY city where the mayor continues to place bans on the very things we eat and drink. Put a stop to it now.

Snakeeyes,

Usually with these laws there is a way out. Like you for instance. If you do not believen in gun ownership, then you are allowed to not own one. You never hear about citizens stopping crimes because it goes against everything MSNBC or CNN belives in. I'm a gun owner. I carry on a daily basis. I have drawn my weapon once in the many many years of carrying. I stopped a guy who was about to throw a brick at my head just so he could steal an Ipad I had just purchased and steal my car. I held him at gunpoint for 10 minutes waiting for police to show up. He's in prison for the next 15 years for his crime. I didn't pull the trigger because the the threat was over. Once he saw the business end of my 1911 he dropped to the ground. He cried and he begged for me to let him go because he was on parole for armed robbery. Since putting him in jail I have recieved threats from his homies, threats from his family, I have been called a racist, a redneck, a hillbilly, and trailer trash by them. All because I defended myself against an attacker.

This article and the ensuing comments brings out peoples' true colors.

Many right wingers who were all about more laxed gun laws were saying they wanted less government intervention in general. "Obama is like Hitler and Mussolini" blah blah blah. But when a law is proposed to force gun ownership on EVERYONE in a particular town, all of a sudden government intervention is a GREAT idea.

So, by his reasoning, he'll next try to pass a law making Christianity mandatory for all residents of his town, as a statement on the First Amendment's right to freedom of religion.

Let's put this in perspective. How about passing a law forcing everyone to have religion? Just because we are free to make choices doesn't mean we have to be forced to exercise that right! Why foster more paranoia in our society? We already have plenty.

flnobody,

Here you go dawg. I knew you wouldn't look it up.

"Kennesaw crime statistics report an overall upward trend in crime based on data from 11 years with violent crime increasing and property crime increasing. Based on this trend, the crime rate in Kennesaw for 2013 is expected to be higher than in 2010."

http://www.cityrating.com/crime-statistics/georgia/kennesaw.html#.UT3cqlfJJro

So what you're saying is that in a time when crime rates are at a historic low, this city is bucking the trend and seeing an increase in crime. Just spelling it out for anybody who isn't paying attention.

Actually the crime rate in Kennesaw has goine up and down over the years since the law has passed. Anybody cand look up the crime rate posted by the city. It's not a big thing and obviously their imfamous gun law hasn't made much of a difference. You would have to do a lot of twisting to make an argument one way or another.

Unconstitutional.

Of course a law like this is completely unenforceable. You can not force someone to buy a weapon. This is why the Kennesaw, GA ordinance had an opt out provision for people who object to firearms. With the opt out clause the ordinance becomes nothing more than symbolic, which is the real intent anyway. What they should do is include a mandatory firearm safety class to go along with the gun ownership, that way you at least have a chance of keeping people from hurting themselves or others unintentionally with the weapon once they purchase it. Personally, I think a class on firearm safety should be mandatory for anyone purchasing a firearm for the first time.

Yet the libs have no problem with a law forcing everyone to buy health insurance.

I have a huge problem when only half the population is paying for insurance, and then when somebody without insurance gets injured, it ends up making everyone's premiums go up.

Comparing guns to health insurance is idiotic.

J.C.-1016889,

Yet the libs have no problem with a law forcing everyone to buy health insurance.

Yes, God forbid the government wants people to be insured. But hey since you're ok with the government requiring everyone to own a gun, mandatory health insurance and mandatory gun ownership laws seem like a match made in heaven. With more people getting shot, they're gonna be happy they have health insurance.

pragmatic

So what you're saying is that in a time when crime rates are at a historic low, this city is bucking the trend and seeing an increase in crime. Just spelling it out for anybody who isn't paying attention

I'm not trying to say anything. I just cut and pasted an FBI crime report for Kennesaw, GA. For anybody who is paying attention. You can read it for yourself.

If you read the stats the increase is in PROPERTY CRIME not VIOLENT Crime..

Murder, assault, and other Crime are far below GA and USA Averages..

Way to twist the stats though...good job

Now we know who is really interested in freedom. We know who the real tyrants are.

Hey can they make a law forcing everyone to buy my cupcakes?
THe NRA is soooooo clever.
Want to get rich? Just make a law forcing everyone to buy your product!

BINGO!

And I thought it was bad when they were just spreading paranoia and hysteria!

(000ps! Double post!)

Jerry-2304288

If you but what you are saying then why did the NRA get so upset when some gun owners address where given out in NY.

Thing and facts show some one is most likely get into your house when you are not home. Maybe they will leave you a thank you note for that gun(s) they take. Maybe not.

#1.13 - Mon Mar 11, 2013 9:15 AM EDT

Jerry,

It's hard to follow your post the way your punctuation jumps all over but to answer your question on why the NRA (not to mention homeowners) were pissed off is simple...

When they posted the people who owned guns, they inadvertently also showed the people who didn't. (process of elimination).

Now, the criminals know "who" does not own a gun and will target their house and stay away from the gun owners houses.

SnakeEyes23

Creek Dog: You're an imbecile. How about my right NOT to own a gun. If you want to own one, fine. But I shouldn't be mandated to own one, or not own one. BTW, I never owned a piece in my life. And fortunately, my home has never been broken into. BTW, I rarely hear any stories of a so called "law abiding" citizen ever stopping a criminal w/ a gun. Let alone a "law abiding" gun owning citizen preventing a criminal from shooting up a public place, and killing a lot of people. You're just an easily frightened and paranoid schizophrenic gun nut. BTW, when you apply for a job. You're subject to a mandatory criminal background check. Why can gun sales be subject to the same kind of laws?

#1.16 - Mon Mar 11, 2013 9:25 AM EDT

Snake,

Easily frightened and paranoid schizophrenic gun nut imbecile here,

First off, do you "always" have to call someone you do not agree with, "names". Huh? This just shows your true personality right off the bat.

This is the way I see it,

You; Someone kicks in your front door while you, your wife and kids are watching TV. You have "ZERO" protection against their gun. Of course, outside of your chest as you dive in front of your family to protect them.

There may be two of them. One ties up you and your kids. The other, drags you into your master bedroom so you can watch them systematically "rape" your wife. (and hopefully, leave your children alone).
When they are finished with your wife, and taking all your belongings, you're praying that they don't put a bullet in your head.

My opinion..........If I were "you" I'd "wish" they did after what I've been through.... If not, family counseling will last quite a few months if nt, years....

Me; Someone kicks in my front door while my wife, kids and I are watching TV.

I reach to my side, put one between his, (their) eyes, and my wife is on the phone calling 911 for someone to come clean up the mess.

Counseling for us will only last a few weeks.

Bottom line is, don't own a gun if you don't want to. Nobodies holding a "gun" to your head.. Heh heh...

I'll carry for the rest of my life with confidence.

Now you have a nice day and don't forget that little yellow pill. ;-)

I used to live in a small rural town that was big on hunting and I was the weirdo for not owning a gun. Crime was still prevelant. Break in's, burglary, murders, these all still occured. Arming an entire town doesn't prevent crime totally.

Pragmatic-3918582

dawgfan,

So the crime rate decreased during a time when the crime rate was decreasing nationwide. That isn't a very compelling argument.

You see, that is EXACTLY how most anti-ANYTHING people react. They ask for the facts. They are GIVEN the facts. Then they promptly DISPUTE and/or REFUTE the facts. What a bunch of dip wads.

Hell I used to live in Maine and I'll admit I did have a Gun under my pillow, but I just don't get trying to force people to have one.

Guns don't commit crimes, nor do guns make you safer. We as a society must choose whether to inflate ourselves to a "gun society" (taking us back to the lawless era of the 1800's) or a society where power is based less on guns and more on intelligence and morality (yes, a progressive view).

Gun stats vary by locale as do opinions on guns. People that live in close quarters (i.e. city folks) see a gun in every pocket as a liability. There's only one use for a gun in a city... and it's not hunting deer. Shovel more guns into a city environment and violence goes up, not down. People feel and ARE more protected by the sheer numbers of neighbors and rely less on violence and physical power than in the country. And THAT is why guns divide us politically.

In rural environments, where guns have REAL other uses and where physical prowess plays much higher in the survival game, guns are more accepted and even needed. You can't blame a family or single man or woman for packing for protection out in the middle of nowhere, can we? Guns are more normal, more accepted, are passed down through generations, are respected, and are generally handled correctly in rural areas (most of this country).

Recognizing the differences of the above, and recognizing that FACTS support both notions, might actually help us get through this. Both are right but neither is applicable everywhere.

Anyone else want to jump to the middle on this one?

I wonder if I could post a comment on the article instead of calling someone an imbecile? I'll give it a try, here goes:

Everything in life is a trade-off. In order to have instant access to a gun to defend yourself, you risk leaving a loaded gun out where someone (e.g., a child or a burglar) can get to it. OTOH, an unloaded gun locked in a gun safe is not much of a defense weapon, is it? Personally I own a pistol and rifle, both of which are unloaded (and the pistol is in a gun safe) when not in use, because I mostly use them for target practice. So I don't think of them as self-defense weapons. However, my hubby has a concealed carry permit, and now that our kids are grown he does keep a loaded gun in the nightstand. Of course, it needs to be put away when the grandkids come over - like I said, trade-off.

As for the idea that a gun locked in a gun safe will keep guns out of the hands of burglars, well our first gun safe was stolen by burglars - nothing's guaranteed.

Armed? What next? Legged? Everyone armed and legged. Next thing you know they'll be walking around with eyes and stuff......

If I only had a brain......

Ebeneser Howard

All you lefty liberal nutties who are crying out that this is unconstitutional...SHUT YOUR MOUTHS!

And you wonder why someone might want to keep an assault weapon and/or 31 round clip out of your hands?

You don't have a lock on the reading or interpretation of the Constitution, no matter how much you use CAPS-LOCK. LOL

How did all of the 2nd Amendment talk come about again? Elementary kids are killed at school. High school kids are killed at school. People are killed while attending a movie. I thought these were the reasons for the gun control conversations? All I ever read are people saying their 2nd Amendment rights are being threatened, NOT taken away, but threatened. No serious suggestions on how to solve/avoid the scenarios listed above. Just a bunch of political name calling. I thought those kids were the victims, not gun owners? I live in Colorado. I own several guns. Scare tactics don't work on me (sorry NRA). Statistically speaking, there's a greater chance of someone shooting my niece (13 years old) at school, than the government taking my guns. That the point.

Sam,

This article leaves out many key facts. Like the opt out provisions. Obviously felons by law can not have a firearm. Then you have the people that by their beliefs do not agree with firearm ownership, and therefore can't be forced to own one.

I get a boot out of libs. Forced to buy health insurance? No problem. Forced to buy a gun? Unconstitutional. Illegals voting? No problem. Showing you are entitled to vote? Unconstitutional. Obama's wars in Libya and Afghanistan? No problem. Bush's war in Iraq? Unconstitutional. See a pattern here?

Flip it all around and you've got conservatives. It goes both ways.

I have no desire to take a gun away from a sane, law abiding citizen. That is their right.

I have chosen to not own a gun. That is my right.

The guy introducing this legislation is not making a statement about gun control-he is taking away the rights of people to make this choice.

Gun Owners are more likely to be involved in a weapons related crime than non gun owners.

I would refuse this on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. I will never own a gun.

Want to break into my house when I am at home? Good luck. I already have plans for you. The police won't be called for a few hours after the fact. Then it's going to be your story vs. mine. I am just going to say you fell coming into the house and you struggled with me so I had to restrain you and maybe that's why all of your joints are out of socket and all of your major bones are broken.

