Dennis,

That would be an ultra-creepy/hazardous situation, where folks' personal particulars are publicly available --

but not data on gun ownership.

...and a car only becomes a deadly weapon when an idiot gets behind the wheel, but we still register vehicles, don't we?

The meeting with those organizations is another smoke and mirror attempt to garner support and line the pockets of those organizations with money -- just like the deals made with big pharma to get support for Obamacare.

This is a prime example of hypocrisy:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/337123/new-liberal-aristocracy-victor-davis-hanson?pg=1

So is a grenade or a pipe bomb. Do you advocate the sale of fully functional grenades? I don't have a problem with a grenade used as a paperweight, as long as it has the powder removed.

Do you advocate the removal of governor speed limiters on high performance automobiles? Do you want someone going 150 mph on our highways? Would you agree it is irresponsible behaviour to go that fast and it's ok for manufacturers to limit speed because it's dangerous?

If they really want to address the problem, why not do it in a Liberal city like Chicago where gun laws are the strictest in the country. That would really prove their point & of course everyone would listen. I am sure Mayor Rahm Emanuel will welcome them with open arms {no pun intended} to Chicago, the homicide captal of the U.S.A., where Law Abiding Citizens are disarmed by law to protect the criminals.

Once again the laws need to be changed, yet the problem will not go away. New York City and Chicago have very strict gun laws, yet they have very high gun violence rates. ( Yes, I know, the guns are imported from areas where there are lose guns laws.) So maybe there needs to be a different approach if we are still having problems. But executive order on something so dear to many people should be decided by the legislature (read law makers), not the president.

well Joe.. how do you want to have the medical and mental health discussion when the NRA has already managed to effectively bar such talk, with a prohibition on physicians from collecting information on gun-related issues already written into law (thanks to the NRA's Nevada waterboy, Harry Reid.. yes, I know he's a Dem)? He cynically snuck it into an obscure corner of the ACA, or rather he followed the NRA's instructions to sneak it in.

Harry's going to be looking for some payback on that issue though, I suspect. When he gave the NRA their sought-after medical research ban, he appeared to have been under the misapprehension that the NRA would back him for reelection - important in NV. After initially endorsing him, they pulled their endorsement under pressure from Republican leaders, for purely political reasons.. threw him under the bus after they got what they wanted out of him. Well, he got reelected anyway and now I imagine he's looking for payback. I doubt the NRA can count on him anymore.

@Sally Lu

the term "Well Regulated" at the time of the writing of the 2nd Ammendment refers to training not control.

there are numerious writing of the time that point this out.

a car is never a deadly weapon....

You're not serious mcpaddywack. Please tell me that was intended as sarcasm. If so sorry I missed it. Nearly anything with mass or a point can be a deadly weapon, especially cars. I'll be in favor of banning guns when they ban everything else that has ever been used in a murder, including hands and feet. Banning guns solves nothing, typical of liberal policies in general, they make feel-good laws that do nothing to fix the problem.

The simple fact is that an AR 15 sitting on a table with the US Constitution underneath it is nothing more than a paperweight.

So Joe, you must support handing out nuclear bombs to any citizen so desiring to obtain one. After all, bombs don't kill people, right?

@Sally Lu -- You need to check and see what the SCOTUS has to say about that a few years back. Its interpretation is a bit different than yours.

griphen02-1746911- how interesting that you know the meaning without having been there or spoken to the original writers. I am always fascinated that people interpret things the way they believe and take that to be fact.

And, just for the sake of argument, let's say that your interpretation is in fact correct. Then it should be regulated that anyone wishing to obtain a firearm undergo extensive usage and safety training before being given a permit to buy one. There, similar outcome.

It was announced that HHS Secretary Sibelius is working on the mental health component of the gun violence situation. Wouldn't be efficient for the VP to also have discussions about it, would it?

"a car is never a deadly weapon...."

I guess you've never been on the receiving end of a car driven through a red light on New Year's Eve by a drunken 16-year-old driving a "borrowed" car with no license - and no lights on at 10:00 at night.

I had barely enough time to begin to think "Oh, my God, I'm about to die".

Thanks to seat belts and air bags, I didn't.

But eight years later, it still feels pretty "deadly" in my memory.....

RI Mon, you just made it VERY clear that you have NO IDEA what the NRA "believes" in. Thank you.

Sally 'Well Regulated' Lu please see the Minute Men (use google to help) or am i being too vile by not agreeing with lefty commies?

I have the right to protect my loved ones, as do the secret service have the right to protect the President and his loved ones.

A humane society doesn't let gun owners hold us hostage on their paranoia....and their INSANITY of claiming that the President of the United States is going to take away ALL guns.

When the vice president starts talking about Executive Orders he is talking about bypassing the representatives elected by the people of this country to represent their wishes pertaining to any laws passed by Congress.

We do not want or need a self-styled king sitting in DC. We fought a damned Revolution to prevent being governed by a king and we've had just about enough of Obama's Executive Orders. You jump for joy as long as those Orders fall in line with what you think YOU want, but he has four more years on his throne and before he is done, the day may come when he issues a decree that YOU don't approve of.

That is not the way we want our government run here in the US.

Easy to get a read on the mentally unstable, just queue up the registered Republican database...

There are so many prejudiced comments like that, a blanket condemnation of an entire section of people who live in the US. Who is to say that people like you won't decide to queue up the registered Republican database, round them up and eliminate them?

And don't call me crazy, YOU are the one who said it. That type of thinking is why the Founding Fathers included the Second Amendment, you ass.

Lil Michelle,

Yes, then just cross reference against the rest of the population, and the people that aren't in the database, well "then you got your crazies".

OMG- having Joe in Albany talk about mental health is almost funny. The first house the mental health professionals should visit is his. They would be there l day!

republican06578 - nice try but Lil Michelle had it right to begin with. Remember, the Tea Party is all yours! As is Michelle Bachmann, Akin, Murdouch, Palin, the list just goes one and on!

"a car is never a deadly weapon...."

You have never ridden with my mother-in-law!

Thomas Jefferson quotes:

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

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (Quoting Cesare Beccaria)

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

And my favorite:

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

The actions of this administration for the last 4 years (and NEXT four years) has been entirely to create hostility between groups. Christians against non-Christian. Men against Women. Black against White. North against South. Taxpayers against Leeches and Parasites. "Rich" against "Poor". Supporters of legal immigration against supporters of ILLEGAL immigration. Human Global Warming theorists against cyclical weather pattern supporters. Pro-life against Pro-abortion. Environmentalists against rational discussion. Pro-union against individual choice. And now gun owners against gun control supporters. All at the expense and damage to this once great country. This country is collapsing and Obama doesn't care.

But Thomas Jefferson said "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.". What that means is Civil War and Revolution to stop this catastrophic president while we still have a country left with any hope.

Regarding gun control be careful what you wish for and make sure that you REALLY want to piss off over 50 million gun owners (average 4 guns each) by trying to take away guns especially with an executive order. Because if you WANT a war you are moving in the right direction to CREATE a war.....

Caesar Augustus - no, you are being vile by calling lefties "commies". If you had even a slight understanding of what democrats believe in then you wouldn't say such moronic thing any more than I would say the same thing about "righties", however I've read your comments and it is clear that you have no idea about anything except your own interpretation of your parties ideas, which are mostly wrong.

So is Biden also determined to address the mental instability issue that was involved also? Or is simply about gun reform?

So glad to see VP Biden heading up this committee and also Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly leading the charge to bring about some real changes. It is sad it has taken so many tragedies to come to this point, but finally it seems some new gun laws will be enacted, or reinstated, and hopefully enforced.

Of course, mental illness issues will need to be addressed, but I agree that even if just one life is saved by their efforts, it is worth it.

You're not serious mcpaddywack. Please tell me that was intended as sarcasm. If so sorry I missed it. Nearly anything with mass or a point can be a deadly weapon, especially cars. I'll be in favor of banning guns when they ban everything else that has ever been used in a murder, including hands and feet. Banning guns solves nothing, typical of liberal policies in general, they make feel-good laws that do nothing to fix the problem.

A car is designed for transportation. A gun is designed to kill things. It's as simple as that. There's NO comparison between cars and guns, it's apples and oranges ok?

I wonder if the gun tracking system will match the numbers placed on your arm ?

Luckystraydog,

Had to laugh when I read that. Reminds me of when my neighbor told me last year before the election that she was afraid of the tattoo or microchip that we would all have to have implanted in our arm if Obamacare was enacted.

LOL

I said, "Whaa-a-at?"

After assuring her this was a hoax and asking where she heard it, she said that she and her husband watch Fox News.

That sort of says it all right there ...

Of course, mental illness issues will need to be addressed, but I agree that even if just one life is saved by their efforts, it is worth it

Who is going to count the life that is saved?

Who is going to count the life that will be lost because a gun is not there? As a "for instance" either one of the three lives that could have been lost because a gun was not available to shoot the bobcat that attacked the homeowners in MA a few days ago, that the man had to wrestle down and hold while his wife ran into the house to get the gun and shoot it?

What about the four lives that could have been lost when the felon broke into the house in Georgia and attacked the wife and three children who tried to hide from him but he hunted them down and found them hiding in the closet.... unfortunately for him, she had her Smith & Wesson with her and shot him.

I count seven "saves" by homeowner guns.

What about you? Do you throw them out? How do you and Biden go about counting the lives saved? And when the gang bangers CONTINUE to shoot up the neighborhoods with their illegal guns will you count the lost lives on YOUR side of the tally sheet, or will you continue to load the balance on the side of legal gun owners?

"If one life is saved it will be worth it." What a self-serving non-comment. It means nothing, because you can never validate it.

however I've read your comments and it is clear that you have no idea about anything except your own interpretation of your parties ideas, which are mostly wrong.

care to explain my party? I noticed you completely side stepped well regulated. Interesting you took offense to the lefty commie remark. are you a lefty commie?

Sally Lu - oh no, you're not trying to be reasonable with CA? Many of us have him on ignore. Communist, marxist, socialist, etc., is the only "argument" he has for anything. He makes no sense but will attack! attack! attack! Put him on ignore - makes the whole day better!

Update -

The family attacked by the bobcat are taking rabies shots, and yes, the bobcat was rabid. But, hell, who needs a gun for home protection?

You all do realize that through Obamacare there will be a database of those that have been "deemed" mentally ill. There is a part of the law that forces health care providers to turn over all medical records to the gov't in the name of "efficiency". If the gov't nationalizes gun ownership, and they are going to, like the have nationalized medicine, then it will be very easy for them to flag those with mental health issues, to keep them from making gun purchases. It will also prevent anyone that has some type of medical diagnoses, from making a purchase as well. So maybe down the road, if you are being treated for cancer, you won't be able to buy a gun, because of what you "might" do. Gotta love that BIG gov't.

You can take to the bank that whatever they come up with in Washington to help control gun violence, will solve nothing. In fact when has Washington proven they can solve anything? Sure they will probably write and pass something, done behind closed doors and never read. It will have plenty of loopholes for the gun manufacturers to work around and only infringe upon those that would never have committed a crime. But Washington can't figure out how to close Gitmo, how to bring our troops home, how to balance the budget, how to reform our tax code, how to encourage jobs growth, and yet people believe they can come up with a plan to control gun violence? The only benefit anyone will derive from some gun violence control act chaired by Biden, will come from all the pork Congress attaches to the bill.

, is the only "argument" he has for anything. He makes no sense but will attack! attack! attack! Put him on ignore - makes the whole day better!

Well the pot is blacker than the kettle. yeah because calling everyone a liar stupid ignorant moron is much better eh Sought Stupidity, of course it is. I just stick to my Faux Newzz Reichwing talking points mein Frau. Sieg Heil

The 2nd Amendment was passed in 1791, when there was no standing US military, other than a rudimentary Navy.

I'm all for allowing people to keep and bear the arms available in 1791.

By the time the next nut case decides to go on a rampage with a front loaded, flint lock gun or musket, I'm sure there will be plenty of teachers capable of taking that person out before they are able to reload.

I'm all for allowing people to keep and bear the arms available in 1791.

wittle sheep, four legs good two legs bad?

And now the "my way or the highway" threats from Biden..... some consensus Joe......

SECEDE from DC......... the only option...........

The 1st Amendment was passed when all we had was pen, paper & presses..... so using your logic..... television, radio & the internet do not qualify as freedom of speech........

dirp, the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with muskets or guns in general. The 2nd amendment was written to address tyranny. If you notice, the framers never say anything about a specific gun, they talk about making sure our freedoms are protected. This is what makes our Constitution and the framers that wrote it one of the most unique documents ever written. It is sad that we have let our politician hijack the document for their own good and special interests.

Has anyone stopped to realize that all the back ground checks and mental test, nationally and state wide, would not have prevented the mass shooting at Newtown, CT. The weapons used were legally purchased by the shooters MOTHER who taught her son how to fire the weapons.

Would have stricter gun control laws prevented the ATF from allowing "fast and furious" fiasco where a border patrol agent was killed. NO. We always hear about shootings by bad people, but rarely do we hear about lives that were saved by people with lawful guns in their homes or legally in their possession. All the talk about more gun control is only politically motivated BS mostly by the liberals.

I don't believe anyone needs an automatic assault rifle (which are already banned by law) or magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and I believe buyers should have background checks done and there should be at least a 10 to 15 day waiting period prior to taking possession of a weapon, anything more is just more government knows best BS. People have to start taking responsibility for themselves and their families.

All this talk about more "gun control" only makes people run out and buy the weapons that might be banned under a new law and increase the price for law abiding people. The more new laws we have on gun control, instead of enforcing those already on the books, will only create more government bureaucracies at both Federal and State level.

1. BS on mental health or violent entertainment = NOTHING will get done
2. BAN Assault weapons and high-capacity magazines NOW! Nothing else will do!
3. Close the gun show loophole!
4. These are the issues that must be pushed through - anything else is gravy

Actually the NRA and the large segment of its extremist followers have continually violated the First Amendment Right of Free Speech every time they bully and try to stifle the voices of those who wish to enact stricter gun laws.

Thank goodness their days of bullying are soon to be over.

Steve and Ceaser: learn your history. The 2nd Amendment was intended to allow the newly created Federal government to utilize the militias of the states as its military. At the time, there was NO US military. 20 years later, the country learned that the failure to have a standing military means that another country could very easily come in, nearly burn your capital to the ground and nearly destroy your entire economy.

The second amendment was intended to prevent a strong federal government from having military control. Since automatic weapons, machine guns, tanks, bombs and assorted other weapons which are able to destroy massive amounts of property and kill massive numbers of people all at one time are all owned by and under the direct control of the federal government, the rational for the 2nd Amend. is totally defeated by reality.

As to the 1st Amendment application to the internet and television, there are some people (I'm pretty sure Scalia is amoungst them) who would argue that the freedom of the press does not apply to the internet or television or radio. However, since my discussion is based on the 2nd Amendment, I'll not spend more time on a further deflection of the issue.

The bottom line is that the Supreme Court has repeatedly failed to properly interpret the law, based on each member's status as either a gun toting yahoo or as an intelligent human being.

The film is called "Living for 32" by Colin Goddard"

The documentary couples footage of Goddard at Tech with several trips he made to gun shows in Virginia, Ohio, Minnesota, Texas and Maine. With the help of friends and a hidden camera, he shows how easy it is to buy guns, without ID or a background check, from private, unlicensed sellers — the so-called “gun show loophole.”

“The problem in the country is that we don’t have uniform gun laws,” said Cuomo Cole, noting that it can be harder to buy medicine than a gun: “I have to show my driver’s license when I buy allergy medicine. … No matter where we are [showing the film], someone in the audience will comment about that.”

In the documentary, now screening in New York and Virginia, Goddard recounts the terror of that day and how it motivated him to make something positive emerge from the tragedy. The then-21-year-old was shot four times and still has three of the bullets in his body, along with a titanium rod in his left leg. Twelve of the 19 people in his intermediate French class that morning died, including the instructor. The gunman, also a student, killed himself in the same classroom as police closed in.”

screminmimi:

Of course, mental illness issues will need to be addressed, but I agree that even if just one life is saved by their efforts, it is worth it

Who is going to count the life that is saved?

Who is going to count the life that will be lost because a gun is not there? As a "for instance" either one of the three lives that could have been lost because a gun was not available to shoot the bobcat that attacked the homeowners in MA a few days ago, that the man had to wrestle down and hold while his wife ran into the house to get the gun and shoot it?

What about the four lives that could have been lost when the felon broke into the house in Georgia and attacked the wife and three children who tried to hide from him but he hunted them down and found them hiding in the closet.... unfortunately for him, she had her Smith & Wesson with her and shot him.

I count seven "saves" by homeowner guns.

What about you? Do you throw them out? How do you and Biden go about counting the lives saved? And when the gang bangers CONTINUE to shoot up the neighborhoods with their illegal guns will you count the lost lives on YOUR side of the tally sheet, or will you continue to load the balance on the side of legal gun owners?

"If one life is saved it will be worth it." What a self-serving non-comment. It means nothing, because you can never validate it.

@Screminmimi:
Your final statement hits the bullseye in my opinion.

haggis,

Yes, I grew up in Virginia and know it has some of the most lax gun laws in the country. You can be mentally insane and go into a gun show there and buy any number of weapons, clips, ammunition, etc., without a background check or anything.

Happens all the time.

Of course, the NRA's commandant, Wayne LaPierre, is from Roanoke, Virginia, so that might explain this.

Why do supposed 2nd Amendment supporters justify their arguments using "straw men" and false equivalencies?

No one has seriously proposed banning all guns or taking away anyone's 2nd Amendment rights. There is a groundswell for a common-sense approach such as stricter limits on the types and quantities of guns and ammo that can be purchased and manufactured.

I support the 2nd Amendment, but I also support facts - and the facts show there is a clear and undeniable direct statistical correlation between gun ownership (per person) and gun deaths (per person).

Other developed countries have the same level of violent crime, including assault, and watch the same TV shows and movies. None of them have either our high rate of gun ownership or our high rate of gun deaths.

TNSEVOL,

Yes, I have wondered the same thing. I have not seen a single post requesting bans on all guns or taking away Second Amendment rights, although there is a poster here named Scriminmimi (or something like that) who will attack you and say that you are wrong and demand that you stop saying it.

NRA bullies. LOL

Haggisbingo: And?? You ask why people buy guns from a private party but yet you need a driver's license to buy allergy medicine. Maybe you are looking at this all wrong. What you SHOULD be asking is why does a government require a drivers license to buy allergy medicine?

You see this is the problem with liberals. Rather than looking at WHY government is so controlling and makes requirements like ID to buy allergy medicine then asking WHY if I sell a gun to a friend we DON'T need to fill out a form maybe you need to think more logically. Why does the government require an ID to buy allergy medicine?

BTW, a number of guns I have bought have intentionally been FROM a private party for that very reason. I don't want the government to know how many guns I have for what is happening this very day. We have a tyrannical leader who believes he has the authority to dictate what I can and can't own and believes he can do so without Congress approval.

Do you think for a moment I want this Community Organizer in Chief to know what guns I have? Of course not. This nut job of a president is the EXACT reason why Thomas Jefferson said about the 2nd Amendment "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Probusiness--I absolutly agree with everything you said. Finally someone with a brain said the right things. For the rest of you lefties that have posted-I will not register my guns well maybe one but i will be darn if I will be forced to give up my protection. What would have happened to that lady with the 2 children if there were two intruders? The second guy would have gotten her and her kids. Nobody thinks anymore. Knee jerk reactions and this plays right into the hands of Obama and the progressives. I am truly afraid of my own government. We have lost so many freedoms already and I do not want to loose any more.

dari43,

Glad that lady had a gun with five bullets and was able to protect her family. Apparently, she did not need an arsenal of assault weapons with magazine clips to take care of this intruder. Nor does anyone. If there had been two, I am sure that intruder would have been hit, too, although he would have probably been high-tailing it out the door after the first guy got shot.

Please don't live in fear of the government. This is just a ploy that the NRA and Fox News uses to manipulate people by instilling them with paranoia.

TNSEVOL/Silverton:

You ask why we gun owners get "sensitive" when nobody is talking about banning guns. My response "yet".

You see liberals (and tyranny) NEVER go after their end goal all at once. People would never go for it. So liberals know you have to "chip away". It is like the example if you throw a frog in a pot of boiling water he will immediately jump out. But put a frog in a pan of cool water, put on a burner, and slowly heat the water the frog will boil to death. (and before any nimrods try to divert the topic - no I have not done this but was done in a scientific study).

So we gun owners KNOW your end desire. Like ObamaCare - it is intended to ultimately break down and collapse and done intentionally because then, with the exchanges already in place, it quickly becomes a "nationalized government health care program". But the uninformed and unintelligent are not smart enough to see the "plan" and will boil in the pot of water.

But back to guns. Liberals want to reduce gun magazines to 10 rounds or less and all kinds of regulations. But guess what - there WILL be another shooting. Then liberals will say 10 rounds is too much and must be reduced to 6. But guess what - there WILL be another shooting. Then liberals will say 6 rounds is too much and let's reduce to 4, then 3, then 2, until liberals initiate what they will call the "Barney Fife" rule. This new "Barney Fife" rule will state you can HAVE a gun but cannot be loaded and any bullets must be kept outside the gun and in a shirt pocket.

You see liberals don't give a tiny rat's behind if a magazine holds 50, 30 25, 10, or 1 - ANY gun should not be allowed. Just like the frog in the pot if liberals and tyrants like Obama said we must get rid of ALL guns there would be an uproar. So you propose "reasonable" restrictions. Because ANY restriction is progress in the right direction of ultimately banning guns completely.

So don't be naive. We all KNOW the goal of liberals which is a complete gun ban. And this is just a step in that ultimate goal.

ProBusiness,

Well, at least thanks for admitting that no one (not even the liberals, as you say) are talking about banning all guns.

And btw, I have been called a teabagger and a bleeding liberal on the same day in this forum. You will have to think of something else to try and get under my skin if you can.

Jefferson never said that, please stop quoting him for it.

Mandatory Storage—NRA opposes requiring gun owners to lock all guns when at home, because locked guns cannot be used for self-defense and such a law would be enforceable only by home inspections by the police.

Results : Easy access for kids.....

Source:

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2012/nra-ila-firearms-fact-card-2012.aspx?s=firearms+fact+card&st=&ps

learn your history

LMAO..my history or yours.

BAN Assault weapons and high-capacity magazines NOW! Nothing else will do!

are you eating cheese and wearing black boots with a stlyish beret when you type this?

There is a groundswell for a common-sense approach such as stricter limits on the types and quantities of guns and ammo that can be purchased and manufactured.

you talk about strawmen arguments and in the same breath call for a common-sense approach. Is this like the 'Fair Share' no one seems to be able to define? Stupid Liberal coffeehouse theories. You libs live in an animal farm style dystopia.

Actually the NRA and the large segment of its extremist followers have continually violated the First Amendment Right of Free Speech every time they bully and try to stifle the voices of those who wish to enact stricter gun laws.

ahh, we'll replace them with the dictatorship of the proletariat and limit the speech of those who dont agree. I get it. idiot

If this administration wants to try and take my guns away, I say just come out and say it. If we are going to have a civil war then lets get it started. Biden said that if we can save even one life it is worth it. I say then leave our guns alone because if you try to take them millions of Americans will die fighting for their freedom before we just hand them over.

What you SHOULD be asking is why does a government require a drivers license to buy allergy medicine?

because you can make methamphetamine from it.

NEXT!

Rhino,

Wake up. No one is trying to take your guns away.

So here we have a gem from ProBusiness:

What that means is Civil War and Revolution to stop this catastrophic president while we still have a country left with any hope.