It's only when the socialist dictator attacked our Second Amendment right that this become an issue to argue

This is the vapid language of the Far Right. They don't even deserve a seat in the discussions. Not a "patriot" among them, quite the opposite. Please explain how your right to bear arms as part of a "well regulated militia" has in any way been infringed? Of course it might help you to have at least one functioning synapse in order to reply.

But again I will never ever own a gun. Guns are for p-ss---!

Why is it that the biggest supporters of banning guns in politics are Jewish?? Why the correlation? Why the loudest or most recognized in the media are Jewish?? This is more than coincidence to me. Hitler took peoples guns away as he knew it would be incredibly difficult if not possible keeping them armed....funny how history comes around full circle isn't it.

Everybody please keep in mind that if Maine (and other like minded states) had not reelected obama for a second term, this topic of conversation would be moot.

I don't think so, because Obama being defeated would in no way have prevented Newtown, CT shootings, thus opening up the discussion.

It's only when the socialist dictator attacked our Second Amendment right that this become an issue to argue.

The checks and balances seem to be working just fine. Because no new laws are getting through. If he's a dictator, he's a pretty lousy one letting Congress boss him around like that.

Just as the right wingnuts claim it is unconstitutional to force people to buy health insurance, it would be unconstitutional to force people to buy a gun.

Here in Wyoming Governor Meade passed a law giving any idiot the right to carry a loaded firearm. Since that law was passed I have had no less than 3 spineless weasels threaten me with guns. The first simply because I laughed at him for carrying a gun into ace hardware in a town that already had zero crime. Is that the purpose of laws like this? So small men can feel BIG?

Many years ago my home was broken into and all of my guns were stolen by people who later used them to commit violent crimes, I have not owned a gun since then and I do not feel the need to. Men who carry guns all the time are so afraid of their own shadow that they are constantly looking for a reason to use it. With many of these wannbe rambos, like the one in Ace Hardware, they use their gun to bolster their ego, flashing it every chance they get in a weak attempt to prove they are a man, when in fact they are nothing more than a scared little boy.

Guns are for girls!! and the next one of you spineless losers who puts your hand on the hilt of your pistol in a threatening manner around me will get it taken away and shoved up your ass.

Is there a rash of criminality in this small town or have the residents become hopelessly paranoid because of scare tactics?

Funny how when Obamacare forces people to buy private health insurance, people are angry. When the govt forces you to own a privately-made gun, people welcome it.

Funny how forcing every American citizen to buy healthcare is constitutional, but forcing a head of household to purchase a gun is not.

It's as though we have reverted to 1660, and there are fierce Indians at our doors ( upset cuz we stole their lands and hunting grounds etc.), or that pirates were making inland attacks, or there were bears outside, or marauding English soldiers on the attack....so this is the USA in 2013...full of fear and armed to the teeth..

Forced gun ownership is just as unconstitutional as banning gun ownership.

Creek Dog

If and when all the criminals know "everybody" was armed, they would think twice about a home invasion.

No, they wouldn't. Thanks to the MANDATORY law, they are also armed and will bring it with them, of course. If he comes in in the middle of the night, who's going to be a better shot? The wide awake guy who knows he's coming into an armed household, or the just waking, surprised homeowner that maybe hasn't got his glasses on. That's what it's going to come down to - if someone wants to break in, they are going to break in. It doesn't matter if they do it while you are out (possibly taking your gun, so that you are now a violator because you don't have a gun), or if they do it while you are there and they have the element of surprise on their side - after all, THEY know they are going in and the owner has a gun; you will be surprised, and you don't know if they do or not.

Incidentally, when you're going after Jerry - consider that he's using his punctuation just fine. If you can't read what he wrote, perhaps it's you with the problem.

Ebeneser Howard

All you lefty liberal nutties who are crying out that this is unconstitutional...SHUT YOUR MOUTHS! You know nothing of the Constitution nor do you care about it. If you want to talk about being unconstitutional just take a look in the mirror you fools. You're privilage of being protected under the U.S. Constitution was revoked the second you decided to shred it and toss it in the trash.

Ebeneser: If you have a right to talk about keeping your guns under the second amendment, then they have the right to not have a gun under the same amendment - it doesn't REQUIRE gun ownership, and the US has never required ANYONE to own anything. It IS unconstitutional to require someone to make a purchase under US law. That was the whole issue with Obamacare - if you remember - the GOP said it was unconstitutional to require the purchase of the insurance and fine if you do not, while the Democrats said that it wasn't a fine, it was a tax. Additionally, at no time did the President ever consider a flat out gun ban on all guns - only assault weapons, certain types of ammo, and clips. It was all NRA hype that your guns were going to be taken away. I think that if you want to own an assualt weapon, you can - but only if you join the military and use them when you go to war. There is nothing you need an assault weapon for in the US - you don't need it for hunting because if you need that many shots, you need to practice your aim. You don't need armor piercing rounds unless deer are wearing flak jackets now.

I do not believe that this law should be allowed to pass. If you force someone to own a gun, you cannot force him to learn to use it. Someone who does not know how to use a gun is a dangerous individual. A regular citizen with a gun is no substitute for a trained policeman, and if you're saying that you want to substitute an armed citizen for a trained policeman, you might as well put a lot of money in the bank now because the minute some idiot kills someone, there will be a law suit because you didn't provide training for that person to be the law. Also, you will have someone who says if you require a gun, then you should also PAY for that gun.

Dawgfan who wrote

"This article leaves out many key facts. Like the opt out provisions. Obviously felons by law can not have a firearm. Then you have the people that by their beliefs do not agree with firearm ownership, and therefore can't be forced to own one."

So what is the point of passing a law that everyone ops out on? Your now left exactly what is on the book currantly. Seems silly dont it?

deprogrammer

Men who carry guns all the time are so afraid of their own shadow that they are constantly looking for a reason to use it. They use their gun to bolster their ego, flashing it every chance they get in a weak attempt to prove they are a man, when in fact they are nothing more than a scared little boy.

I have had no less than 3 spineless weasels threaten me with guns.

#1.64 - Mon Mar 11, 2013 10:46 AM EDT

Do not stereotype me tough guy. Or gal, whatever....

Then there are guys like "me". You will not even know I am carrying until you force me to protect myself.

You're just another clueless "Anti-Anything that you don't agree with" person puffing out your chest. Pfft...LOL

You totally crack me up with your comments man. LMFAO.... Why The Fk didn't you call the cops and have those guys arrested that threatened you?! OMG man........

I've been around thousands of people who carry in my lifetime and I haven't had that happen to me once.... Not even remotely once...

You're bull @!$%#ting just to push your agenda along with your posse.... Good luck with your Karate...

I can see you now when some perp is pointing a gun at you demanding your money....

You'd be like, standing on one leg, one knee up, holdng your arms out up over you head while doing your "Drunken Monkey" act and voicing.... "Waaaaaah, Yaaaaah, iyahhhh!" while they stand there laughing their asses off. Heh heh..... Too funny man...

Hey. it may work and they'll just walk away laughing while shaking their heads...

Forced gun ownership is just as unconstitutional as banning gun ownership.

Only an idiot wouod think otherwise.

It's funny, the left wants everyone to have access to Health Care, the right wants everyone packing heat. Puts a punctuation mark on it all, doesnt it.

I an going to use my 2nd Amendment right and buy a musket, the gun our forefathers were familiar with when they wrote the Constitution.

@Creek Dog

You actually believe you are that good a shot? Using your own hypothetical above, what if there are two shooters and while you're playing a Rambo wannabe, your wife is getting shot in her back while dialing 911 or one of your kids is getting mowed down while you are THINKING you're that good still sitting in that easy chair! Give us a break. Rambo wasn't even that good and this is not a movie. Get over yourself already.

Mark??? Really? What part of the post did you read? It said BOTH violent and property crimes were on the rise. There was no % given, but somehow you read that into the story.

Dawg, that is pure bull&^$% about MSN not reporting when someone stops a crime or shooting spree with a gun. It isn't reported because it doesn't happen (not saying individuals haven't stopped individual crimes like you quoted). I"m sure many a fight has been stopped by whipping out a gun. Arizona is an open carry state. Did anyone pull a gun when the guy shot Gabbie Giffords????? Colorado has open carry.. did anyone pull a gun in the school shoot out? Movie theater?

Any finally I can't find the name of person who posted, but PALEEEEZE show me where Obama started the war in Afganistan??? Libya???? The ONLY war stared by a Prez was the one in Iraq and it was by Bushwhacked... Troops were already in Afganistan when O took office. He did increase troop numbers, but now they are coming back. He started no war. Sheeesh. The wingnuts are out in force today.

Just as the right wingnuts claim it is unconstitutional to force people to buy health insurance, it would be unconstitutional to force people to buy a gun.

I laughed hard at this. Did you read the article? It said that the law was simply to make a statement.

Here in Wyoming Governor Meade passed a law giving any idiot the right to carry a loaded firearm. Since that law was passed I have had no less than 3 spineless weasels threaten me with guns. The first simply because I laughed at him for carrying a gun into ace hardware in a town that already had zero crime. Is that the purpose of laws like this? So small men can feel BIG?

I am ex-Marine Recon and did five tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have a purple heart and have been shot once and IED'd once. I carry a gun. I guess Im a spineless weasel? I live in Idaho. Everyone carries a gun here, even women. No one has done the act that you say 3 spineless weasels did in your town. Did you stop for a minute to think maybe its your demographics? Maybe you are part of the problem?

I can almost guarantee that there is ZERO crime in your town because of right to carry a firearm and of course you are going to carry one loaded numbnuts, how else would you do it? Anyone who doesnt carry one responsibly should be Im sure would be charged with a crime and would be restricted from carrying one in the future. This means that the law enforcement is ineffective, not the gun law. Get a clue.

Many years ago my home was broken into and all of my guns were stolen by people who later used them to commit violent crimes, I have not owned a gun since then and I do not feel the need to. Men who carry guns all the time are so afraid of their own shadow that they are constantly looking for a reason to use it. With many of these wannbe rambos, like the one in Ace Hardware, they use their gun to bolster their ego, flashing it every chance they get in a weak attempt to prove they are a man, when in fact they are nothing more than a scared little boy.

Many years ago my house got broken into while my family was home by some meth heads looking to steal what they could for their habit. A dog, a knife wielded by my wife and our alarm did nothing to deter the invaders until I pointed by Mossberg 500 at them. I cant imagine what would have happened without out. The police showed up 50 minutes later. The confrontation was over in less than 7 minutes. Your logic is actually more about the populace and not gun owners.

Guns are for girls!! and the next one of you spineless losers who puts your hand on the hilt of your pistol in a threatening manner around me will get it taken away and shoved up your ass.

I have a hard time believing your story. I checked and every state has a law against showing a gun in aggression or threatening another person with it. They would have been jailed not going around town committing this act over and over. I would never brandish my weapon if you angered me, only if you threatened my family with deadly harm. I would love to see you try and shove something up my ass Im pretty sure you would join several of the insurgents rotting in what was left of Fallujah, Iraq.

Deebo,

It's more symbolic than actual forced ownership. Forcing ownership would be unconstitutional. That's why there are opt out clauses, at least in the GA cities. On the other hand the town is known to have required gun ownership, and criminals would make a second thought before entering a house illegally.

SnakeEyes23,

I know you're a lib so Ill excuse your ignorance this time. You never hear of people using their guns to defend themselves? Then it must not occur. Except for the fact that even Clinton's administration found that people use guns 1.5 million times a year to defend themselves. Areas with more legal gun owners have less crime, and criminals are deterred from committing crimes if they think the person has a gun. So guns are used 100X more in defense than in all violent crime combined. Libs like to ignore facts if it gets in the way of their control. Stop goose stepping along with comrade obama and you might see how foolish your post is.

dawgfan,

It's more symbolic than actual forced ownership.

The symbolism is lost on me. Making something a requirement, even with opt-out clauses does not make it a freedom anymore.

TruthBeTold61

Only if you're well trained, as I am. Yes, I "AM" that good of a shot. One shot, one kill. USMC, look it up. Check out Riley's post at #1.77

What frightens me is the person who purchases a hand-gun for protection without knowing how to use it.

Now, if they killed us all, then I'd rather us all be dead than to survive with the knowledge of having them rape my wife and children while forcing me to watch.

Now, you have a nice day...

CD

LMarcT

Guns don't commit crimes, nor do guns make you safer. We as a society must choose whether to inflate ourselves to a "gun society" (taking us back to the lawless era of the 1800's) or a society where power is based less on guns and more on intelligence and morality (yes, a progressive view).

First of all, show me that stats on the 'gun society and lawless era'. Looks like you want to beleive what you see in all the westerns as gospel. If that is true, then the good guy always won.

Second stating the 'progressives' as being 'intelligent or moral' is an oxymoron.

Intelligence is based on knowledge of fact. Since progressives hate facts and base all their decisions on 'feelings', they cannot fall into that catagory.

Morality? Liberal progressives have not had any of that since they threw God out of schools, legalized abortions, and elected Obama.

Fly Me

Show us the facts showing any law abiding gun owner proved to be involved in a weapons related crime and I will show you a criminal. Your comment is out of place and totally ignorant. Anyone involved in a 'crime' is a 'criminal' get it?

Show me one person ever convicted of a Gun Crime that was an NRA menber. There have never been any. If there had been there would not be enough time in the day for the progressives to fill the airwaves using that individual to bash and destroy the NRA.

And to all you idiots that think the NRA makes it's money from Gun Sales, get a clue. The NRA doesn't 'sell' guns or ammo. They have members and contributors that are in those businesses, but the bulk of their funds come the average member. THey do more to promote firearms saftey, training, and education than any of the progrssives or the socialist in the White House and congress put together. They support law enforcement and the Military also more than those in the groups listed above.

Take a flying leap if you think you are going to impact crime one bit by your progressive stance. All you are going to accomplish is getting more innocent children and others killed and use those tragedies to continue additional infringement on our rights until there are no rights.

IMO, mandatory gun ownership is just as ridiculous as Westford MA attempting to completely ban guns. But it is ironic that the criminals will stay out of Byron and will head to Westford.

Did the dumb bus come in from Stupidville! I have never read more moronic, ignorant and ill informed comments in one place. Condensed: GRANNY GET YOUR GUN that Negro, Socialist, Communist, Nazi, Tree Hugging, Pinko, Liberal, Homo loving, Yankee, Foreigner Obama is going to getch... you, getch... you bad! Honestly, there not going to take your guns away, let me repeat that... there not going to take your guns away, one more time... there not going to take your guns away! Both the administration and sane Americans want background checks (did you know you can buy guns if your on the Terrorist Watch and No Fly List at gun shows) and a prohibition against high capacity magazines. A 100 bullet drum is for killing as many people and in the shortest time possible... not for self defense, hunting and target practice! And if I hear one more time that "only criminals will have them" let me give you a brief but succinct history lesson... Law Enforcement and a Civil Society banned Machine Guns back in the late 20's and you no who has Machine Guns now... NO ONE!

AYUP!!!!

Just about that time of year when "cabin fever" starts setting in and then it's Town Meeting season.

AYUP!!!!

All the Town whack-jobs emerge from hibernation and start putting their communal frustration with a world they have little relevance in and little understanding of, and nonsense like this gets put on the Warrant list. It will keep them occupied for hours debating it, and weeks after it moaning about it.

Sabattus, Byron, which town is next? Estcourt Station (pop. 4) ?? (oops, they're "unorganized" and in Big Twenty Township)

Tank

Law Enforcement and a Civil Society banned Machine Guns back in the late 20's and you no who has Machine Guns now... NO ONE!

#1.84 - Mon Mar 11, 2013 11:32 AM EDT

I don't know where you're getting your information from, but whoever it is, has you eating right out of the palm of their hand dude....

Apparently this guy has a right to 'bear arms'. If you're going to make a sign about anything, you should probably check your spelling and grammar.

wivesfan,

Dawg, that is pure bull&^$% about MSN not reporting when someone stops a crime or shooting spree with a gun. It isn't reported because it doesn't happen (not saying individuals haven't stopped individual crimes like you quoted). I"m sure many a fight has been stopped by whipping out a gun. Arizona is an open carry state. Did anyone pull a gun when the guy shot Gabbie Giffords????? Colorado has open carry.. did anyone pull a gun in the school shoot out? Movie theater?

There were a couple people at the Gabbie shooting who had guns, but did not fire because there was no clear line of sight. Schools are gun free zones. Any law abiding citizen will be unarmed. The movie theater has signs posted that says no firearms. Under CO law, even with a CWP it is a violation of state law to carry inside a movie theater, so no lawful citizen would have been armed.

When a gunman entered U.S. Rep. Leonard Boswell’s home, attacked his daughter and demanded money, Boswell ran to the entryway and attempted to disarm the suspect. “When you see one of the people that you love very much, you see they’re in that kind of danger, why, you have to do something,” Boswell said. Perhaps the intruder would’ve picked a different home had he known Boswell is an NRA A-rated Democrat. As Boswell struggled with the man, his 22-year-old grandson retrieved a shotgun and trained it on the intruder. The suspect fled the home. (FoxNews.com, 07/17/11)

Police raced to the scene of a burglary in progress following the homeowner’s frantic 9-1-1 call. Officers were not able to arrive fast enough to prevent the crime, but fortunately the homeowner had a backup plan: armed self-defense. The burglar entered the home, but his progress was stopped by several gunshots. When police arrived, he was already dead. (CBS Los Angeles, 08/04/11)

A 68-year-old grandmother was lying in bed when she was startled by the sound of someone breaking in. So she got up and grabbed her .410 shotgun, a gun she’s kept for self-defense for many years, a gun she was never sure she could actually use on a human being and didn’t want to find out. However, when her French doors flew open and her burglar alarm went off, that was all it took—mortal fear—and she fired upon the three men. Her first volley of bird shot struck one suspect in the face and a second suspect was struck in the chest. All three men fled and are in police custody. At least one had been armed, as police found his handgun’s magazine in the yard. The woman received many calls and e-mails cheering her actions. “One of them said ‘Go Granny Go’,” she recalled. “I don’t consider myself old, but apparently everyone else does.” (WTVF-TV, Nashville, TN, 08/01/11)

Upon stopping at an intersection, a motorist noticed a man approaching. Before he could react, the man reached through the window and punched him several times. Stunned by the blows, the motorist reached for his handgun, for which he has a permit to carry. As his attacker reached behind his back, as if for a weapon, the motorist drew his gun and fired a shot, striking the assailant in the upper torso. The suspect will be charged following his release from the hospital. (WJXT-TV, Jacksonville, FL, 07/15/11)

When Ronald Bracey awoke to his wife’s screams, he leapt from bed, got his handgun and stepped out of the bedroom where, to his immense terror, two men were holding guns to his wife’s head. The men wore hats that read “police,” but Bracey knew immediately that these were no officers of the law. He opened fire, expending eight rounds in succession and striking one of his wife’s attackers. The two men fled and were joined by a pair of accomplices. That evening police K-9 units found three of the four suspects. (Marco Eagle, Marco Island, FL, 07/26/11)

A petite Days Inn clerk prepared the hotel’s breakfast, unaware that a career criminal more than double her size lay in wait to ambush her. The suspect sprang on the woman and put a knife to her throat, intent, police believe, on robbery and sexual assault. The suspect put his knife down and prepared to tie up the woman, but his plan was never completed. The clerk drew a handgun and shot her assailant once in the chest, killing him. “She did the correct thing—she protected herself,” said Richland County, S.C., Sheriff Leon Lott. “The lesson for robbers is, you never know when you are going to encounter someone who is armed and will protect themselves. The bottom line—he is the one who caused him to get killed.” (The State, Columbia, S.C., 07/25/11)

Here’s a story of an intruder who had a really bad day, even by criminal standards. He was in the midst of a burglary, rifling through drawers and cabinets in the kitchen when he was discovered by the homeowner. Panicked, he grabbed a knife. For a moment he reached for the homeowner’s children, but the homeowner grabbed a claw hammer and nearly removed a chunk from the suspect’s hide as he fled the home. A neighbor observed the suspect running full-tilt down the street. The suspect’s next move was to hijack a car. Bad move. The driver, a concealed-carry permit holder, shot the suspect three times in the lower torso and held him for police. (Seattle-Post Intelligencer, Seattle, WA, 07/04/2011)

The woman who lived in the house didn’t answer, and when the man began furiously pressing the doorbell, she called her husband, who called 911. The woman, whose name authorities are withholding, then got a .38-caliber revolver she kept in the house and gathered her young twins and hid with them in a closet inside the house, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported.
Seconds later, the man at the door, later identified by police as Paul Ali Slater, broke into the house with a crowbar and began ransacking the house.

Slater soon came upon the upstairs closet where the three were hiding and opened the doors, only to immediately be shot five times in the face and neck by the woman.
“He opens the closet door and finds himself staring down the barrel of a .38 revolver,” Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
“The guy’s face down, crying,” Chapman added. “The woman told him to stay down or she’d shoot again.”

The wounded intruder stumbled out of the house, attempting to flee in his car, but crashed into a nearby wooded area and collapsed in a neighbor’s driveway as he attempted to exit the car.
The woman, meanwhile, fled to a neighbor’s home with her children. The three escaped unharmed.
Police arrived soon after and Slater, who is reportedly clinging to life, was arrested at the scene.

MIDWEST CITY, Okla. —A Midwest City man shot at another man who had broken into his home and then tried to hit him with a truck on Saturday afternoon, police said.

Investigators said the victim thought he was experiencing an earthquake when he heard a loud bang that shook his home near NE 23rd Street and Douglas Boulevard about 2:30 p.m. Saturday.

The man discovered that the intruder had kicked in his front door and entered his living room, police said.

The intruder fled and got into a red newer-model Ford F-150 pickup truck in the driveway as the homeowner grabbed a semi-automatic handgun and ran outside.

The homeowner got behind the truck and ordered the intruder at gunpoint to get out of the car. The intruder put the car in reverse and tried to run over the victim, police said.

The homeowner jumped out of the way and fired several shots at the truck, blowing out the back windshield and hitting the right-front portion of the truck.

Police said the intruder was able to escape the scene.

The intruder is described as a black man about 30 to 40 years old, about 5 feet, 8 inches tall and about 200 pounds. He was last seen wearing a dark puffy coat and dark beanie cap.

Anyone with information regarding this incident is asked to contact police

CHEHALIS, Wash. -- The Lewis County Prosecutor's Office will investigate the shooting of an intruder at a Chehalis home Sunday morning. But the county sheriff said the homeowner acted within the law when he shot the stranger.

Sheriff Steve Mansfield called the shooting a "classic case" of self-defense.

Shortly before five a.m. Sunday the homeowner's wife called 9-1-1 to report a stranger walking around the outside of their home. About 15 minutes later, the man was in the home.

Police say the suspect got in through an unlocked door.

According to detectives, the homeowner grabbed his gun and told the man if he didn't leave, he'd be shot.
When the intruder ran at the man, he shot the intruder once in the stomach.

The homeowner wrestled with the intruder and held him until police arrived.

Mansfield said he supports a homeowner's right to defend themselves with a deadly weapon.

"We live in a pretty dark world," said Mansfield, "And you cannot depend on law enforcement and your government to protect you in every aspect of your life."