Regarding gun control be careful what you wish for and make sure that you REALLY want to piss off over 50 million gun owners (average 4 guns each) by trying to take away guns especially with an executive order. Because if you WANT a war you are moving in the right direction to CREATE a war.....

Here is yet another republican patriot advocating civil war, alongside all the other patriots who want to secede from the Union. I think we should all take note of their definition of 'patriot', which not too long ago would have been the definition of 'traitor'. His post seethes with a desire for violence against the gumint and his fellow Americans. All rooted in a dark, brooding paranoia that has no chance of becoming reality.

It is also interesting to note that this is the only argument for allowing the sale of military-style weapons to the general public. Can you see why ProBusiness would want a Bushmaster in his cache? He wants the upper hand when it comes to killing those who disagree with him politically. He's just dying to kill himself a few liberals, along with the American soldiers who he envisions will storm his house and arrest him for being a republican. He needs his Bushmaster for the coming war - which is clearly the next step when he loses politically.

Delusional and violent, plotting treason and longing for armed 'revolution'. Here is the voice of the entitled white boy who doesn't get his way. Here is how much he cares about democracy, and the well-being of our country and its citizens. Take note for future reference.

I don't know who it was that said when the government comes to take our guns, it will be a civil war and there are so many gun owners. They just sent a family in Alaska to jail playing your little game. 26 years the old man got. Plotting to kill Government officials. These people stock pile Assault weapons and Ammo and think they are going to take over the government. Like that is going to happen. Big Business runs this Country right now. That means Gun makers. The NRA is the lobby for the Gun makers.

Now to the second amendment. The Waco in her want to add there words to it. Regulated don't mean regulate. A well regulated Militia ,is what it said. If I remember my history, we were still under the thumb of England. That was the tyranny. When you have a freely elected Government, you by choice do not have a tyrannical Government. What would be a tyrannical Government, is when Big Business can bribe our elected officials to do what they want done, not what the people want done. We do have that now. But we can and should force lobbing to be outlawed. Bribery use to be against the law, Now its done openly, they just call it lobbing now, same thing different name. We should be able to do a signature Nation wide and force Congress to make lobbing against the law again. To do that we will have to force Congress to do public funded elections. Then and only then will we have a truly Representative government, OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE AND BY THE PEOPLE. And make Term limits the law of the land as it was meant to be. I hear these people crying Constitution.... But thy want to cherry pick it. They only want to pick the parts they help there cause. Like the 2nd amendment, The NRA only says the part that says the right to keep and bear arms. They never print the whole 2nd amendment. And some one said the SCOTUS said we can't ban any guns. Not true. Sklia said Guns could be regulated. The Supreme Court can not stop Congress from passing laws to Regulate and ban the sales of Assault Weapons and Congress can tax them so much that people can't afford them and make people take Insurance out on them like you have to have with a car. What do you think Liability Insurance would cost for an AR-15????? That would make them to expensive to own. Make the law say you have to carry a rider on you home owners for say $10 million for each person shoot and or killed by that gun. There are many ways to skin a cat. And Stop the Gun show loop whole. Its going to happen. We should all be adults here and do the right thing here. Less do what's right for the Country, Not just what is good for Remington fire Arms company. This Company made and a Rifles that fires without the trigger being pulled. Then knew about it and did nothing about it. It just don't matter how many people get killed because of this gun. This is what a government is suppose to protect us from. Bad drugs, things that will kill us like smoking.

NRA is a extremist group of southern militias and lobbyist for the GOP, this is an unsafe environment for American families !

chuck,

Very well said. I think most of us are on the same page with this.

Thanks for posting.

ID511: Thomas Jefferson never said what? One of my quotes? My quotes come from historical documents and summarized. You can't be naive to think all you have to say is "Thomas Jefferson didn't say that" and think it was actually an intelligent reply. Tell me WHICH quote you claim Thomas Jefferson didn't say and I will find the exact document it came from.

And just to drive you crazy here are a list of his most famous:

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

Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (Quoting Cesare Beccaria)

The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.

The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.

No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.

To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.

I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious. (Back then!)

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.

Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.

In matters of style, swim with the current;
In matters of principle, stand like a rock.

What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all.

The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society.

When wrongs are pressed because it is believed they will be borne, resistance becomes morality.

Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.

It is strangely absurd to suppose that a million of human beings, collected together, are not under the same moral laws which bind each of them separately.

Liberty is the great parent of science and of virtue; and a nation will be great in both in proportion as it is free.

He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.

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

I have sworn on the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

I have never been able to conceive how any rational being could propose happiness to himself from the exercise of power over others.

To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

In a government bottomed on the will of all, the...liberty of every individual citizen becomes interesting to all.

I’m a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it.

Say nothing of my religion. It is known to God and myself alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life: if it has been honest and dutiful to society the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one.

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

Most bad government has grown out of too much government.

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.

A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.

I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others.

Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?

A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.

The right of self-government does not comprehend the government of others.

An elective despotism was not the government we fought for.

History, in general, only informs us what bad government is.

If there is one principle more deeply rooted in the mind of every American, it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest.

It is better to tolerate that rare instance of a parent’s refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings by a forcible transportation and education of the infant against the will of his father.

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.

The man who reads nothing at all is better than educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.

The only thing one needs to know about all this is that the only thing that counts is that Obama will act to control the people. As we've seen repeatedly, if they can't get Congress to do what they want, they just ignore Congress and issue an executive order. What they hey. What Constitution? What Representatives of the people? I said something needs to be so something will be done! Who cares if anyone agrees or the rules are followed. I've been anointed the Messiah and what I say goes!

We've seen this administration snub it's nose at Congress and the Courts. The good news is that good men and women are not going to just stand by and let this dictator wannabe enslave us. Although it appears that New Hampshire is getting rid of its slogan, more and more people in the rest of the nation are taking up the banner. Unfortunately, they didn't come to their senses in time for the last election. Even if the Republican leadership doesn't understand the extent to which Obama hates this country and the extremes to which he go to make sure we are just one among many nations, the people still see this country as the Shining Beacon of Liberty and the Land of Opportunity.

Hello folks, bottom line, if you don't like the 2nd Amendment, then get rid of it. If you want to see what an armed American Republic looks like, then push through an Executive Order that challenges our 2nd Amendment. Our right was put in place so that we can protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. Anyone who can't see that the government is trying to de-claw its citizenry is blind.

We have lost most of our civil liberties through the passage of the Patriot Act, Foreign Investigation and Surveillance Act (FISA) and National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the new National Defense Resources Preparedness (NDRP)! They have authorized the use of spy drones in American skies! You can be surveilled by any number of Federal agencies, have your phone and computer tapped, bank, medical, and private records accessed! You can be arrested without gaining access to an attorney or a trial. We are molested at the airports or radiated for “security”. And just recently added National Defense Resources Preparedness (NDRP) which comes on the heels of NDAA. This Executive Order allows the government to take pretty much whatever it wants including crops, farm equipment, vehicles, boats, aircraft and fuel to “prepare” for the national defense. This includes making people work for free. You think I’m kidding about the free labor? Here’s a line straight from the EO that says, “. . . to employ persons of outstanding experience and ability without compensation. . .” This is authorized even in peace time!

The line in the sand that is the 2nd Amendment is drawn!

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty."

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

Benjamin Franklin

ProBusiness,

This one: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." ....the one you kept using. I'm not trying to be a dick here or anything, please let me know which document, not a website that also quotes it without sourcing it, and I will gladly eat my words. Thanks

MJ: So? Just because someone can make meth out of allergy medication doesn't authorize the government to restrict the use to RESPONSIBLE people!!

This is the PROBLEM with you liberals!! You see a problem and rather than fixing the PROBLEM you restrict to law-abiding people. Just because people can make meth doesn't mean EVERYBODY who buys will make meth!! If you make meth you have broken the law - and are punished through our legal system.

Same with guns. There are 200 million guns owned by over 50 million gun owners. If someone uses a gun illegally THEN they are punished through our legal system.

Just like the allergy medicine your solution is to take away from legal owners. Say someone finds out how to take lawn clippings and make a bomb - do you restrict the ability for people to purchase grass for their lawn?

Or let's say someone uses gasoline to burn a house down - your answer is to restrict the purchase of gasoline? What an incompetent, illogical, and irresponsible argument. But that is typical liberal arguments.....

ProBusiness,

The closest I can find from a legitimate source is this:

OUTLAW REAL BULLETS

Rubber Bullets for all your damn guns

TrustVerify - bet you look under your bed every night to make sure the government boogeyman isn't there! Sheish!

Forgot you can't post links, it's on Monticello.org, from three drafts of the Virginia Constitution,

First Draft: "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."^[1

Second Draft: "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]."^[2]

Third Draft: "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands or tenements]"^[3]

All the sites with the aforementioned quote source this document but I cannot find that actual quote in any Jefferson papers.

mcpaddywack

a car is never a deadly weapon....

Neither is a commercial airliner, right?

Snakebone: Did you think your post made sense? I am a law-abiding person and you propose taking away my freedoms.

I suggest if you do that you will create a conflict - and somehow you illogically thing I am the one who is a traitor? Aren't you the one trying to take my rights away? Aren't YOU the traitor?

That is like you coming to my house and demanding to take my T.V. I tell you to go $#%# yourself and if you come any farther I'll make sure you never walk again. And you then tell me that I am creating conflict?

Let me tell you about myself. I have stopped on the highway and helped people change their spare tire. I have helped a man who didn't tie down a table in his truck and he had stopped to try and secure. I stopped and gave him one of my straps (probably worth $5) so he can make it home. I will lay down my life to protect my wife and family and will also lay down my life to protect YOUR family.

But try to take something from me and you will see the belly of Hell right before your very eyes. Call me a traitor if you want but go against what this country was founded on and use the Constitution for your own toilet tissue THEN tell me you are going to take something from me the Constitution protects and you will have the meanest Tasmanian Devil you have ever seen. And, yes, I will raise arms to protect myself whether it be against another person intending to do me harm OR a tyrannical government that no longer protects me and no longer acknowledges the freedoms GUARANTEED in the United States Constitution.

What an incompetent, illogical, and irresponsible argument. But that is typical liberal arguments.....

RECOGNIZE YOURSELF WITH THAT KIND OF POST?

koo-koo gun totin' IGNORAMOUS posters who boasting NO ONE WILL EVER TAKE AWAY THEIR GUNS

should

have

their guns taken away

because they are too mentally unstable to understand

the CONVERSATION.

.

I

DON'T

WANT

YOUR

GUNS.

.

.

Asking for sensible SAFETY REFORMS benefits the Gun owners.

Caesar Augustus-

Sally 'Well Regulated' Lu please see the Minute Men (use google to help) or am i being too vile by not agreeing with lefty commies?

Amazing Caesar...everyone else quite fighting the communists during the end of the 1980s...where have you been?

You don't think that the liberals and the White House are grandstanding?

Vice President Joe Biden said Wednesday that the administration is "determined to take action" in the wake of the Newtown shooting spree that left 20 children dead.

Ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines and increase background checks?

Background checks are being performed now. The shooter, Adam Lanza was not capable of getting guns anywhere with today's background checks. The rightful owner, his mother, probably had a background check done and passed.

You want to limit clips to 10 rounds max, versus the 30 rounds that the Bushmaster used? It takes two seconds to change a clip. Instead of taking 23 seconds to fire 30 rounds it would take 27 seconds. You really think that would have saved the lives of the Newtown victims.

Ban Assault Weapons. Sen Fienstein's proposed legislation would use the 1994 Assault Weapons definition, but change the requirements from two items of the list to one item. A .22 rifle with a 10 round clip, but it has a pistol grip would be an assault weapon. Really?

Changes need to be made, but the only change that would have stopped the Newtown tragedy is to require owners of guns to secure their weapons, but that is not what Congress will ever do.