EARLY, Texas — An officer under fire in a tense trailer park standoff was saved when an armed Good Samaritan grabbed his pistol to help take out the suspect.

The incident began when Charles Ronald Conner shot and killed two neighbors and their dogs in an quickly-escalating argument over excrement found on his property, according to KENS 5.com. As Sgt. Steven Means of the Early Police Department arrived at the bloody scene, Conner hid behind a tree and fired at the officer from an assault rifle.

Means took cover behind his police cruiser and returned fire using his own assault rifle, but neighbor Vic Stacy, 66, said that from inside his trailer, it appeared the officer might have difficulty getting a clear shot — so he leant a hand.

"I thought 'he's fixin' to kill that boy,'" Stacy told the Brownwood Bulletin. "And that's why I squared off and hit him in the leg and knocked him down."

Police estimate Stacy was about 150 feet away when he fired his .357 magnum pistol, striking Conner four times. Investigators determined as Conner returned fire to Stacy, Means also hit Conner at least twice — and a combination of their bullets killed him.

Police praised Stacy for his outstanding shooting in the incident, which happened July 29, and willingness to step in to a dangerous confrontation.

"The citizen that fired these shots did a tremendous job out there," Brown County Sheriff Bobby Grubbs said. "Had he not had a gun and the presence of mind to do this, we don't know what the outcome would've been."

While reports of Tuesday's shooting at the Clackamas Town Center Mall in Oregon, dominated the national media, until Friday's horrific shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, one very important detail has been repeatedly (and intentionally) left out of the MSM's coverage.

The shooter, Jacob Tyler Roberts, was confronted with an armed citizen, at which time he ran away and shot himself. By the time police arrived on the scene, Roberts was already dead.

That armed man was 22-year-old Nick Meli, who was at the mall shopping with a young woman who was babysitting her friend's baby.

On Friday, KGW News Channel 8, the only media outlet to cover this part of the story, posted the following report on their website:

"I heard three shots and turned and looked at Casey and said, 'are you

serious?,'" he said.

The friend and baby hit the floor. Meli, who has a concealed carry permit, positioned himself behind a pillar.

"He was working on his rifle," said Meli. "He kept pulling the charging handle and hitting the side."

The break in gunfire allowed Meli to pull out his own gun, but he never took his eyes off the shooter.

"As I was going down to pull, I saw someone in the back of the Charlotte move, and I knew if I fired and missed, I could hit them," he said.

Meli took cover inside a nearby store. He never pulled the trigger. He stands by that decision.

"I'm not beating myself up cause I didn't shoot him," said Meli. "I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself."

The gunman was dead, but not before taking two innocent lives with him and taking the innocence of everyone else.

We now know that the assailant's gun had jammed, and when he cleared it, he quickly retreated and shot himself, as Meli continued to keep him in his sights.

Not only has the national media refused to acknowledge this aspect of the deadly event, but law enforcement has as well.

There are thousand upon thousands of stories like these. Many of which don't get reported to the media. Mine never did, because I didn't report it, and the suspect's family didn't report it.

Creek Dog, great post, the bleeding hearted criminal loving liberals don't get it, but the criminals you speak of is this current administration, stay strong my friend, Semper Si!!!

Tank,

Machine Guns are not banned. Increased requirements to own them, higher prices maybe, but not banned. If they were banned then I wouldn't have my M16A2 or M1919. $30,000 for the M16 on the current market and over $14,000 for the M1919. If you want a Tommy Gun, then you can pony up somewhere around $95,000 for it.

There is no way that you can make it mandatory for every person in a town to own a gun. What if a person is a convicted felon? You cant dictate who lives in a town. Convited felons dont have gun rights, but they do have the right to live where they want to. What a bunch of dumb ass idiots to even try this.

I can't tell which is worse TankCarson's argument, or his knowledge of the English language.

LOL, 'NO ONE has automatic weapons', can you prove this? Because I can prove it is wrong.

And I just stated that Westford MA wants to ban guns, so apparently you are incorrect that;

Honestly, there not going to take your guns away, let me repeat that... there not going to take your guns away, one more time... there not going to take your guns away!

Their, they're, I guess you posted for no reason at all.

Grammar Police,

Apparently this guy has a right to 'bear arms'. If you're going to make a sign about anything, you should probably check your spelling and grammar.

If youre going to be critical of someone, you should probably look up the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights and see how it is written before you look like a complete moron.

Jerry-2304288

If you but what you are saying then why did the NRA get so upset when some gun owners address where given out in NY.

Well, Jerry, it's because some of those people who had their names/addresses posted by the local yokel, can't get anything right in print, newpaper were former law enforcement, and it's safe to say there are people out there they've arrested who hold grudges against them. Also, some were women who had fled abusive relationships and re-established themselves, started over, but now have to worry about their abusers showing up on their doorsteps. Oh, and there were two break-ins following the posting - guess what the burglars were after? Yep - the guns. One person had his secured in a hidden safe so they weren't located. The other person's guns were located and taken, which means there's now some loser out there with stolen weapons he can use indiscriminantly. But, you know, the Journal News just wanted me to be 'safe', so I can't blame them, right?

I find it odd that Creek Dog sits around imagining his wife being raped by criminals.

Honestly, the thought never crossed my mind. Probably why I don't own a gun. Clearly I've been going thru life completely blind about the danger my family is in, what with roving bands of wife raping burglars...who attack during the evening TV hour, and not, say, when everyone is in bed, or better yet not home at all.

Seriously, you keep a gun on the side of your easy chair while watching TV with the family while imagining scenarios in which you successfully defend your home (and the Mrs Dog's naughty bits) from invasion, and you don't think that makes you paranoid? Holy @!$%# I'd hate to meet someone who is.

@Fly Me! - Gun Owners are more likely to be involved in a weapons related crime than non gun owners.

True however what you fail to mention is they are usually on the LEGAL side of the crime... ie killing the robber.

Gun owners are also more likely to defend themselves in their own home with a gun... go figure

If you're one of those people who believes the second amendment is only about militias and gun ownership is related to that service, and you've read your constitution, then you know that states have the right to set up those militias any way they deem fit and further to this that the government has the obligation to see to arming them, therefore it is perfectly constitutional for a law requiring gun ownership to be made (and it's happened before).

Just because a thing is constitutional doesn't mean it's right or sane. I'm not certain whether requiring gun ownership by all householders in this day and age is a good choice, and in fact to me it seems almost as wrong as removing all guns. Do we want guns in households with people who are mentally ill? No. I think we all agree on that, though some might be concerned with who has the right to determine the mental illness of others and what level of enforceability there is. Honestly, the best thing to do would be to issue a public health statement, requesting that people who think a person in their household might be mentally ill recognize the possibility that the member of their family does not need access to guns and remedy the matter themselves. Treat it like cigarettes, but please without the condescending air. The reality is that this governing that we're doing, where we're trying to legislate out every bad and only requiring more and more legislation, is not helping anyone at all--it's driving most of us to the poor house. We aren't going to legislate it away. We have to start caring individually, making efforts in our own lives to do right, and if we do, crime will naturally go down, because we're moving away from the (severely mentally ill) society that does whatever it wants for fun, never mind right or wrong, and moving toward a society that has values and expectations and hope. The government will never raise a good person.

How is 'forced ownership' of guns any less whacked out as being unable to purchase a 32oz sugary drink in NYC? Both are a violation of our freedoms and are unconstitutional.

Notice this is happening under democratic rule. The majority voted and now we weep!

As to the whole Kennesaw thing, dunno about the accuracy of 1980s/1990's statistics (tho some of the numbers are really wrong, 243/100000 being 2.43 per thousand), but recently Kennesaws rate was 25 per thousand, and Decaturs is 32. With populations of 30K and 20K respectively.

Not exactly great statistical models. A symbolic law is meaningless by design, anyway. If people think you own a gun they'll just break in while you're at work anyway. Often specifically to steal said gun.

markw207

If you read the stats the increase is in PROPERTY CRIME not VIOLENT Crime..

You better go back and read it again. Or at least you can get someone to read it for you. Hell the 1st part of the story says, "Kennesaw crime statistics report an overall upward trend in crime based on data from 11 years with violent crime increasing and property crime increasing."

If people think you own a gun they'll just break in while you're at work anyway. Often specifically to steal said gun.

I'm pretty sure this is the reason gun advocates were up in arms over that NY paper publishing names and addresses of registered firearms in a community.

I am a gun owner and I have to agree with most of you. This is just stupid. But they did say they never expected to enforce it. Just making a statement. I would really hate to see guns in the hands of a bunch of idiots that know nothing about them.

"It was never my intention to force anyone to own a gun who doesn't want to. My purpose was to make a statement in support of the Second Amendment (to the U.S. Constitution)," said Head Selectman Anne Simmons-Edmund, who proposed the ordinance.

dawg

There were a couple people at the Gabbie shooting who had guns, but did not fire because there was no clear line of sight.

Nice spin there dawg. There was one other person with a gun besides the shooter. He came out of the store next door. He almost shot the guy who had disarmed the shooter until someone stopped him.

mark207

Murder, assault, and other Crime are far below GA and USA Averages..

Who was talking about crime rates across Ga. or the USA? It was about the one city in Ga who had passed a required to have a weapons law. Again, please learn how to read.

Capt Tripps

I find it odd that Creek Dog sits around imagining his wife being raped by criminals.

Honestly, the thought never crossed my mind. Probably why I don't own a gun. Clearly I've been going thru life completely blind about the danger my family is in, what with roving bands of wife raping burglars...who attack during the evening TV hour, and not, say, when everyone is in bed, or better yet not home at all.

Seriously, you keep a gun on the side of your easy chair while watching TV with the family while imagining scenarios in which you successfully defend your home (and the Mrs Dog's naughty bits) from invasion, and you don't think that makes you paranoid? Holy @!$%# I'd hate to meet someone who is.

#1.95 - Mon Mar 11, 2013 12:10 PM EDT

Hey Captain...

Grey blotter, Purple Micro-dot, Sphinx ring a bell?!

I don't sit around and "imagine" these things. I watch & read the news to learn these things from first hand scenarios.......

You see, there are people like me, who watch the news, read the news and learn from everybody else's mistakes.......Did my time in the USMC, know how to protect myself, my family, fought for my Country so people like you can make idiotic comments etc... BTW, you're welcome...

Then "Unfortunately", there are people.................like you.

Which I have already read about that taught me to be prepared just in case an unfortunate thing should happen to my family, is did, "people" like you.

Later...

Creek Dog... Tank here!

It has been unlawful since the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA) for civilians to own machine guns without "special permission" (more about that later) from the US Treasury Department. Machine guns are subject to a $200 tax every time their ownership changes from one federally REGISTERED owner to another and the grandfathered weapon is and has been registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in its National Firearms Registry.

To become a registered owner, a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the ATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of "reasonable necessity," and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant "would be consistent with public safety." The application form also REQUIRES the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant's residence.

Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns (limited production for specific uses including Law Enforcement, military, museums and period piece movies) has been PROHIBITED to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians.

Here's the best part... since the prohibition against Machine Guns was put in place there have only been "2" reported unlawful deaths associated with their use!

All of you rabid ban-guns/protect the 2nd amendment people jumped at this article just to further your side of this argument.

Did anyone question how or why this town official is wasting time and tax payer money holding a vote that will have absolutely no bearing on anything, because by its own Constitution, Maine law bars municipalities from legislating on firearms?

Where are all you "Why are my tax dollars being spent on trivial bu*& sh$#?" people?

Or do you just bitch about your tax money being spent on liberal issues? If that is the case, you are hypocrites!

Stupid law, however it's a moot point since the article clearly states it's actually unenforceable because municipalities can't make their own gun laws per Maine constitution.