You also should ask yourself, if someone is going to break the law by killing people in a preplanned way like Newtown, the Denver theater, Columbine, etc, do you think that breaking another law by obtaining illegal guns is going to stop them? What we need is real reform and that is not what the White House is looking to do. Just do something while people are interested and do it fast. That way we will think that the President cares.

You want to get rid of guns? Make it illegal to profit from making or selling them. All this fuss will die down and they will go the way of the dodo bird.

Amazing Caesar...everyone else quite fighting the communists during the end of the 1980s...where have you been?

they did? so are you saying that communism is dead? maybe someone should send the memo to cuba and to many FR posters. Interesting the philosophy still exists despite its failure. hey Ole Doc are you a commie?

ID511:

This is what I understand: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson, proposed Virginia constitution, June 1776. 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C. J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)

Can I prove it? Can I pull out a copy of a proposed constitution? No, but unfortunately we don't have YouTube from 1776 for 100% confirmation. Do you need to eat your words? No, of course not because all we have is a reference. Some will believe (and use) for these types of discussion and some will discredit.

But what I think (or hope) is apparent is I used the quote "in good faith". Whether some want to "believe" or not is up to them.

Whether you want gun control or not, people should be upset that Obama is willing to use "Executive Orders" to try and implement his desires on a constitutional questionable law. It is up to Congress to debate it and vote on it one way or the other.

This is power he does not have and is dictatorial in nature.

Before all the emotional, unthinking response.....Just remember. You allow your guy to do it, then the precedent is set for the Right Winger to do it. Once you open pandora's box, it's very hard to shut it.

ProBusiness

It sounds to me as though you believe there should be no restrictions to owning a weapon. Then why not napalm? Seriously, napalm is just a gelatinized petroleum product and petroleum certainly isn't illegal. How about a few pounds of C-4? A few pounds of C-4 sitting on a copy of the Constitution is just a paperweight, right? Isn't a weapon defined by intent? If I obtain an RPG with no intention of killing anyone at the time, shouldn't it be legal? Is there legitimacy to any law that restricts personal freedom? Aren't the laws codifying murder as a crime a potential violation of my personal freedom? Should that not be a logical murder defense? At what point do the needs of a society to set standards for the safety of the individuals within that society overrule the personal freedom of the individual? ...these are discussions we need to be having, not simply blind condemnation of each other's points of view.

ProBusiness-

Your "frog in boiling water" story is a good analogy for your other story that ALL liberals want to take all your guns away - both are oft-repeated yet highly inaccurate.

If you turn up the water at some point the frog WILL jump out - a study at the University of Oklahoma done in 2002 proves it. Likewise very few liberals advocate banning all guns.

The "slippery slope" argument is used as a substitute for compromise and sane choices. There is no slope slippery enough to bridge the huge disparity between banning all guns and limiting large quantity purchases.

The failure of reasonable Americans to demand common-sense gun reform is inexcusable. We are far enough away from the "slippery slope" that a few steps forward won't make us fall.

Bill -

What you fail to grasp from the tragedy in CT is that the only gun owner in the situation was the mother - and her guns didn't protect her or anyone else, they simply made it easier for her son to kill her and others.

Its time to think about some common-sense solutions.

Bill-2910238

Background checks are being performed now.

Except at Gun Shows...right?

Except at Gun Shows...right?

from a private owner no. a licensed dealer yes. Guess what, who needs a gunshow. try the classifieds.

Since the assault weapons ban expired in 2004, mass shootings have doubled every year.

Ol_Doc-

Only two states require a background check prior to the private sale of a rifle - California and Rhode Island.

I have a key in my pocket that only opens my car, and if someone else tries to operate my car with a diffferent key it won't work. I have to use a password to access my phone. I personally have trigger locks on all my guns, my son couldn't get to them if he tried. (but of course I have taught him better than that anyway).

The sad truth is the tragedy in Newtown could have been prevented if the mom was responsible enough to buy $10 trigger locks.

Why can't the gun companies design a gun that only works for its owner?

Ol_Doc:

I believe, like you do, that "reasonable" restrictions are acceptable. The problem I have is that there are no such thing as "reasonable" restrictions to a liberal (in fairness, I am not implying you as a "liberal" and not sure if that is the case - my comment of "liberal" is a generic one).

I think any "reasonable" person would agree napalm is "unreasonable". I believe most would also agree that an automatic weapon (machine gun, etc.) is "unreasonable". But it gets very debatable when we start talking about a 10 round, 25 round, or 50 round magazine for example. I got news for you - one 50 round magazine or two 25 round magazines don't make a hill of beans difference.

So we will have liberals (again, a generic reference) who do not want any guns allowed. So we can't have a reasonable or rational discussion on the topic. Should it be 50 round limits or 25 round limit? That is not as clear cut as the difference between napalm and nuclear weapons.

But, to be honest with you, I could get on board with an agreement of so many rounds in a magazine IF I believed THAT was the only concern and then everybody would be happy. Liberals wouldn't be. If we reduced to 25 round maximum and both sides said we could agree with that and THEN it would be the end of the discussion we could get to that quickly. But that is not the end goal of liberals.

Liberals (as I described in detail above) have an end goal and will "chip away" at every opportunity. They wouldn't be satisfied with a 25 round maximum but would "take it for now". Then they immediately work on the NEXT restriction.

So always interesting that liberals like to use words like "common sense" rules but can't define what those are. So conservatives say "no" because we know that 25 round limits become 20 become 10 become 5 become the Barney Fife rule that you are only allowed to carry one bullet and it must be in your shirt pocket.

We conservatives can be "reasonable" and agree to "reasonable accommodations" IF those agreements were the end of the discussion. But we know better. We know history. We know the liberal end goal. So we must fight even the LITTLE changes because that is NOT what liberals end goals are.

So we will have liberals (again, a generic reference) who do not want any guns allowed.

OK

now you are just off on self-serving CRAZY TALK.

I am an indepependent.

and I want RATIONALE REASONABLE CONTROLS ON GUNS.

Stop with your blathering about liberals....makes the conservatives look really stupid.

If you want to be reasonable, LOOK at the NRA gun recommendations.... because they are ripe with foolishness.

Hello folks, prohibition had a better chance of remaining law then futzing with the second amendment! This is really a test to see if anything in our constitution is still sacred!

Caesar Augustus-

Amazing Caesar...everyone else quite fighting the communists during the end of the 1980s...where have you been?

they did? so are you saying that communism is dead? maybe someone should send the memo to cuba and to many FR posters. Interesting the philosophy still exists despite its failure. hey Ole Doc are you a commie?

So, Cuba is a communist success story in your mind? As to whether or not I'm a commie, I spent most of my life training to kill commies...how bout you? Are you actually a closet-commie?

Caesar Augustus-

Except at Gun Shows...right?

from a private owner no. a licensed dealer yes. Guess what, who needs a gunshow. try the classifieds.

Thank you for helping to identify the problem...see? We can work together!

TNSEVOL: Your latest point seems to confirm my point all along. It is when someone breaks the law they should be punished. We do not punish people who MIGHT break the law.

You can have a person talk about robbing a bank but, legally, there is nothing that can be done to that person unless he does. If a person talks about speeding on the way home there is nothing we can do to stop that UNTIL the action takes place. If a person buys gasoline with the intention of burning down the neighbors house (and assume we have no idea that is the intention when he bought the gasoline) there is nothing we can do until it is known he intends to commit a crime.

We don't allow the 4th amendment to be eliminated just because it is possible that a house can be used to make meth. The 4th amendment protects against search of person or house without cause. Meth kills MANY people so why don't we just allow the police to knock on a door and enter a house just to "check" to see if meth is being made? What if when you get home a policeman greets you then asks to come in and check for meth. You tell him "no" but he tells you "it is for the protection of the people" and you don't have a choice.

Can we save lives by randomly checking houses for meth labs or illegal activity? Certainly. But is THAT the country you want to live in. I propose it isn't. That is what you are proposing with gun control legislation. You are telling 50 million gun owners that to protect what may be a few individuals they are taking away your 2nd amendment right. And if they take your 2nd amendment is the 4th close behind? How about then your 1st amendment right? Why is taking the 2nd amendment acceptable but not the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights?

You see so many are short sighted thinking taking away rights of law-abiding persons will somehow be to the betterment of society. If we wanted to save lives why don't we simply remove the Bill of Rights and tell the people they have NO rights. Police can check your house, car, or person whenever they want. You are not allowed to pray. You can't own a gun. You must have all purchases approved by the government before buying. The government tells you what your job will be. They can put hidden cameras in your house without you knowing. They can arrest you and hold you for interrogation indefinitely and do not need to charge you with a crime until you are forced to confess under torture.

If we allowed that would there be less deaths? Less crime? I don't know but I can assure you if we wanted to find out how that society works maybe we can ask those living in North Korea or Iran. Some might say my examples are extreme and you are correct. They ARE extreme. But once you allow MINOR rights to be taken away it makes it easier to take away MAJOR rights down the line.

Our founding fathers knew what the dangers of government were. They lived it. Most of you, and me included, have not. But I have studied history extensively and I understand the dangers of a tyrannical government. I understand once they GET control of the people you will never get it back. Maybe you can't appreciate the danger of giving government more control but I do. And it is scary.

It took a Revolutionary War to give us the freedoms we enjoy and, quite honestly, take for granted. Our founding fathers risked torture and death to give you and I the freedoms we enjoy. The freedoms that NO OTHER country offer to the extent we have them here. If you desire less freedoms I suggest visiting and asking to move to a country that meets your desires. But I believe in freedom. I believe in individuality. I believe is self-responsibility. It is what has made this country great and I would like to keep it that way.

This country was founded on the principle of individual freedom. Could we "protect" the people better with less freedom? Possibly, but at a significant cost. Our founding fathers believed, and were correct, that a country based on the right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" of the people would make this country great and has been for over 200 years. But now many want to restrict freedoms under the pretense of "for your own good" but all that means is less freedom and more government.

Be careful about what "little rights" you are willing to give up because it very well could lead to a tyrannical government where you have ALL rights taken away.

TNSEVOL

Ol_Doc-

Only two states require a background check prior to the private sale of a rifle - California and Rhode Island.

I have a key in my pocket that only opens my car, and if someone else tries to operate my car with a diffferent key it won't work. I have to use a password to access my phone. I personally have trigger locks on all my guns, my son couldn't get to them if he tried. (but of course I have taught him better than that anyway).

The sad truth is the tragedy in Newtown could have been prevented if the mom was responsible enough to buy $10 trigger locks.

Why can't the gun companies design a gun that only works for its owner?

I absolutely agree. I consider myself to be a safe and responsible gun owner. No one is taking my weapon, but I am willing to discuss sensible alternatives to the wild west.

C.A.#1.92./The poster was claiming that a period in our history is over. You are claiming that people,such as I are truly communists for we Liberal Democrats question your blanket insults. The person from which your nom de plume is derived,was assassinated by other members of the senate as he was considered to be aspiring to become a dictator. From your behavior you also do not accept disagreeing with your views lightly. This is discussions only so lighten up and cool down on the insults.

This is really a test to see if anything in our constitution is still sacred!

"Brought to you by the National Rifle Association...what's in your wallet?"

A gun safety card!

ProBusiness:

On the plus side, if your violence is contained until someone comes to take your guns away, you will have no need of violence, so that's good. Your delusion is quite obviously based on a caricature of the left, a straw man that you've bought into.

Since you told me about yourself, I'll return the favor. I'm a liberal gun owner. If you think that's strange or odd, you've been suckered by someone. I live in one of the most liberal places in America, and between myself and just two of my liberal friends, we own something like 20 guns. This is not unusual. Our local gun shop does a brisk business. And yes, we are very much in favor of the kinds of gun control being discussed now.