At the end of the day, it's sad this debate still revolves around peoples right to own a gun when NO ONE is saying that be taken away. People legitimately seem to think someone wants to repeal the 2nd amendment and confiscate all firearms. Based solely on the reasoning that someone did that during a war a generation ago in order to exterminate citizens in another country or because another country banned guns, countries who didn't have anything in their constitution giving them the right to own guns in the first place. It's quite baffling, really.

Bigjeff,

That's a local tax issue. I don't really care what a city does with their own tax money. That's up to the residents to decide.

Snake eye and my other supposedly fellow libs..lookit, there are lots of folks out there, some of them even posting on this vine that are worthy of all the @#$%^ type of comments. Unfortunately so are many of us (supposed liberals that is). I suggest that you save them for those of your opponents who actually deserve and earn those remarks. As I have said before, Creek Dog is one of the more cogent, friendly and measured people that show up here regularly. He is outspoken in his comments but I have rarely seen him resort to the cheap name calling and baseless insults that characterize so much of the comments here from both sides. He disagrees with you and forcefully so. Thank gods. If I had to listen to people who agree with me all day I would go nuts. It's time that more of us appreciate what the founding fathers did for us. They ensured that in any given public forum we would all be forced to hear the voice of those who disagree with us. It's time to show respect to those, like Creek Dog, who manage to do it with civility and humor. He is not the only nonliberal here that exhibits these qualities, but your attack on his really benign opening comment was unfounded imho.

Sempre Fi Creek Dog, This liberal thanks you for your service in my defense.

zorloc,

There are plenty of people that wish to repeal the 2nd. including members of our "govt".

Creek Dog... Tank here!

One more thing... as a former Grunt... I fought for a Country that was and should be egalitarian, possessing a secular government (free of theocratic notions), civil, enlightened, anything but reactionary, Progressive (forward thinking), not still fighting the Civil War and certainly not swimming in an ocean of fire arms where any body including the insane, mentally challenged, people on the Terrorist Watch/No Fly List, mentally ill and criminally inclined somehow, in some universe have... a so called God given 2nd Amendment right to roam our streets!

Tank,

Yes, weapons made after 1986 are prohibited from civilian ownership. Yes, we have to undergo stringent background checks, and jump thru some hoops to be able to own fully automatic weapons, but it is legal to own them. You should do a youtube search of full auto, and see how many "prohibited" guns are on there.

Where are all you "Why are my tax dollars being spent on trivial bu*& sh$#?" people?

You are quite right. However the taxes being spent came from the town, not the state, ot the Federal government. So it's not MY tax money they are wasting.

As for the second amendment, the NRA folks have confused the issue and promote an interpretation that would have you believe that owning guns is something everyone has a right to do. Fair enough, but that is the second part of one sentance, which begins by referencing a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state... And as expressly used during the Whiskey Rebellion by President Washington to draft a militia to put down that rebellion. At no point was it ever hinted that the Whiskey rebels were the ones whose rights were to be guarded from the government!

So while the left is NOT working to take away your guns, they do want to increase the security of our free state, which means we need to protect our children from nutjobs with guns!

To shoot first and ask questions later as a civilian policy is one embraced by prejudiced communities seeking to eliminate anyone for the mere fact of not liking them. This kind of prejudice is wrong, not protected by the Constitution, and there are enough of us aware of it that I can guarantee you will not get away with it in the long term, even if the Constitution itself has to be amended to do so.

Are these people delusional or just plain stupid?? How about the homes where someone has a mental illness, how about the homes where someone has a drug/alcohol problem, how about homes where a convicted felon lives... or do they think just because a person owns a home that makes them a law-abiding, responsible person?

Every "right" should come with responsibility.... I have no problem with responsible, law-abiding citizens owning guns; but I think trying to pass a law to force people into gun ownership makes as much sense as trying to pass a law to take away peoples right to own any guns.

LMarcT- I totally agree with you about how where people live influence their views on guns. I grew up and live in a semi-rural area and see guns used safely all the time. To me, they're no different then any other metal and plastic tool. I can see how people in gang-infested areas might see things differently, although maybe the problem isn't really guns but the culture of violence in inner cities vs the culture in rural areas.

Also, thank you for not calling everyone names. I appreciate that.

Dennis,

You do know that everyone is part of the militia right? If it came down to it our militia would be 100,000,000 strong, and what govt or military would try and take that on?

Effing, hysterical, rwnj gun kooks. I swear. If half this energy was focused on improving education, we'd be leading the world in more than just gun violence.

Dawgfan,

You just about quoted Ho Chi Minh ( a noted Communist) word for word there.

He was also speaking about the invading United States Government, just like you.

Careful, them's some mighty big sandals to fill!

Big discussion, can't answe anyone specifically, but you can't force people to vote and you cant' force them to own arms, it's not like auto insurance. As for criminals, they will adapt to the terrain as they always have because they are Human predators, top predator of all species. Doesn't matter how good a shot you are when the bullet hits you in the back. Criminals adapted when we developed all of the anti-vehicle theft technology and they will adapt to everyone with a gun.

L.J. Rhodes

So, by his reasoning, he'll next try to pass a law making Christianity mandatory for all residents of his town, as a statement on the First Amendment's right to freedom of religion.

#1.27 - Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:41 AM PDT

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

L.J. Rhodes,

You're onto something. The Religious Right in this country would love to do just that. In so many words they argue every day that their "Christian" religion is being threatened by all non-conservatives -- like you, me, and much of the people on this Comment Board -- and that they as voters must do something about it -- because God is on their side, and God said so.

So if we don't think it's a good idea to pass what may be a law that infringes upon the rights of others that believe differently, the radical right flies off the handle, and then suddenly, you'll hear a few of them immediately say, "A Muslim socialist tyrant!"

...Must be symptomatic of their mindless, knee-jerk extremism.

NotaSocialist (1.58)-

"It's only when the socialist dictator attacked our Second Amendment right that this become an issue to argue."

Actually, the strongest recent argument attacking unmitigated exploitation of the Second Amendment was made by Adam Lanza.

I resigned,

Adam Lanza stole those weapons. There wasn't a background check or law that would have prevented him from killing those people. Please not that he also used two pistols and 4 empty mags were found in the building and two nearly empty in each pistol. The ban that was imposed in 1994 banned new sales. Meaning Lanza's mom still would have been able to purchase the AR-15 if she wanted to from a private sale or the legal versions being sold in stores. You also don't know when her weapons were bought either. Could have been pre-1994.

HooooooRRRayyyyyy for the state of Maine and the citizens of this town.

There may be accidents and shootings in Maine, but the GREATER GOOD is served.

The 2nd AMENDMENT "Shall NOT be infringed."

Great idea...It's time for ALL American to rise up and oppose a government that is trying to takeover every aspect of our daily lives.

So forcing people to own guns is somehow less government? Only in the minds of a nut.

Dawg -

We really don't know that Lanza stole those weapons. His father may know, and his brother may know, but there is no proof that Adam Lanza stole those weapons, or if in fact his mother purchased them for him. I believe all but the radically predisposed can agree that he never should have had access to them, regardless of type. Everyone owning a firearm should be required to secure it at all times and should be held responsible as an accomplice in any crime committed using that weapon unless it had been reported stolen or transferred in a timely manner.

13dev

HooooooRRRayyyyyy for the state of Maine and the citizens of this town.

There may be accidents and shootings in Maine, but the GREATER GOOD is served.

The 2nd AMENDMENT "Shall NOT be infringed."

Did you even read the article? This is about an admitted publicity stunt by some small town hack politician; it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with anyone's interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Ok. I have one question:

Assuming this law passes and is enforceable, if a person does not own a gun, and gets conviceted, is that going to be a felony, making it impossible for them to own a gun and is being unable to own a gun a felony, making it impossible to own a gun and is that a felony, making it impossible to own a gun........

@ Flnobody - you have been commenting about one city in Ga. I am talking about national averages. Based on FBI stats, Crime went after the ban was repealed, yes even property crime. I live in Utah, and here, both property crimes and violent crimes are below national averages. 97% of every home has a firearm and the average number of firearms in a home is 8! You can say and think what you want but I really think firearm ownership is a deterrant for both property crimes and violent crimes. Please don't play the "Utah doesn't have as many people" card, because stats are based on "per-capita. So saying UT doesn't have that many people, won't hold water with me. have a nice day. :)

I Resigned,

Technically they were stolen. Legal age to possess a handgun in the US is 21. Lanza was 20. On top of that he was known to have a mental disorder, which by law bars him from possessing a weapon. I get where you are coming from, but you can't hold the parent responsible criminally for the actions of another. Like say a teenager steals their parent's car and kills a bunch of people with it. The parent's aren't charged with vehicular homicide, because they didn't do it. For all we know the guns were kept in a safe, and she left it open to clean one when he snapped, or they could have just been lying around the house. We don't know.

Radioguy: well, the criminals must be taking some of the 8 guns out of all the homes and using them to be burglarizing the 3% of every home that doesn't have a gun. Aren't statistics fun ?

With all the potential killers in Utah, its no wonder that's where the Mormon cult is headquartered.

here'sWaldo

It's not necessarily a "Bigger Gun" Prokhor.....it's reaction time and the ready availability of the homeowners defensive weapon that wins the day. Bigger isn't always better. Availability is.

The problem is when you have kids in the house. If you have to wake-up, fumble for keys to unlock your gun...the perp is already on you. If you don't lock it up you could easily end up burying your kid; or the kid takes the gun to school and we all know that story. Tough call.

SnakeEyes23 Comment collapsed by the community

Creek Dog: You're an imbecile. How about my right NOT to own a gun. If you want to own one, fine. But I shouldn't be mandated to own one, or not own one. BTW, I never owned a piece in my life.

I bet you were jumping up and down clapping your hands whenever gun restrictions were discussed, admit it. I find it amusing you bring up your right NOT to own a gun, is that in the constitution somewhere? No? What makes you think you have a right to not own something? I used to think I had a right to pay as I go with healthcare, but it seems I don't have the "right" to not have health coverage.

FWIW resposible gun owners do not refer to firearms as a "piece."

During Wild-wild west, everyone and their mothers have guns, did crime ever reach 0 during that period?

I still remember the days when to see handguns at your local Woolworth was no big deal!

After reading these comments I can say that there is craziness on both sides of this issue of gun control. I do have guns and intend to keep them. I don't have large clips or armor piercing rounds. (place your shot carefully).

The one guy on here that I take extreme exception to is the one that thinks that he needs to take back his country. Guess what fella, this is also MY country. So give it a shot if anarchy is what you are after. I do believe in the Constitution and would be willing once again to join a lawfull militia to put your azz down. Take back "your" country at the ballot box. Our elections are still fairly honest even if they are skewed by our poor media. Study the issues and people running for office a bit more instead of listening to one media exclusively. It might open your eyes if not your mind.

Radioguy-4173557

@ Flnobody - you have been commenting about one city in Ga. I am talking about national averages. Based on FBI stats,

Good for you. So what does your comment have to do with me? I was responding to a comment early on that referenced a single city in Ga. Not all of Ga. or the whole US. Did I respond to one of your comments? If so, which one? It's 75 degrees here today. Like your comment, it has nothing to do with the story or what you said does it?

I often wonder about republicans like Creek Dog, and those like him, who live in such a sad state of paranoia that they literally walk around their own home with a loaded gun on their hip. The extensive paranoid delusions that go through their mind must be exhausting... as demonstrated by CD's Rambo fantasy. But yet, here they are... so afraid of the world that they feel the need to always be armed, around their children, no matter what they are doing. Must make for awkward showers and late-night bathroom visits.

Perhaps if they did something more with their life, they could afford to live in a safer area where they are not plagued with constant paranoia. I have found that the more affluent communities generally have the least crime, primarily because criminals simply can not afford to live there... naturally this does not include the metropolitan cities that mix high and low income housing.

"It was never my intention to force anyone to own a gun who doesn't want to. My purpose was to make a statement in support of the Second Amendment (to the U.S. Constitution)," said Head Selectman Anne Simmons-Edmund, who proposed the ordinance.

If that's really true, why not put forth a measure that says exactly that, i.e., "We support the 2nd Amendment", and let townsfolk vote on it? What, it was too simple? In Maine, such a vote would pass easily, basically anywhere in the state. So something tells me this woman was trying to do a BIT more than just support the 2nd amendment...

So, require everyone to be armed? You think that's going to make a place safer? Part and parcel with this concept is that the worst person in town, plus the dumbest, plus the one with the worst judgment, plus the one with the hottest temperature, plus the guy who just missed getting charged with a felony "BY THIS MUCH", will ALL own firearms by LAW. "Oh, you just turned 18 and are now an 'adult'? Have you bought your gun yet???". Dumbest thing I ever heard of. Period.

One thing is apparently certain: gun ownership does NOT make you smart or realistic. "Here, let's require every Tom, Dick and Harry to own a gun". So much for small, unintrusive government, I guess...

I often wonder about republicans like Creek Dog, and those like him, who live in such a sad state of paranoia that they literally walk around their own home with a loaded gun on their hip.

So he is paranoid because he states he is willing to defend his family at all costs because rape does actually happen and often, but he isn't going to allow it to happen to his wife and daughter while he can prevent it.

But you leftists aren't insane when you argue that abortion should be legal because less than 1% of abortions are due to rape?

You got a way to explain that? Hypocrite.

Some documented gun murders in Kennesaw, GA (a Georgia town requiring gun ownership by each household:

With respect to Kennesaw, GA, a small town of 32,000 in Cobb County, some have reported that there is no crime because the citizens are required to defend themselves with an in-home firearm. There is a Police contingent and the Chief, William Westenberger, reports that in the past 3 years there have been 45,640 complaints filed and 2,858 arrests. The crimes have included 5 rapes, 44 aggravated assaults, 19 armed robberies, 337 burglaries, 1,399 larcenies, 80 stolen autos, and 318 narcotics violations.

Tank Carson,

You do realize that of the murders committed with legally owned machine guns since the original ban of 1934, number a total of (2), which occurred after the 1986 additional ban restricting new machine guns to be allowed? One of those was a murder committed by a police officer.

Did you know that the 1986 ban exempted police officers? They can still purchase the latest and greatest fully automatic weapons.

Did you also know that the 1986 ban was accomplished using a "bait and switch" tactic when the amendment including the ban was deceptively substituted for for the original amendment with the same number, which actually eased some restrictions on interstate transfer of guns. The ban came in the Firearms Owner's Protection Act. That law was designed to roll back ATF abuses of the Gun Control Act 1968.

The ban has been long debated as being an illegal law because Congressional procedures were circumvented misleading many who voted for the overall act. However, it did technically pass with the ban in it and Reagan signed it into law. It has been suggested that the ban could be repealed, but it has been pointed out that any Congressman supporting a repeal of a ban on machine guns would be committing political suicide in the court of public opinion.

The reality is that the 1986 ban was put into place through the use of political trickery knowing full well that once enacted, it would be highly unlikely to be reversed. Of course, this was not the first time that political tricks were used to get something into a law that those voting for it didn't realize. It happens quite a bit.

There are almost a quarter million legally owned machine guns out there. The record is virtually flawless in regards to lawful owners using them in crimes. Historically, even during the notorious days of Florida drug running, the gun crimes involving illegal machine guns has been less than one percent of gun crimes. Keep in mind too that possession of an illegal machine gun constitutes a large portion of the total crimes involving machine guns.

So why are the crime statistics so good related to machine guns? Is it because of the ban? Is it because law abiding citizens usually don't commit violent crimes? Does it have anything to do with the extremely high cost associated with purchasing a machine gun? Is it because of the low percentage of total guns that machine guns comprise? Is it because machine guns tend to be big and cumbersome and difficult to conceal? Is it because machine guns are simply an impractical tool for aiding in the commission of crime?

Chances are that all these factors play some role, but to single out one possible contributor to make a case for something else is simply a misrepresentation of the data. That is particularly true when the real data actually runs counter to the conclsuion.

Bans really do little to change things except complicate things for law abiding citizens. The California "assault weapons" ban has had virtually no impact on crime involving these weapons which have been virtually unchanged at around 2% or less of all gun related crimes.

When it comes to guns and gun related crimes, the statistics are often cherry picked and misrepresented. It is easy to pick out chunks of data out of the whole and draw conclusions that are not truly representative and are highly interpretive in nature.

Let's talk about a couple big picture statistics. In recent years, gun violence has been in decline. Likewise in recent years the number of firearms in private ownership has grown significantly. What conclusions can be reached from this data? Not many really. About the only conclusion that is statistically valid is that the often stated "truism" that "more guns equates to more violent crimes", is a fallacy.

An interesting example of playing the numbers game is what has been posted here related to Keneshaw Georgia. Posters linked to some statistic about crime in Kenesahw and point to the conclusion that crime is trending upward and 2013 is predicted to show an increase in crime. However, if they bothered to analyze the very statistics they point to, the data actually shows just the opposite. To predict that crime will go higher is purely a guess based on the statistical assumption that unusually low percentages can't stay low forever. If you bother to look at the numbers they tell a much different story and the projected rate is merely a conclusion based more on some assumptions about probability rather than statistical analysis. I will also just note that "cityratings.com" is hardly a recognized authority on crime statistics.

Likewise, to say that Keneshaw's phenomenal crime stats are directly correlated to its gun law is not really statistically provable. It is a logical conclusion, but that data by itself may not necessarily tell the whole story. There could be other reasons, like maybe a higher ratio of police patrols. We don't really know. To make an unassailable conclusion about why crimes are not committed is not really something that is possible. The reasons why a crime is not committed is essentially unknowable. However, it is possible to draw reasonable conclusions, but they are in fact subjective. One thing that you can statistically conclude is that from the standpoint of crime, Keneshaw is far more safe than the State of Georgia and the nation as a whole. Why that is so, is opinion.

Reading through these posts I have to say everyone has made a lot more out of this than needs to be. The answer is shorter, simpler and far more straightforward.

The 2nd amendment allows people the right to keep and bear arms. A right means it is there for you but you don't need to use it. This law is by and large unconstitutional by forcing something that isn't meant to be forced.

This law is by and large unconstitutional by forcing something that isn't meant to be forced.

That's what the left yelled at us for saying about the ACA. Neither should be forced, but Obama opened that can of worms.

People just keep getting more and more stupid. I read some of the comments here and I wonder what you gun lovers are so afraid of. What's it like to be so afraid of the world, that you need a gun to make you feel safe? You all have my pity. What a sad way to live.

scott m: There are different types of people in the world, those who own guns "for defense" who are perfectly willing to kill a person, if the opportunity presents itself, and live in fear that it will, aka gun owners. The rest of world does not live in fear, does not expect to ever want or need to kill a person and expect to live their lives in peace, only to have that reasonable expectation of peace and liberty broken only by.... GUN OWNERS.

Amazing how the very people who rant and rave about their "right to keep and bear arms" have no care about the rights of others to live in peace and have their own liberty and right to live destroyed by the gun owners selfishness.

Amazing how the very people who rant and rave about their "right to keep and bear arms" have no care about the rights of others to live in peace and have their own liberty and right to live destroyed by the gun owners selfishness.

So gun owners have to give up their rights to peace and their liberty to not have their lives destroyed by criminals, because some fools like you are afraid of guns?

You libs are so afraid of guns, so don't buy them. I'm not afraid of guns, and I don't own any. IMO you are just being a child.

IA.ScooterTramp - show me your gun?..........well there is a new cop in town and she is hot so,,,,,

This Is My Rifle This Is My Gun

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kU0XCVey_U

J.C.-1016889 - Yet the libs have no problem with a law forcing everyone to buy health insurance.

At a cost of $1.7 Trillion (Updated 2012 $2.1 Trillion, Updated 2013 $2.5 Trillion) as previously demanded by President Obama and previously not budgeted for, the reason that the previous Democratic Party Controlled US Senate and US House of Representatives refused to pass a US Budget to hide the cost from the US Citizens and kept creating Continuing Resolutions (CRs); and the unintented consequence of creating the "Fiscal Cliff", "Debt Ceiling" and to pay for the previously not Budgeted for $2.5 Trillion President Obama's demanded July 2011 "Across the Board Budget Cuts" (Automatic Sequestration). The motive of President Obama, he needed Billions USDs of Corporate Campaign Contributions to keep his 2008-2009 Presidential Election Offices open until 2012 Reelection, and still afterwards needed Billions USDs of Corporate Campaign Contributions to keep his 2012 Reelection Campaign Offices open, 2013, renamed the President Obama Political Action Committee Offices to push is "Agendas". Previously, Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton filed against Candidate Obama for his Violation of US Law, McCain Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, that he is still violating getting fined thousands USDs while getting Millions to Billions USDs of Corporate Campaign Contributions.

The Irony, President Obama's Reelection "Kill Big Bird"; while it was a PBS Documentary, "Obama's Deal" that exposed President Obama's Motives for his ACA to get Billions in Corporate Campaign Contributions from the Insurance Corporations, Medical Device Corporations, and Pharmaceuticals Corporations.

As before passage into US Law, President Obama's Buddy, "Mr. Corporate America" Legal Briefed the US Supreme Court to Rule in Favor of Unlimited Corporate Campaign Contributions; before the Citizen's United Case made it's way thru the US Court System. For admitting violations of the US Law, McCain Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, "Mr. Corporate America" was fined $200,000, while President Obama got Billions USDs from the US and Foreign Corporations.

R.M. Fields - "Obama is like Hitler and Mussolini".

Perhaps if you paid more attention to what President Obama Did or Does instead of what he says, you would know:

1. Previously the US Senate and US House of Representatives attempted to pass into US Laws S.1959 and H.R.1955 also known as the George Orwell 1984 Thought Crimes Laws, in that the written or witnessed verbal thought is the Felony Crime, not only the (Felony Criminal) Action.
Due to a few Diligent US Citizens both US Laws, H.R.1955 and S.1959 were Ruled Unconstitutional.

2. In January 21, 2009 President Obama signed into US Laws his Patriot Acts (Plural US Laws, not the Bush Patriot Act, singular US Law) as: Expanded Presidential Powers. Preemptive Detentions of US Citizens. Monitoring and Censorship of All US Communications (previously Ruled Illegal during Bush). Without Warrant Mandatory Cooperation of All US Communications Providers. US Military Use of Deadly Force Against US Citizens. US Military Tribunals renamed US Military Commissions (Legal Defense no access to Classified Witnesses nor Classified Evidence). Inclusion of previously Ruled Unconstitutional S.1959 and H.R.1955, including the Definition "Anyone stating a radical change to (US) Government is a Homegrown Domestic Terrorist". Lots of etc..

Shown at 04:38 minutes on January 22, 2009, during a staged news media event President Obama signing into US Laws his Patriot Acts:

3. President Obama attempts to use the United Nations to eliminate the US 2nd Amendment as pushed for by his US Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice. Even the Democrats realized that this is Unconstitutional:

debnran - Additionally, at no time did the President ever consider a flat out gun ban on all guns

4. In January 2012 President Obama signed into US Law his NDAA, Indefinite Detentions of US Citizens. The US Courts Rule this Unconstitutional. When asked if this is still being done pending President Obama's Appeal to the US Courts Decision, President Obama used Executive Privilage not to answer the US Courts.