For some reason, what all of these posters here say over and over is lost on you. Your slippery slope into the dark, paranoid idea that the gumint gonna come around and take our guns is ludicrous - not because there aren't a few on the left fringe who would think that a good idea, but because there are a whole lot of us on the left who would say 'hell no' along with you. That is why the fringe left is not at the table. Most of us understand, as reasonable people, that we couldn't put that genii back in the bottle even if we wanted to. You are so convinced of the tyrannical, liberal boogyman that you can't see how much support you have on the left for keeping our guns, even though we explain this to you over and over. This makes you not only ignorant, but also offensive, since you appear to think we're just lying.

Try listening for a change. We. do. not. want. to. take. your. guns. Seems understandable to me - do you understand? Taking small steps to try to reduce the 'mass' of the 'mass shootings' is not punishment, it is not a slippery slope to tyranny, the government is not going to raid its citizens to take their guns, none of what you are saying is relevant in any way to the current conversation on gun control. It just makes you sound looney.

I'm sorry you live in that dark world of paranoia, but that is your own doing. All your bluster about civil war and revolution says a lot more about you than you apparently realize. Delusional and violent: I'll stand by that. Have fun preparing for the end of the world.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for
the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to
protect themselves against tyranny in government"

-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

ProBusiness

Ol_Doc:

I believe, like you do, that "reasonable" restrictions are acceptable. The problem I have is that there are no such thing as "reasonable" restrictions to a liberal (in fairness, I am not implying you as a "liberal" and not sure if that is the case - my comment of "liberal" is a generic one).

That kind of an assumption is why we can't have a reasonable discussion. In fact I'm not a liberal, I consider myself a progressive. As to taking guns away, I am a gun owner and that's not going to happen.

I do believe in responsible gun ownership however. I personally have a great respect for personal weapons and what they are capable of. From my childhood learning the basics of gun safety to serving as a Range Safety NCO in the Army, I know what a gun is for and what it can do.

A gun is designed to kill. It was not developed for target practice or even hunting. It replaced the bow because it is easier, quicker and cheaper to teach a group of people to kill with a gun than a bow. That having been said, I am not anti-personal weapon. As I said, I own a gun...but let's not BS each other or get all namby pamby.

TrustVerify

A gun safety card!

Good! And I hope you safeguard your weapon.

ProBusiness

Thomas Jefferson quotes:

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

Now where did I hear this before?... Oh yeah, the nutjob Piers interviewed yesterday.

Do you really think your cache of weapons has any chance against the military might of the USA? Seriously???

If we get to the point of tyranny in government, you're gonna need alot more than a few guns.

Obama, Biden and White House Attorney in Oval Office meeting

Biden: We are determined to ban all guns in America.

White House Attorney: Mr. Vice President, that would be unconstitutional.

Biden: What is constitution?

White House Attorney: (pulling out the Constitution) It is this document, which tells us what we can and cannot do in this country.

Obama: (looking over the Constitution) What?!? I thought this was toilet paper. That's what I've been using in my upstairs bathroom for the past 4 years.

Pro Business,

There's no "believing" necessary when talking about quotes, it was either written by Jefferson or not. The quote with reference you cited was posted on the Kentucky Concealed Carry Coalition website.

From the website of Monticello, a World Heritage Site,: "Status: This quotation has not been found in any of the writings of Thomas Jefferson. It is often seen preceded by the sentence, "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms," which is from Jefferson's draft of the Virginia Constitution."

You can believe it all you would like, it just happens to be false.

Biden and Co, what a bunch of incompetent idiots. They could not find their way out off a wet paper bag. Let get real men to address this issue, not weenies.

Remarkably well said, Snakebone.

There are a few sick people with access to a microphone and camera that are profiting greatly from this hysterical paranoia - and it is the same paranoia regardless of the issue. It is a shame because we need to be having these very important conversations with each other and we're wasting way too much time having to weed through the propaganda.

Oh...and "scott"...Please define "arms". To take Thomas Jefferson literally would mean that we should all be able to stash a nuclear warhead in our basements.

Hello 9BallPro, first your assuming that the military would turn their guns on American citizens, which I don't think most of them would. Nobody is saying nor does anyone have the illusion they would win a battle against our military, they are saying that they would rather die standing on their feet then living on their knees. Those are the true patriots, not the cowards that hide behind the governments skirt and talk like they have a pair.

"If our actions result in saving only one life, they're worth taking," Biden said at a meeting of victims and gun control proponents at the White House. "But I'm convinced we can affect the well-being of millions of Americans and take thousands of people out of harm's way if we act responsibly."

This has to be the worst reason to do anything ever.

We could ban cell phones and save more people from car accidents.... is that worth doing.

We could make it illegal to refuse a flu shot and save 36,000 people a year.... is that worth doing?

Well, at least thanks for admitting that no one (not even the liberals, as you say) are talking about banning all guns

This is a lie that "silverton" keeps posting.

Yes, several people on these threads about gun control have advocated confiscating all guns. No more gun sales, no "grandfathering" and a door to door search using the National Guard and local police are some of the suggestions.

The following changes in the rules for owning weapons needs to be legislated into law. They do not include a wholesale ban on all firearms but simply force gun owners to be more responsible custodians of their weaponry.

As a firm condition for the ownership of a firearm, strict training and testing on the use and storage of their weapons as well as the local, state, and federal laws that apply to them should be required. Periodic retesting should be maintained to ensure gun owners remain current on training and laws. The laws need to include strict rules concerning secure storage of guns and their ammo with stiff penalties for all violations. All weapons need to be registered with law enforcement agencies with the data kept and maintained at a federal level to ensure national compliance. Obligatory liability insurance needs to be required for each and every weapon as a condition for ownership, as well. Modifying existing firearms to make them safer and more difficult to use by unauthorized people should be encouraged. Finally, assault weapons, high capacity magazines, and a few other pointless toys (for example.50 sniper rifles) should be banned. The transfer of ownership of assault weapons and their banned accessories should be closely monitored or disallowed completely, lowering their value and thus making them less attractive as collectibles.

Mature gun owners will find these laws will probably not affect them terribly while childish wannabe Rambos and other irresponsible "gun enthusiasts" will less comfortable with them. Good.

screminimaniac,

Still waiting for you to prove that anybody in these threads is saying ALL guns should be banned.

Come on, please.

Just ONE example. Just ONE.

LOL

TrustVerify:

If talking big about who you'll kill if you don't get your way in our democracy makes you a 'patriot', then the word no longer has any meaning. Being delusional and violent is a mental disorder. Taking arms against the US Government is treason. You'll have to find a different word to describe your glorious vision of the future.

Mature gun owners will find these laws will probably not affect them terribly while childish wannabe Rambos and other irresponsible "gun enthusiasts" will less comfortable with them. Good.

Judging from the comments here, I would be willing to say that those who are opposed to having a conversation about gun violence in America are the ones that probably shouldn't even be allowed to own a squirt gun. Those yelling the loudest, it would seem, would stand to lose the most if, at the least, more restrictions were placed on the mentally ill in regards to gun ownership.

Good Lord. You just mention the word "gun" and every hillbilly jumps on here screaming "you ain't a gonna take mine, ya commie bas-terd!!"

Paranoid freaks, unite! Then join the NRA!!

Snakebone, nobody's talking about killing anybody, that is you spinning words to achieve your end goal, and that is banning guns. This all goes back to Sandy Hook, but where are your crocodile tears for the hundreds of thousands of kids our government kills in our name.

Consider the Sandy Hook school shooting. This shooting serves as an excuse for anti gun lobbyists to express their hatred of guns and the NRA and to advance their gun control agenda. Few if any of those hyperventilating over the tragedy know any of the parents of the murdered children. They have shown no similar response to the US government’s murder of countless thousands of Muslim children. The Clinton regime alone killed 500,000 Iraqi children with illegal sanctions, and Clinton’s immoral secretary of state Madeleine Albright, a feminist hero, said that she thought the sanctions were worth the cost of one half million dead Iraqi children. The Bush regime is just as guilty.

Suddenly, 20 US children become of massive importance to “progressives.” Why? Because the deaths foster their agenda–gun control in the US.

When I hear people talk about “gun violence,” I wonder what has happened to language. A gun is an inanimate object. An inanimate object cannot cause violence. Humans cause violence. The relevant question is: why do humans cause violence? This obvious question seldom gets asked. Instead, inanimate objects are blamed for the actions of humans.

This double standard is called hypocrisy where's the outrage for those innocent people and children?

Anyone who doesn't agree with Caesar or find him as amazing, intelligent or as humorous as he finds himself is a Nazi or a Communist. He is kind of stuck in those old Cold War days. Those were probably his glory days and he now just sits in front of his computer with his gun across his lap waiting for the Commies or the Nazis to come goose stepping down his street to strip him of his Constitutional rights.

It's not about guns.

It's about control.

This shooting serves as an excuse for anti gun lobbyists to express their hatred of guns and the NRA and to advance their gun control agenda.

Any agenda that could possibly save the life of just one child is worth having a discussion over, wouldn't you think?

I'm guessing, "trust..." that you are far too attached to your self-righteous paranoia to even have the discussion.

Sally Lu

walk into your gun store and try to buy a gun. You will find out how hard it is to buy one and all the background check you have to go through.

“The U.S. accounts for 87% of child gun deaths in the 23 richest countries” - The Center for Public Integrity

Certainly this fact deserves/requires some rational discussion.

TrustVerify:

Snakebone, nobody's talking about killing anybody

So, the ones talking big about taking on the US Government if things don't go their way - you know, the ones you called 'patriots' - yes, they're talking about killing. There is a way to take on the government without killing, it's called voting.

that is you spinning words to achieve your end goal, and that is banning guns.

And there you go again, right off the rails. Couldn't even get past the first sentence without jumping to your delusion, huh? Oh well, I suppose it is easier to fight a straw man. Good luck with that.

mj899,

Walk into any gun show and try to buy any gun. As long as you've got money in your wallet, you can walked out armed today with no background check.

Executive Order! I love it! Since the Do Nothing Republicans are already in the pockets of the NRA go beyond the Do Nothings and do something! Executive Order! Ban assault rifles and weapons!

I loved the sanding ovation the Gov. of NY got when he laid out his plans to ban assault weapons!

Sally Lu,

Which gun shows are you going to! They don't have to check anything to give you a gun at the gun shows I've gone to. I've looked in horror at the lethal weapons and the talk of nut case gun freaks!

Are 30,000 firearms-related deaths per year in the U.S. enough tragedies and dystopia for you, or shall we geometrically increase the frequency of mass shooting episodes every year in this country, ever since the assault gun ban ended in 2004?

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/12/26/16169576-chart-before-and-after-the-assault-weapons-ban?lite

Let me tell you all a story that I think will prove enlightening about how these mass shootings happen and how to prevent them:

I have a step-brother who has FAS, paranoid schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder. Before he was finally institutionalized in a secured group home, he spent eighteen hours a day playing violent video games involving super-heroes and super-villains. He spent the rest of his time reading violent comic books. He dressed with super-villian clothes, and he posted his many violent fantasies online, in which he portrayed himself as a super-hero (or villain, as the case may be) who would go around town killing people that he felt "deserved" to die after being acquitted of crimes. He did not merely fantasize about this alter-ego; he believed that he was Batman, or that Batman and a few other comic book characters were talking to him and following him around even though no one else could see or hear them.

He was harmless while taking medications, but he stopped taking his meds... again, and again, and again, and so he relapsed again, and again, and again. In spite of posting threats online, in spite of openly publishing his violent fantasies online, and in spite of having chopped a dozen holes in the walls of his home with an ax!!!!... his mother had NO SUCCESS putting him away when she called the police, called the mental health crisis team, and doing everything else within her power, legally, to put him in a mental hospital. Why? Because he would tell the cops, and the mental health workers, "I'm not thinking about hurting anyone. It's all just comic book stuff, you know, creative writing." Including the ax holes in the walls, eh? Apparently so, since they released him TWICE after his mother signed papers to have him evaluated. Meanwhile, Social Security denied his disability claim because... well, who the hell knows? That's how it works, ya know.