5. Demanded Letters of Resignation from those that Criticized President Obama's Actions, especially those Actions that resulted in the Unnecessary Deaths of US Citizens of the US Military and US Citizens. General McKiernan, General McChrystal (President Obama's Political Appointee US Civilians on General McChrystal's High Level Staff "This Administration Does Not Know What It Is Doing"), General Petraeus (President Obama Deal to get Letter of Resignation), Secretary of Defense Gates (in protest to President Obama's Actions), General Allen, General Ham (Demanded Rescue of US Citizens at US Consulate Benghazi), Secretary of Defense Penetta"to work on his (Walnut) Farm with a different kind of Nut", SOS Clinton thrown under the Obama Reelection Bus numerous times, etc.. I wrote in detail what I observed in Topics related including the unclassified references verifying everything (saying the same things I posted before). Consistently, President Obama's Refusal to listen to his own "Experts" like after getting all the information from the Expert panels:

Vice President Biden, January 17, 2013 “This isn’t just about guns,” Biden said on Thursday at the U.S. Conference of Mayors in Washington, D.C. “It’s about the coarsing of our culture.

“Yes, that’s what I said, the coarsening of our culture, whether it’s with video games or movies or behavior,” Biden said.

You can believe that the Jewish Hollywood Lobby started their Media Campaign against Vice President Biden's Factual statement. Unlike many other Nations the Ratings are by those Nation's Government Laws and Enforced as Criminal and or Felonies, same with the Video Game Ratings, while at the US these are Voluntary as imposed by the Hollywood Movie Industry and the Video Gaming Industry. Nations like Japan and Englandhave Island Cultures (no where to run, after committing a crime); the Japanese also have a different conditioned mentality (still the backlash from their aggressions prior to and during WWII, who the f**k sends unarmed JDF to Iraq during a War, the Japanese Defense Force did, JDF Engineers as United Nation's Mission Nation Building Iraq (requiring armed US And US Ally Military Forces to protect the unarmed JDF.).

6. "President Obama, this is your Army. We are ready to march. Let's take these son of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong," US Labor Union Leader Jimmy Hoffa Junior during President Obama's Reelection Campaign.

US Democrats demanding the Murders of US Citizens of the Republican Party.

President Obama addressed the crowd shortly after US Labor Union Leader Jimmy Hoffa Junior. US Labor Union Leader Jimmy Hoffa Junior not arrested for "Terroristic Threatening of US Citizens", "Conspiracy To Commit the Murder of US Citizens", "Homegrown Domestic Terrorism Against US Citizens", etc..

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/05/jimmy_hoffa_at_obama_event_on_gop_lets_take_these_son_of_bitches_out.html

"Chancellor Hitler, we are your Army. We are ready to march. All Loyal German's Must take back Germany from the Jews". Chancellor Hitler's Brown Shirts (SA), Sturmabteilung, Armed Paramilitary; and his Political Labor Union, National Socialist German Workers' Party, Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei aka NAZI.

Chancellor Hitler Ordering the elimination of other Political Parties (and did by Armed Force of his armed private Army, 1933), identical to US Democrats demanding the elimination of US Citizens of the Republican Party.

Perhaps if by Actions (not stated Propaganda) President Obama would not do things like those previously done by Chancellor Hitler and Fascist Dictator Mussolini, maybe people would not make that comparison.

wives fan - Any finally I can't find the name of person who posted, but PALEEEEZE show me where Obama started the war in Libya????

President Obama as Commander In Chief Ordered General Ham Commander US AFRICOM to conduct Operation Odyssey Dawn, in direct violation of US Law, 1973 War Powers Resolution that Restricts and Limits the President's War Powers. President Obama did not inform US Congress, All Members of the US Senate and US House of Representatives, 48 Hours before the start of any US Military Actions.

Unlike the US Laws with US Congressional Appropriations to cover President Clinton's and President Bush's arses, President Obama had nothing making Libya Illegal (no US Law) and Unfunded (no US Congressional Appropriations).

The "Libyan Rebels" as Supported by President Obama to Murder US Ally President Gaddaffi the Collaborator to the Christians, Jews, Unbelievers were Al Quada Saudi Arabia (AQ), Al Quada Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), Al Quada Syria (AQS), Al Quada Yemen (AQY), Hezbollah, Al Quada Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), etc., as reported by US Ally President Gaddaffi thru Diplomatic Channels established by SOS Condeleezza Rice, NATO Commanders, International Intelligence Agencies.

During the Reelection Campaign President Obama Inflamed the over 1.5 Billion Islamic Believers Worldwide to Violence against the US with his "Osama Bin Laden is Dead, GM is Alive"; The over 1.5 Islamic Believers respond with "Obama Declared War Against Muslims (Islam)", "Obama, Obama, We Are All Osama". The "Libyan Rebels" became Ansar Al Islam, and in response to President Obama attacked the US Consulate Benghazi to coincide with the Greatest Defeat of the Great Satan (US), the 9/11 2001 Attacks, by their Greatest Holy Warrior of Islam Superstar Osama Bin Laden.

Outspoken General Ham demanded sending his US Military Forces of US AFRICOM less than 2 hours away during the over 7 hour attack of the US Consulate Benghazi, President Obama refuses Presidential Authorization and stated "Low US Presence at Libya".

So after the Overthrow of US Ally President Gaddaffi now the Holy Warriors are no longer stuck at Libya fighting US Ally President Gaddaffi's Libyan Military, and using the decades of weapons, ammunition, military equipment are attacking the rest of Africa,

She (SOS Clinton) did say that there is no doubt that Algerian terrorists have weapons they obtained from depots in Libya that were opened up and “liberated” after the dictator Moammar Gadhafi was toppled, with U.S. and NATO help, in 2011.

Clinton takes responsibility in Benghazi attack

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/23/16660298-clinton-takes-responsibility-in-benghazi-attack-clashes-with-republicans?lite

SOS Clinton, "Funding was not the issue". Take a guess who the "issue" was/is, wives fan. Hint: SOS Clinton also told "Low US Presence at Libya", no implementation of those Security Measures as requested by the US Ambassador, and previously Recommended since February 2011 by US Army Special Forces LTC Wood, as US Military Security, not Libyan, at both the US Embassy Tripoli and the US Consulate Benghazi.

wives fan - The ONLY war stared by a Prez was the one in Iraq and it was by Bushwhacked...

Wrong again, Documented Historical Facts (that reflect my Firsthand Experience (Survival):

President Clinton's 1998 State of the Union Address:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/27/sotu/transcripts/clinton/

President Clinton's US Law H.R.4655 "Iraqis Liberation Act of 1998" Section 3 US Policy Overthrow of President Hussein, Section 2 Findings (Justifications) Weapons of Mass Destruction, with US Congressional Appropriations as before President Clinton's Failed 1998 US Military Operation Desert Fox, Amended to Authorize the Use of US Military Force. President Clinton's Failed 1998 US Military Operation Desert Fox resulting in Osama Bin Laden planning his 9/11 2001 Attacks in Retaliation against the Great Satan (US).

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1057063/posts

DO NOT LET THE DOCUMENTED HISTORICAL FACTS CONFUSE YOUR NON FACTUAL OPINIONS wives fan. Those of us that went into Iraq before President Clinton's 1998 US Military Operation Desert Fox, really wanted to know why we might get killed.

Unedited Transcript of President Bush's Mission Accomplished Speech (that disproves the ignorant Demoncrap Propaganda).

http://articles.cnn.com/2003-05-01/us/bush.transcript_1_general-franks-major-combat-allies?_s=PM:US

The President Obama Reelection Propaganda (Lie) "Less Horses and Bayonets", as known by Vice President Biden to be a outright Lie, since he dedicated our Horse Soldiers Monument at Ground Zero, since you were not a participant and the Documentary Horse Soldiers of 9/11 has not come out yet; the "Angel of Death" was a US Military woman conducting precision airstrikes against the Taliban, Al Quada, Islamic Jihadists;after running out of ammunition during the fierce urban warfare at the Afghan Cities we did use bayonets to kill Taliban, Al Quada, Islamic Jihadists to take their AKs, RPGs, etc. to survive.:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmiyyLNogaY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arxKhJIjIiY

Irony it was President Obama that declassified the mission above, in his attempts to embarrass the President Bush Administration, with the result many finally got the Combat Awards, Medals, Decorations they earned (many posthumously). Not mentioned above is that there were more than just the US Army Special Forces (as USAF STTs, USMC MARSOC, USN SEALs, CIA SAD/SOG, etc.). 200 US Army Special Forces, 100 other Special Warfare and CIA SAD/SOG, today only a couple dozen are still alive. Today here, we are using more horses, pack horses, and pack mules than the Korean War, to conduct US Military Asymmetric Mountain Warfare (aka Special Warfare, Counter Insurgency, with Technical Mountain Climbing including during the near Arctic Winters), 2/3rds of Afghanistan is the Pamir Mountains, with limited numbers of roads (known IED sites, that we stay away from).

Read all the Documented Historical Facts that I spoon fed you with the links above, wives fan, then let's have an Adult Discussion.

Do not include:

Definition Opinion - a personal view, attitude, or appraisal without knowledge, thought, or reason.

Do include:

Definition Fact - Experience or Observations.

In my case Firsthand Experience (Survival) and Firsthand Observations. As one of the few survivors since the US Military Training Teams to US Ally Iraq during the Iran Iraq Wars, rotated to Operation Cyclone to now and most things (Operations, Missions, including UN) in between.

riley-1759556 - I am ex-Marine Recon and did five tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Trained with you guys, before they were combined into USMC MARSOC.

Thanks for your Service, not empty words, but from those of us continually recalled to active duty (Somalia (Operation Continue Hope), Sudan, Afghanistan (Operation Cyclone. October 2001 till now), Iraq (Iran Iraq Wars. Liberation of Kuwait. First Gulf War. 2001 Operation Viking Hammer. 2002 Operation Hotel California. 2003), Yemen, Indonesia, Libya, etc.); sucks being us recalled to active duty special category.

Dawgfan-4710266 - Forcing ownership would be unconstitutional.

Legal Precedent: Happened before and Ruled Constitutional, as "Common Defense". Go look that up.

N Laurino - They support law enforcement

My guess is that instead of the NRA using NRA Members Membership Money to train their Local, City, State, Federal Law Enforcement, the "Progressives", "Liberals" would rather pay even more Taxes (added together, Local, City, State, Federal Taxes above 50% of their incomes and or decreases to their Public Assistance or "Across the Board Budget Cuts" to everything else, the money has to come from somewhere just like President Obama's ACA of $2.5 Trillion.).

Too many voters embrace feel-good propaganda that they want to hear instead of learning the basic facts about issues they care about. They should do a better job of calling out dishonest politicians -- and shunning media outlets that stoke political food fights.

http://money.msn.com/investing/11-things-wrong-with-congress

add to post#1.149.

paragraph:

Shown at 04:38 minutes on January 22, 2009, during a staged news media event President Obama signing into US Laws his Patriot Acts.

Add link:

Naomi Wolf: 'Obama can lock any US citizen up without trial'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLSeD19m3UE

david-475776:

Uhh...whaaaat?

add to post#1.149.

paragraph #3.

3. President Obama attempts to use the United Nations to eliminate the US 2nd Amendment as pushed for by his US Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice. Even the Democrats realized that this is Unconstitutional:

debnran - Additionally, at no time did the President ever consider a flat out gun ban on all guns

add link:

Democrats Oppose Obama-U.N. Gun Control Treaty

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/07/26/democrats-oppose-obama-un-gun-control-treaty

I Resigned - Uhh...whaaaat?

My posts do not pertain to you.

This does as President Obama's United Somalia of America (if you don't know why, I stopped spoon feeding everyone, you'll figure sh!t out after things happen):

Don't Worry Be Happy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIM3GHvBQjY

Actually, your posts pertain to nothing connected with realiity. Carry on.

david-475776

Great post. I guess I am getting to old and let these dummies get to me. Served in S.E. Asia 69-71 and get a little emotional sometimes when I here and see the liberals rear their ugly heads like they did then.

You gave them enough to thinks about, but sadly they will never research any of it because they can't think for themselves.

Yes you are correct, they would rather add to the crushing defecit and tax more of us than to believe some things can be done by private orginizations. That is due to their being control freaks by nature. If they can't control it, it must be bad and won't allow it. If they do control it, it must be what we need even though it cost us dearly and we may not want it.

I refuse to live in a country where someone else has to tell me what I need and then force me to pay for it. Since we still have a Constitution that backs me up, I will not leave like those that don't like it should. I will continue to to fight through the voting booth and encourage others to do the same, but I will not bow and give up the Rights that many of our brothers and sisters have fought for throughout the history of this country, just because some socialist is currently in control.

You nor I will ever impact the left leaning progressive no-thinking people on this or any other liberal blog, but it is fun sometimes to get them all riled up. Continue the good fight and stay safe.

Yea, the good fight, posting inane copy pasta on internet newsites. Truly a fighter for freedom, these guys. If you're old enough to have fought in 69, you're old enough to be pulling SS and Medicare\.

So shut up about what you need and what you need to pay for. I thought you people were big on taking personal responsibility. Does paying for health insurance to alleviate the costs of the health care nt count, for some reason?

Liberals - Everyone should have healthcare.

Conservatives Everyone should have a gun.

And you really think you have the high ground there? REALLY? I mean you honestly believe those two opinions are created equal? I guess wisdom and age aren't a guarantee.

flyme: Day late, but care to share your source with us? Have you any idea of how many people who have guns who aren't involved in crimes? You do realize, don't you, that when you get a group of 2nd Amendment supporters or Tea Party people gathered together, whether it is hundreds, thousands, or millions, that they commit no crimes and leave the place where they gathered cleaner than when they arrived, whereas the bastions of liberalism, like the occupy movement, commit a lot of crimes and leave tons of trash, don't you?

IA.scooter

speaking of the people voting on the issues hows amnesty coming? you voted FOR it right?

You talking about Reagan? He is the only president that offered and gave illegals amnesty.

You talking about Reagan? He is the only president that offered and gave illegals amnesty.

Reagan made a big mistake in doing that. After already experiencing the effects only a total idiot would do that again. Unfortunately we have a total idiot in the White House.

The libs didn't have any problem with their kings mandatory insurance laws

The difference is SOMETHING needs to be done about "insurance laws" (and now, that's not what I mean but since you wrote it). I end up paying for those who don't have insurance, so it is affecting my life. As one of those "libs", I don't have a problem in the world for you to have handguns or shot guns in your home...in fact, this "lib" has them in own home. But don't even think about telling me I am REQUIRED to have one until my NOT having one affects your life somehow...

You talking about Reagan? He is the only president that offered and gave illegals amnesty.

Because why? on yeah the dem congress kept hollering try this. well guess what ...? IT DIDN'T WORK it only perpetuated the problem....., But as with ALL of barrys ideas... "what that didn't work? ..what should we do? hey i know...lets do it again....."

So again i ask, whats happening RIGHT NOW with THIS ADMINISTARTION.....not 25+ years ago, but rather ....NOW.

ctviking

After already experiencing the effects only a total idiot would do that again.

You know, I haven't read one article about anyone granting "amnesty". Have you? You do know the difference in amnesty and letting someone to apply for citizenship right?

ia.scooter

Because why? on yeah the dem congress kept hollering try this.

Are you saying, Reagan was too stupid to know what a veto was?

Don't know why gun owners are always praising Reagan when he was the one who signed the Hughes Amendment into law.

gena

simply put the government does not have the right to force the people to buy anything. hense your confusion. The people this DIRECTLY EFFECTS are getting to vote on it. THEY choose, Not you. not me, Not the press who initiated it, nor king barry, only those it EFFECTS.

the insertion of 11-25 MILLION illegal aliens into our society directly effects EVERYTHING, from culture to expenses to crime to health-care to voting.

This entire anti gun and other make believe crises serve only to divert and divide.

Are you saying, Reagan was too stupid to know what a veto was?

No the exact opposite, he worked WITH congress. and it failed miserably. so tell me why should it be done again? because barry says so? that dog dont hunt.

IA.ScooterTramp:

This entire anti gun and other make believe crises serve only to divert and divide.

These "make believe crises" sure command a lot of your attention. But your head as always been in the clouds, so I'm not surprised.

gm Tramp

IA.ScooterTramp

gena, simply put the government does not have the right to force the people to buy anything.

One word: "Obamacare."

Good one Denver--- I was just going to say that.

It's a bit late to be shouting down Reagan's amnesty, isn't it? It wasn't a full fix. They granted amnesty for the good folks who were here, but didn't fix the intake system to allow large numbers of low wage workers into the country, and didn't do anything to correct the need for large numbers of low wage workers, then left the southern border mostly unguarded where it was adjacent to a bunch of folks who could feed their families on what we consider low wages. What did you think would happen?

Funny how liberals always leave out the other side of the equation when talking about the amnesty Reagan granted. He made that concession on the condition that the borders were going to be secured. As usual, with the liberal liars, the amnesty happened and they never enforced the border security part. Reagan's only mistake was that he trusted a bunch of liberal liars. Just like on taxes, when liberals say they will cut spending in exchange for tax increases, the tax increases always happen immediately and the spending cuts are ALWAYS written in such a way that they will happen "gradually sometime down the road", and then they never happen.

Just one of many reasons liberals are nothing but corrupt lying DOG SH!T.

conservative

Just like on taxes, when liberals say they will cut spending in exchange for tax increases, the tax increases always happen immediately and the spending cuts are ALWAYS written in such a way that they will happen "gradually sometime down the road", and then they never happen.

Funny how conservative always leave out the other side of the equation. You could say the same about those conservative liars. That ask for tax cuts for the job creators and say they will cut spending later. Well, they cut taxes, but didn't get the job creators to create jobs and over doubled the national debt. Oh yea, they didn't secure the borders either.

No one gets killed simply from not being liked because of taxes or insurance mandates. This is a pretty lousy argument.

Awww, Poor Scooter has to actually buy insurance now instead of letting everyone else pay for his emergency room visits. Sucks, doesn't it. ;)

flnobody: Funny how liberals don't know the difference between Republicans and conservatives. Republicans are guilty of all the charges you make. You'll get no argument from me on that point. I have no love loss for the Republicans. Reagan was as close as we've gotten to a conservative in the last 100 years, and even he wasn't a real conservative in my book. So, I have no problem saying that Republicans are as big a bunch of liars as the liberals. True conservatives want to get back to the constitution as written. Unfortunately, there aren't many of us around.

As far as tax cuts, the tax code exists to fund the legitimate constitutional functions of government. Nothing more. One can only hold your position if one believes that all of the money really belongs to the government first, and that it is the role of government to decide how much of what someone earns that they be allowed to keep. I am NOT some Pavlovian pet dog of the government or a puppet on their strings.

This country was not founded on the principle that the government should control people through taxes. It was founded, in large part, to keep an oppressive government from excessive taxation, not to facilitate it. We didn't even have a permanent income tax for the first 137 years of this nation's existence, and it wasn't until the lying liberal politicians in 1913 got enough of the people to believe that the income tax was only going to be a couple of percent, and only assessed on the rich, and that it would never be extended to the middle class, that we had a permanent income tax installed. We see how that has worked out haven't we?

The tax code is NOT a behavior modification tool to elicit an action from the population that government deems to be acceptable, be it job creation, or anything else. The tax code does not exist so that some liberal can make a certain group pay more so they will feel better about themselves. The tax code exists to fund the Constitutionally mandated functions of government. PERIOD. The money a person or a company makes belongs to THEM, not the damned government, and those people have the absolute right to create a job only if they wish to do so because it makes sense from a financial standpoint.

If someone doesn't create a job, that in no way gives the government ANY RIGHT to tax them more because they didn't engage in a behavior that the government wanted to see. It's NOT the government's money. The government can not do anything, unless they first take something away from someone else.

Also, you conveniently left out that tax collections as of this moment are the highest in the history of this nation and that we are nearing 17 TRILLION dollars in debt, and if we stay on this course, we will be over 20 TRILLION in debt by the end of Obama's second term. You can NOT tax your way out of this. The problem is spending, not taxes.

My family paid almost 90 grand in Federal Income Taxes alone last year. That doesn't include state, local, sales, property, fees, licences and a whole host of other taxes. So, I get a little tired of people who pay little or nothing in the way of taxes (that doesn't necessarily mean you since I don't know what you pay, but just the conventional liberal wisdom in general) telling me I should be paying more.

I do NOT exist to serve the state. I am NOT the personal ATM of the Federal Government. America is NOT the damned Federal Government. The fact is that the vast majority of government spending is totally unconstitutional. If it is not authorized under the 18 enumerated areas of spending contained in Article 1, Section 8, then it is unconstitutional. PERIOD. But we haven't followed the Constitution in that regard for over a century now, and thus, we find ourselves in the position we are today. And it is the fault of BOTH sides.

ConservativeNotRepublican

The tax code is NOT a behavior modification tool to elicit an action from the population that government deems to be acceptable, be it job creation, or anything else

But yet, both parties do it all the time don't they.

The problem is spending, not taxes.

It's both. You cannot give a 4 trillion dollar tax and keep the same budget. You cannot take 4 trillion out of social security and then complain about the program is running out of money.

My family paid almost 90 grand in Federal Income Taxes alone last year.

Good for you. What was your income? What percentage was that you paid? I love a conservative, who is the 1st in line to complain to the government if they have a pothole in from of their house. But doesn't want to pay to get it fixed.

PS

Are you upset because some one who made only $25 grand last year didn't pay as much in taxes as you did?

FL: Both parties do it. Absolutely. And I am against both of them doing it. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make that. Both do it and both are wrong to do it.

The problem is that congress spends more than it takes in. That is the problem. Period. It was the idea of the left to put social security funds into the general budget. But the Republicans went along with it. The bigger problem with social security is that it was NEVER intended to be the sole source of income for someone in their senior years. Yet, too many thought, or were led to believe it would be enough to keep them comfortable. They either believed a lie, or were delusional of their own accord. If you faced a catastrophe and were wiped out financially and all you have is social security and welfare, then that, along with public housing will sustain you. I do not owe you a middle class lifestyle because of the circumstances of your life. I have no problem taking care of people who can't take care of themselves. I have a HUGE problem taking care of people who won't take care of themselves. Welfare has, in millions of instances, become a multi-generational way of life. It's time it came to an end.

Our income was about 300K. We earned that. The government did not give it to us. The government did nothing that gave us some special advantage to earn that income that is not available to anyone else. The only difference is that we used our initiative and brains to develop skills that would be worth something to someone. We worked for it. If you take Federal, state, local, sales, property and all the other taxes, our percentage is over 40%. Don't tell me I'm not paying "my fair share".

I'm not upset that the person who only made 25 grand last year didn't pay as much in Federal Income tax as I did. I'm upset because the person who made 25 grand last year didn't pay ANYTHING in the way of Federal Income tax. Got that? NOTHING! Whatever they did pay, they will get back in the form of a refund. That means they didn't pay a dime to support this corrupt government or the military that protects them. Everyone, and I mean everyone, should have some skin in the game. As I said, I get tired of those who pay NOTHING telling me I should be paying even more. To hell with that.