At last this young man made good on his threats, beating the living hell out of his own sister in a fit of rage born of his delusions. When the police arrived, he lunged at them, too, and was quickly put down and taken into custody. Now, after several months and several thousand dollars of legal fees, the system finally listened to his mother and put him in a secured group home, where he has no choice but to take his meds, cannot leave without an escort, and will never have access to a weapon again.

I do not need to tell you how this story might have ended otherwise. What I would like to know is, why is someone who is that openly and outrageously out of control cut loose to walk the streets again and again and again, and we have to wait till he actually hurts someone to put him away? Generally, I do not believe in locking people up based on what they "might" do, but that this young man was a ticking time bomb was as obvious as daylight to anyone who knew him. Why in the hell did the mental health workers, the police, and the State wait until he beat his sister to a pulp before putting him away?

By the way, I am that sister...

Scum,

Thank you for your story, but these mindless right wing gun owners don't see or won't see the other outcome that would have been nor will they ever. They always make excuses! I hope the scars are less and your love for that brother may still be present!

Sum ....

I am so sorry for you about your life story. I am the sister as well. However, my brother decided suicide was the better option. As for how come they are allowed to walk on the streets, etc., once they turn 18, the parents cannot enforce any type of medications or hospitalizations. They are emancipated and the choice to take medications or not relies upon the one in need. I would suggest you visit the NAMI website.

As for all of those posting about who is able to judge a mentally unstable person, even those with degrees misjudge a psychosis at times because substance abuse mimics mental health diagnosis.

The answer is to limit clips and magazines. It's not to turn all into "sherriffs" and "counselors."

Be well.

Hello snakebone, how about a gentleman's bet? I know that there will be a lot of bluster from the Administration but I'll bet you that after the dust settles from what is proposed to what actually gets instituted, will not change a persons ability to get any size of magazine they want along side the AR15. Hell, Walmart will probably have a buy one get one free sale!

Is it a bet?

I'll tell you what, I'll let you give peace a chance but I'll cover you with my 2nd Amendment in case it doesn't work out!

The True Patriots know this isn't just about gun control, it's about neutering the population so that they can put everyone on their knees. We won't let that happen!

An order from Obama exerting executive privilege will be met with more resistance than previous orders used to bypass Congress.

Could this be just what is needed to stop this administration that refuses to obey the laws of the land?

Better keep stockpiling, TrustVerify.

New gun laws are coming and Big Brother will be watching you. LOL

:)

This whole topic makes me sick. People is the only problem that needs to be discussed.

To all conservatives: OK you have the argument that we should have guns to protect ourselves from the tyranny of government. Are you advocating armed insurrection? Are you advocating the violent overthrow of the U.S. government? It seems like people of your ilk were all for Joe McCarthy's fear of people whose only crime was that of having left of center views and falsely proclaiming a conspiracy to overthrow the government. So... why is one group who are inclined to overthrow the government OK, but another group who were falsely accused of wanting to overthrow the government allowed to be persecuted?

Here ya go:

You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.

Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.

With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.

You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it.

In the darkness, you make out two shadows.

One holds something that looks like a crowbar.

When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire.

The blast knocks both thugs to the floor.

One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door

and lurches outside.

As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.

In your country, most guns were outlawed years

before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless..

Yours was never registered.

Police arrive and inform you

that the first burglar has died.

They arrest you for First Degree Murder

and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.

When you talk to your attorney, he tells

you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.

"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.

"Only ten-to-twelve years,"

he replies, as if that's nothing.

"Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."

The next day, the shooting is the lead

story in the local newspaper.

Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys.

Their friends and relatives can't find

an unkind word to say about them..

Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times.

But the next day's headline says it all:

"Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die."

The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters..

As the days wear on, the story takes wings.

The national media picks it up,

then the international media.

The surviving burglar
has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing

to sue you, and he'll probably win.

The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack

of effort in apprehending the suspects.

After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.

The District Attorney uses this to allege

that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial.

The charges haven't been reduced,

as your lawyer had so confidently predicted.

When you take the stand, your anger at

the injustice of it all works against you..

Prosecutors paint a picture of you

as a mean, vengeful man.

It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.

The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened.

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second.

In April, 2000, he was convicted

and is now serving a life term..

How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire ?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903.

This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.
The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns..

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987.Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw.

When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions.
(The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland ,
Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals.
Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners.
Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns.
The Dunblane Inquiry, a few
months later, sealed the fate of the
few sidearms
still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism.
Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun.
Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying,
"We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."

All of Martin's neighbors
had been robbed numerous times,
and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs
who had no fear of the consequences.
Martin himself, a collector of antiques,
had seen most of his collection
trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended,
citizens who owned handguns
were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.

Being good British subjects,
most people obeyed the law.
The few who didn't were visited by police
and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply.

Police later bragged that they'd taken
nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns?
The guns had been registered and licensed.
Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?
WAKE UP AMERICA ; THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

"...It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams--

Sally Lu - Do you not understand grammar and sentence structure? Before I proceed, you're using the wrong version of the amendment. The correct version is that which was ratified by the states and appears in official Congressional records:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This is important, because it splits the amendment into two clauses, an independent clause and a dependent clause. Note that the independent clause is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This expression is able to stand alone. This construction is actually very ingenious, because the sentence structure reflects real-life - the existence of a militia depends an armed populace.

Be that as it may, and getting back to your interpretation of the amendment, the term "well regulated" modifies the word "militia," not the word "right." There is simply no grammatical construction of the sentence that would link the term "well regulated" to anything in the independent clause. Any high school student should be able to tell you that. Additionally, the term "well regulated" does not have the modern meaning of "regulation" (i.e., to regulate by legislation or administrative code). It refers to military order and it means "well" or "properly" trained. (Like Bach's "well-tempered clavier," which meant "properly tuned." It makes no sense to understand Bach's title in a modern sense, and think he was referring to a "polite" or "well-mannered" piano. Likewise, the Second Amendment must be understood by using the meanings ascribed to the words at the time they were written. This for of interpretation is well established judicial procedure.)

Another note along the same line - There is no legislative authority or power granted in the Bill of Rights. At the time of the adoption of the BOR, all legislative authority was in Article 1. It is faulty constitutional analysis to point to something in the BOR and infer a legislative power. Indeed, the BOR was written for precisely the opposite reason; it was meant as evidence that the Constitution gave government no authority over any natural right. (In this case, the right to life and its defense, implying the right to the arms necessary to effectuate the right - now some wag will say that by taking away guns, government is protecting lives. Wrong. YOU are responsible for your own life, government is only responsible for not intruding upon it and your rights. SCOTUS ruled years ago that government has no responsibility to defend the lives of individual citizens. YOU are you own first responder, because you are the first person able to respond to a threat to your life.)

Sheesh, if I hear this one more time about "well regulated" meaning the government has the authority to regulate arms in private possession, I'll scream.

The NRA and its fanatic fringe have violated the First Amendment Right of Free Speech for decades. Whenever anyone tried to speak out about reasonable gun laws, they were shouted down, belittled, mocked, villified, and otherwise bullied for voicing their opinion.

Thank goodness the NRA cannot bully us anymore.

My right to self preservation shawl not be infringed upon.

Apparently, neither shall your right to late night alcohol consumption.

ah, busted, stupid me..

hehe, well it sounded good a minute ago

This topic is so blown out of proportion by a sensationalized media. Your are more likely to die in a car accident or medical malpractice etc etc then by some guy with a gun. You probably have a few female murderers in your neighborhood and you may not know it. (Abortion but that kind of killing is ok.) 3/4 of gun murders are gang bangers shooting each other and who really cares about them. They made their choice.

Whats to stop an airline pilot whose having a bad day his wifes leaving him,hes declaring bankruptcy, etc from flying into another building wiping out another 3000 people? Or some goof runs a bus off the road in the mountains of Colorado or a policeman goes crazy with his gun or a guy starts to run over kids at a various bus stops or school playgounds with his pickup would those peoples death be any less valuable to the survivors loved ones? Are we going to live in cages to protect ourselves from everything? Are we going to ban everything like large soda pops you might as well stop living what next. Unfortunately people die when its your time its your time no matter the method. Eisenhower said it best "If you want total securty go to prison there your fed,clothed given medical care and so on the only thing your lacking is freedom." or "We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security" or for the current progressive leaning politicians “May we never confuse honest dissent with
disloyal subversion” .

I dont mind do nothing congresses it stops more crazy laws etc. Lord knows I dont want to see a progressive/socialist/communist country because of foolish dreamsickle voters O the government will save me feed me attitude. What happened to real bootstrap Americans that left all the sissies in Europe a couple hundred years ago to make new lives in freedom. How did our society get so poisoned with this ilk that runs our government today. The 2nd amendment was created as a 4th check and balance to an overbearing government/king. Its not about hunting and your bird gun. The framers of our constitution were brillant men. The 1934 and 1968 gun control acts are enough for this country maybe some better background checks and mental illness checks but thats it. We dont need more laws.

It's only Bozojoe spouting off to please his idiot boss, Bozobama. Let the fool TRY to issue his executive orders and see the courts strike it down.

clwyd - "Executive order"...You love it, huh. Allowing the president dictator powers to change the constitution.

Will you love it when the next president, GOP, uses executive order to outlaw ObamaCare? Or outlaw abortions? Or outlaw anything you liberals love. What if the GOP president uses executive order to strike down the 2 term limit law?

You people don't get it. This is a constitutional question and Obama does not have that right or authority to make laws. It's called checks & balances.

You're setting up the president as a dictator and that is the most foolish thing you can do. When presidents can make law without congress, this country really will be in trouble.

Here's the FACTS for the SHEOPLE:

2011 deaths:

1) 195,000 By Medical Malpractice

2) 12,000 By Drunk Drivers

3) 650 By Knives

4) 496 By Hammers

5) 323 By Guns

Conclusion: WTF are we going after Guns for, when there are 600 TIMES MORE deaths by Dr.s? You really have earned the species name: SHEOPLE!!!

Those are some awesome made up numbers of how few gun deaths we have per year! Well done, BS. However, might I refer to my previous post that it doesn't matter how many children are murdered. The NRA has already bought and paid for half of congress. They won't pass anything. McConnell has already stated that apparently they CANT address gun problems because he can only focus on one thing for the next three months. The cliff. So he's either a blathering idiot or he is already stating the Republican position that mass murdering children is an acceptable status-quo for them. They won't change gun laws. So as I said, and now Biden is stating it publicly, Obama will simply use executive orders to impose new regulations. The GOP will block everything, as they already have for the past 5 years.

The outside chance that we actually have laws passed? Obama will threaten *severe* gun control orders, but will accept weaker gun control *laws.* In other words, if the GOP will pass some intelligent controls, he will back off many of his demands that he could impose through executive order.

But why do I feel the GOP will still not do anything?

Had it with,

Where the heck did you make up those numbers? The number of gun deaths, from checking the web.cites, is listed from a low of 10,000 to a high of 15,000. Not 323! Chicago has that many gun murders a year. You've got to be kidding. I didn't check the other numbers, but I hope you didn't make those up too?

Executive order is not dictatorial powers, if it is that The bushwacker was the worst dictator using it some 30 times while in office! Well, we all know he was the "Worst President ever" anyway!

Hey RI Mom...Do you actually have anything of value to say about this topic (or ANY topic for that matter) or do you just come in and piss and moan and try to flame people?? You know it just makes you look like an ass, right?

Hello silverton and RI Mom, we will let you two be the first to say that it is ok to microstamp and encode our children.

In San Antonio, Texas the Northside Independent School District is now experimenting with “locator” chips in student ID badges on two campuses, allowing administrators to track the whereabouts of 4,200 students with GPS-like precision. If you don’t believe me look it up!

Administrators say the chips make students safer and will help boost attendance records that are used to calculate badly needed state funding.

A student, Hernandez, has filed a law suit against Northside – the fourth-largest school district in Texas – argues that the ID rule violates her religious beliefs. Her family says the badge is a “mark of the beast” that goes against their religion. As a result of her refusal, the school is transferring her which will put an undue hardship on her and her family. This also sends a clear message to anyone who doesn't conform to this civil liberties violation.

But U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia on Tuesday denied a request to stop her from being transferred, saying the badge requirement “has an incidental effect, if any, on (Hernandez’s) religious beliefs.”

How about an Orwellian affect you SOB!

It is starting folks, first a GPS chip in your ID then a RFID chip under your skin. I’m just waiting to hear the sheeple say, IT’S FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY. The sheeple will fall to their knees in support and call anybody a tinfoil paranoid schizophrenic who doesn’t allow this to happen to their child. Let’s see how the propaganda disinformation trolls spin this one!

Those that have the intestinal fortitude to see what is happening knows why it is so important that we not allow our government to tamper with our 2^nd Amendment rights. The evidence doesn’t get any clearer.

"You liberals" most often seems to be followed by equally dismal attempts at rationale. There is no such thing as "you liberals" - basing any argument on that nonsensical assumption is, by definition, nonsensical. Certainly, some good arguments are made against additional gun laws - they, however, are based on sensible foundations.

I would suggest that Alex Jones become the poster boy for new legislation addressing emotional instability and gun possession. He made my grade school playground arguments seem like a Mensa gathering. This stuff really, really embarrasses me as an American.

Snakebone: I have been told many times that some of my comments are condescending and it is due to frustration. But I DO enjoy an adult debate when I have the opportunity.

You asked me a question in an adult manner and I answered I felt in a respectable and responsible manner. Your follow-up reply? Such quotes as:

"Try listening for a change"

"It just makes you sound looney"

"I'm sorry you live in that dark world of paranoia"

"All your bluster about civil war and revolution"

And so on.

You disappointed me. I thought I found someone with an opposing view that I could explain my concerns without direct criticism towards you and you could reply in an adult manner with why you disagree. To have disagreement is healthy - to personally attack is immature and naive. Is it any wonder why the two sides can't sit together and discuss? Not only do we have immature politicians who resort to name calling and public display of criticism but we can't do that as adults in a forum thread either?

You disagree with me and that is fine but extremely disappointed that the ONE person with an opposing view I thought we could exchange differed opinions in a mature manner and discuss the pros and cons turned out to be just like everyone else: condescending, unable to discuss in a mature manner, and with an "I'm right so go #$#% yourself" attitude. Very disappointing.

There is not much else to say because you are not able to have an adult debate and will just turn into a condescending conversation so you clearly are not interested in hearing the opposing view.

But I will tell you this: History is full of countries whose people trusted the government and thought they would NEVER do something that was not to the betterment of the people. But realized too late they were wrong. The list is endless.

We as citizens are split into two groups: Ones who trust government and believe everything they do MUST be for our own good or ones who DON'T trust government and believe everything they do is to increase their own power and what is good for the people is not their end goal.

I am the later. I don't trust government any farther than I can throw them. And neither did our founding fathers. THAT is why the Constitution LIMITED the power to the Federal Government.

The 10th Amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". Over the last 100 years we have lost that. The Federal Government now has power over EVERYTHING we do and the States no longer control their own states and the people no longer have the power. The Federal Government has total control.

Don't believe me?

Department of Energy.

Department of Education.

Department of Transportation.

Department of Labor.

Department of Agriculture.

Drug Enforcement Administration.

Rural Housing Development.

Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Bureau of Land Management.

Bureau of the Public Debt (that's right - we have a governmental agency responsible for the Public Debt)

Mine Safety and Administration

Health and Human Services (who the federal government has NOW given control of our health care to)

Office of Community Planning and Development

Office of Mediation and Concitiation Service (whatever the hell THAT is!!)

There are literally hundreds and hundreds of federal governmental agencies to which a consumer or business cannot so much take a leak without having a dozen federal governmental agencies involved walking from your desk to the rest room.

So we have already allowed our federal government to have total control or involvement of everything we do. For our benefit? Absolutely not. For THEIR benefit.

But as bad as it is do you realize just how dangerous it is when we allow a president to potentially hinder the 2nd amendment by executive order? Do you REALLY want to live in a country where ONE PERSON can be allowed to change a law or amendment without ANY of the other branches of government to be involved? In this case you want to allow it because it involves restricting gun ownership and you support that.

But do you REALLY want to cross that line? This time you may support it but what if the NEXT executive order is that the police can enter your house without a warrant? Or an executive order that you cannot protest within 1 mile of the president? Again, you might agree with that at THIS time because you might support the president but what about the next president? What if you disagree with him/her but THEIR executive order won't allow it?

Whether you are for or against gun control is a debate we can certainly try to have (if all parties can act like adults) but EVERYBODY should be OUTRAGED and yelling and screaming from the rooftops that an executive order is unacceptable. THAT is a slippery slope that leads to tyranny without question and has done so historically hundreds of times.

ALL of us should be yelling and screaming that any change in laws or restrictions of amendments must go through the legislative process. If you are willing to let ONE person just arbitrarily decide which laws he wants and doesn't want this country cannot survive very long.

""If our actions result in saving only one life, they're worth taking." While being a stupid statement and an even more moronic justification for ANY law, much less "gun control" law, the same could be said by the anti-gun control crowd. A family was attacked by a rabid mountain lion, and the mom had to shoot it to protect her children. At least ONE child was saved by an "evil" gun during that incident, and no new laws were involved. Doesn't that mean that the government's inaction resulted in saving a child's life?

What's good for the goose...

Anti-gunners can cry all they want about banning this or that. The fact of the matter is, any legislation pushed through congress will die on the floor and any executive orders without congressional approval will be overturned. What does that leave? After congress is done with Biden and Obama, anti-gunners will be hoping that they can at least get a Surgeon General's warning sticker on 30rd magazines (notice I didn't say clips-- there's a difference).

Anyhow, it's fun to watch you all bicker back and forth but I'm headed out the door to take my California-legal AR-15 to the target range to do what it was designed for-- target practice. Surprised, right? I know, you probably thought it was only meant for killing. Have fun!

silverton,

You are a riot man. You have witnessed the NRA bullying people into staying quiet thus infringing on said person's first amendment rights? Can you be more specific? haha

As for the rest of the anti gun folks in here please start to learn about how guns work. Lever action guns allow use to operate a lever right under the trigger to load a round, then they can squeeze the trigger to fire. Revolvers allow the user to pull the trigger, which rotates the cylinder bringing a chamber in line with the barrel, and fire. A semi automatic allows user to pull the trigger and fire, the gun then cycles and loads a new round into the chamber awaiting the next trigger pull. All 3 of these types of guns can be fired with about the same speed. You are not getting a ban so keep dreaming.

Finally, a certain segment of the population now finds it fun or cool to decide to go on a suicide shooting rampage. These people are either mentally ill or maybe they take ADHD or depression medication (these medicines are known to cause paranoid delusions and violent behavior). Whatever the case may be, once someone decides to walk into an unsecured location and kill as many people as possible we are all in big trouble. The reason we are in trouble is because the best defense against a crazed killer is to put up immediate deadly force. Unfortunately there are not guns at our schools in the hands of trusted adults.

Our children are less safe because of the anti gun folks who are so terribly scared of guns and so terribly detached with reality. They hate violence so much (as do the rest of us) but they would rather stick their head in the sand and pretend it doesn't happen, that is until the next time when you are forced to look at the evil that can occur. Get guns into the hands of trusted adults in the school. What is wrong with that? Do you think your child's second grade teacher is going to snap and shoot your kid when they have a temper tantrum? That doesn't seem to be happening with much regularity......oh yeah, that is because teachers love/enjoy the children and they don't want to harm them. Amazing.

@ Dirp -

Steve and Ceaser: learn your history. The 2nd Amendment was intended to allow the newly created Federal government to utilize the militias of the states as its military.

Oh the irony..... Anyone who told you that was the reason for the 2nd amendment was either stupid or a liar.

Whether you are for or against gun control is a debate we can certainly try to have (if all parties can act like adults) but EVERYBODY should be OUTRAGED and yelling and screaming from the rooftops that an executive order is unacceptable. THAT is a slippery slope that leads to tyranny without question and has done so historically hundreds of times

Fine, "probusiness"...Provide us with documented evidence of your complete outrage when BushII issued Executive Orders. Failure to do so will be proof that you are a hypocrite and that your obvious issues with paranoia against the President of the United States go far beyond anything he may say or do.

You seem to think you behave like an adult so, like an adult, provide us with proof that your issue with Executive Orders is legitimate and existed before Obama was elected President.

TrustVerify:

I'll tell you what, I'll let you give peace a chance but I'll cover you with my 2nd Amendment in case it doesn't work out!

Thanks, but there is no need for you to cover me with 'your' 2nd Amendment, since I am well armed, and will not under any circumstances support a gun ban.

I've said that many times, and again just above, but you guys won't listen. That is why I said you jumped to your delusion when you said that my goal was to ban guns. It is not. Nor - listen closely - is it the goal of the majority of liberals in this country. This is how I know that a gun ban is not possible, and certainly is not the 'secret' goal of the left.

You will not believe that, for whatever reasons, so the conversation ends there - with you stuck with a caricature of your opponents, apparently thinking we're all liars when we say we don't want to ban guns, and fighting against a policy that nobody believes possible anyway, left or right.

TrustVerify:

...this isn't just about gun control, it's about neutering the population so that they can put everyone on their knees.

Neutering the population? Do you really think my goal is to neuter myself? These are reasonable words only in an echo chamber; out here in the real world, just saying them reveals the dark form of an extremist ideology, a vision clouded with partisan paranoia. Let me show you how someone like me actually thinks:

Jared Loughner sprayed the crowd in Arizona with 30 rounds, killing 6 people. He was taken down in that short few seconds when he stopped to put a new clip in. Had his clip only held 10 rounds, several fellow Americans would be alive today. This is real situation, not a hypothetical. So I consider: what am I giving up if my clip is limited to 10 rounds? Am I upset that I have to reload more often while target shooting? Do I need more than the 5 rounds in my shotgun to protect myself? I conclude that I am giving up no freedom, in exchange for taking some of the 'mass' out of the 'mass shootings'. So I support that idea. You may disagree for all kinds of practical reasons, but really: does my reasoning process make you think I want to neuter myself, take our freedoms, enslave us all to big government, maybe turn us into a communist state? Can you understand how ridiculous - and offensive - that sounds?

Try having a little faith in your fellow Americans. We all want the same freedom you do.

ProBusiness:

I'll accept that criticism, and apologize. I, like you, get frustrated. Particularly when I'm trying to make a complex point in a couple paragraphs, I tend to be too emphatic; often I spill what I think onto the page, and don't take the time to soften the sarcasm and strident, sometimes condescending language. Also, the general tone of these threads pushes me toward being more aggressive.

If you'll take a practical criticism, I'd say that some of your posts are too long to respond to without writing a book. More posts with fewer thoughts in each might make your points easier to address, maybe? Just a thought.

Unfortunately I don't have enough time to argue further today, but the issue continues, so I'm sure we will get the chance to try again soon, and I'll try to leave the aggressive language behind. Just for kicks I'll repost my offensive post without the personal attacks. The argument is still there.

ProBusiness, here's the repost, not perfect but hope it's better:

On the plus side, if your personal violence is contained until someone comes to take your guns away, I think you will have no need of that violence, so that's good. Your mistake is based on a caricature of the left, a straw man that you've bought into.

Since you told me about yourself, I'll return the favor. I'm a liberal gun owner. If you think that's strange or odd, you've been suckered by someone. I live in one of the most liberal places in America, and between myself and just two of my liberal friends, we own something like 20 guns. This is not unusual. Our local gun shop does a brisk business. And yes, we are very much in favor of the kinds of gun control being discussed now.

For some reason, what all of these posters here say over and over falls on deaf ears. That slippery slope into the dark, paranoid idea that the gumint gonna come around and take our guns is mistaken - not because there aren't a few on the left fringe who would think that a good idea, but because there are a whole lot of us on the left who would say 'hell no' along with you. That is why the fringe left is not at the table. Most of us understand, as reasonable people, that we couldn't put that genii back in the bottle even if we wanted to. My guess is that you folk on the right are so convinced of the tyrannical, liberal boogyman that you can't see how much support you have on the left for keeping our guns, even though we explain this over and over. This makes you guys not only mistaken, but also offensive to us, since you appear to think we're just lying.

Those on my side of this argument do not want to take your guns, or mine, or anyone else's. Taking small steps to try to reduce the 'mass' of the 'mass shootings' is not punishment, it is not a slippery slope to tyranny, the government is not going to raid its citizens to take their guns, none of this is relevant in any way to the current conversation on gun control.

Shockedanddisgusted: Allowing Obama to write executive orders because another president did it (Bush) is such a failed argument. That is like at a younger age telling your mother when caught for shoplifting "but Johnny did it too!!" like that is a defense.

And you don't know a damn thing about me and believing you do shows just how irresponsible and naive you are. You call me a hypocrite? You have no idea what you were talking about. I was on these types of threads YELLING and SCREAMING that executive orders are outside the powers of the president and is a dangerous and slippery slope.

I am neither a Democrat OR a Republican. They are BOTH thieves!! They are BOTH crooks!! I believe in the Constitution which CLEARLY states the powers of the Federal government are limited. So you call me a hypocrite but did nothing more than show your naivety and bias.

I am against ANY growth in the Federal government and believe that government should ONLY be involved in the true functions of government like rules of law, access to courts, etc. So I believe that 90% of what Congress does they have no business having their nose stuck in and, just to clarify, I am against ANY executive order by ANY president making an arbitrary decision that does not go through Congress and through our representatives.

Did I clarify your ignorance well enough?

Snakebone: I'll accept your "practical" criticism:) This is a delicate topic and both sides get very emotional - me included. And I also agree that some of my posts get lengthy - and I'll accept your criticism and try to work on that as well:)

The part I get frustrated with (in general) is I want to be left alone. I do not believe in big government and neither did the founding fathers. They knew big government created "powerful" government and they were afraid of that. Even Thomas Jefferson said "Most bad government has grown out of too much government."

I work hard, take care of my family, help those in need, and try to save a little coin for a rainy day or for my older years. All I want is to be left alone. I don't want government telling me how to run my personal life, my business, and my enjoyment. Law-abiding people should not have to worry about government controlling their every action. I own several guns. I enjoy them. I shoot them at the range are target practice at a friends property. I do no harm to anybody. I have no need for an AR-15 but believe that a person who owns and uses one legally is up to them. If a person is a Muslim I defend your right to a mosque and Koran even though I believe in a different religion but support your "right" to do so. Don't intend me any harm and I will not do any harm to you.

If I am not a risk to others I take offense to wanting to restrict what I can do. That is for ALL government rules and regulations but, in this case, gun ownership in particular. The problem is not the AR-15. The problem is the person USING the AR-15. We don't talk about taking away cars or putting "speed regulators" on cars because some speed and cause injury or death. No, in a free country we go after the person committing the crime such as noted:

"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]

I consider it a very dangerous and slippery slope to put restrictions on what was considered the SECOND most important item to the founding fathers. They were very clear that gun ownership was critical to a secure nation and felt it important enough to put it directly behind freedom of speech and freedom of religion. They didn't make the 10th amendment or a casual "oh by the way" comment. No, it was the SECOND MOST IMPORTANT right they felt was needed for our country to survive.

So I take it very personal when we have an out of control government that regulates how high a mirror must be in a public building in order for it to get approval to even be opened (for example) which costs us millions of dollars to have the department that manages those rules but THEN the second most important topic to the founding fathers is discussed in a manner of "we don't need it".

I believe the founding fathers wrote the Bill of Rights for a very special purpose and is critical that we protect the Bill of Rights.

mj899

Sally Lu

walk into your gun store and try to buy a gun. You will find out how hard it is to buy one and all the background check you have to go through.

Walk into your local gun show and try to buy a gun. You will find out how easy it is to buy one and no background check to go through...what's in your wallet?

Snakebone: And one quick follow-up (and I will try to make is short!!) and disagree with this argument that we must make "small steps to keep mass shootings from happening". Nothing that is being proposed (or sounds like will be proposed) will have any affect on these "mass shootings".

First, there are already over 300 million guns owned in the U.S. (estimated) so unless the administration is talking about confiscating guns (and many, including you, state that is not the case) any immediate policy change wouldn't affect the number of guns (even those with already large magazines) in the country. So this "push" to get a decision by Tuesday will have no effect for decades (if ever).

Second, even if a magazine restriction of 10 rounds is in place I can have qty 5 of 10 round magazines (50 total rounds) and swap out the magazines so quick you wouldn't even really be able to tell there was any delay. So a magazine size restriction even if decided by Tuesday will never have an effect.

Third, if a person truly intended harm then simply get four pistols each with a 10 round magazine and have a shoulder holster or military vest that holds them all.

My point (and is MY argument) that the intention of these laws is not to "make small steps to reduce mass shootings" and will have no impact or change in that regard. If a person wants to harm others they will find a way whether it is to get multiple guns, make a bomb (Timothy McVeigh), or some other method. These desired laws will have NO impact for those intending harm to others.

So that means the entire purpose of the policy change is for one reason and one reason only: to restrict gun ownership from legal gun owners and THAT goes entirely against what the founding fathers believed in the Second Amendment.

Alright, let me take the last argument first, since it is directly about gun control. Your position as I read it is: the kinds of gun control being discussed will have no effect on mass shootings, therefore the only reason for these proposals is to set us on the path to depriving gun owners of their constitutional rights.

So here's the deal: I believe that the kinds of gun control being proposed WILL have an effect on mass shootings, and I am joined in this belief by a LARGE contingent of freedom-loving Americans, including military generals, police captains, and judges (I mention them only because you've said you think they are part of legitimate government, though there are many more rank and file as well). I just watched General McChrystal, for instance, discussing the destructive power of current military grade weaponry, and shaking his head in disbelief that anyone would think it a good idea to sell these things on the open market to civilians in any country. Your quote from a judge regarding 'war' arms was from 1878, when there was little difference between a 'war' arm and a personal arm. That has changed dramatically. I'll counter that with the judge who sentenced Loughner, who noted that he was taken down in that short time as he tried to change clips, and had he only a 10 round clip instead of 30, he would have killed fewer people in his rampage. This directly refutes your second point above, about how clip limitations will have no effect in your opinion. Perhaps you are right that it will take time to attrit the weaponry that is already out there, but that is no excuse not to begin the process.

The long and short is that you are mistaken in your first premise. Since we believe that these kinds of gun control ideas will have an effect, proposing them is for one reason and one reason only -- to have that effect. You may think we're wrong in our belief, but to accuse us of lying for nefarious purposes is, IMHO, paranoid. Especially since so many of the voices calling for this kind of control are freedom-loving gun owners like myself.

You had a big problem with Obama's use of executive power, as you said:

executive orders are outside the powers of the president and is a dangerous and slippery slope.

But you are again mistaken. The executive has the power of the executive. For instance, there were laws on the books prohibiting explosives on an airplane. Enforcement of those laws were for various reasons (mainly cost) fairly lax. After 9/11, Bush decided that it was very important to enforce those laws, and so by executive order he prioritized that aspect, beefing up security at airports across the nation, implementing new technology, setting up a new department, etc. He was absolutely within his power to do so. (His use of 'signing statements' was, I think, a different matter, but that is not under consideration here).

This is the kind of power that some are advocating Obama use. For instance, it is illegal to buy a gun for somebody else who is banned from owning guns, and the method for dealing with that is to ask the question on the registration about whom the gun is for. It is illegal to lie about that. But enforcement of that provision has been lax, and it is absolutely within his power to sign an executive order to prioritize that issue. (So we see that the Justice dept is gearing up to prosecute the lady who bought those guns for the nutcase felon who killed his grandma, and who used the guns to shoot firefighters responding to the fire he set on Christmas day.)

So again, you're buying into the paranoia spread by people who just don't like Obama. He could act contrary to the constitution, but the use of executive orders in and of itself is not such a violation, and you are quite mistaken that it is (certainly no constitutional scholars would agree with you). Since he has yet to issue any in this regard, it is premature to say that he is acting outside his constitutional power. You are just projecting your anti-government fears on the situation.

You say you want to be left alone, and you fault 'big government' as the reason you are not. Again, I think you are mistaken. In fact, I think many who complain about 'big government' have no idea what they're talking about.

Take the health care 'takeover' by 'big government'. What you guys don't seem to understand is that freedom is not affected in this issue, because authority is not diminished. That is, somebody is in any case going to decide whether you can or cannot have this life-saving operation (unless you are so wealthy that you can buy whatever you want). The only question is: do we want to give that power to the free market, which uses the profit motive to make decisions and is not accountable to the public, or to government (or, in other words, to ourselves) which uses budgetary priorities to make decisions and is accountable to the public?

Call me crazy, but since I am not allowed the authority to make that call on my own in any case, I find more freedom in being able to hold that authority accountable for their decisions that affect my life. And as much as you distrust government's desire to make my life better, I distrust capitalists' desire to make my life better - especially since capitalists do not even pretend that they are out for anything other than their personal financial gain.

I want to be left alone as well. But since I live in a democracy, I do not always have that option. I'd like to go through the airport without people sniffing my butt, I'd like to buy a hand grenade to blow up in an empty field for fun, I'd like to drive home after a couple drinks because I think I am in control, but since I live in a democracy, I do not have that option. This is not because government is 'them' as opposed to 'us', and 'they' are coming in to take 'our' rights. This is because government is, in fact, 'us' - that is, a majority of my fellow Americans demanded, voted for, and supported these rules. We voted in politicians who supported them, we voted out those who opposed them.

We use our government to do all kinds of good and noble things. We used it to end slavery, we used it to create a middle class, we used it to stop people from destroying our economy for their financial gain, etc, etc, etc. Yes, when it goes off the rails, we attack it - but unless we are anarchists, we attack it to save it, not to destroy it. Very often, when we weaken our government, we do not increase our freedom, we simply reduce our power.

Finally, a minor point. You said:

I believe the founding fathers wrote the Bill of Rights for a very special purpose and is critical that we protect the Bill of Rights.

And then you went on to say the 2nd amendment is the second most important right - as opposed, say, to the 10th.

So, I agree with a lot of that, but it should be noted that Madison - who wrote both the constitution and the bill of rights - originally did not think it was necessary to write the bill of rights at all, because (he said) those amendments were 'redundant'. (I think he was obviously wrong about that, by the way.) He originally wrote more than 20 amendments, but ultimately winnowed them down to 10. It does not appear that those amendments, adopted in their entirety by the first congress, were set in order of importance (like, say, the 10 commandments). So the 10th amendment regarding state's rights is no less important or 'critical' than the 1st regarding free speech - all of it should be followed unless amended.

So again, a minor point, but I think we can go overboard with all of this 'word of god' kind of thinking about our founding documents. Madison was brilliant, but he was working with what he had like all the rest of us. The amendments later added by supermajorities in government and across the states are every bit as 'critical' as the first 10, since they dealt with realities that Madison did not envision.

When you start evoking your interpretation of what our founders intended, then you leave yourself open to questions like: what would Madison have thought had he known about the destructive power of futuristic military weapons? I, for one, do not think that question is fruitful or even relevant. We know what he said, and what was voted into law. The question is: what do WE think about that? And if the prevailing interpretation is that the 2nd amendment says that we cannot think about that, then the only option would be to amend the constitution to restore it to our public will (if indeed, it is the public will). This would not be a violation of the word of God (or rather, our Founders), and were we to do so, it would be no less critical to follow that amendment as the 2nd.

ProBusiness - Have you ever made a point in a short, concise, lucid, non-pedantic way? Do you really think anyone reads your long posts? You must live in a small house and want to take up as much room as possible here.