I do see a few that will make for the more effective enforcement of existing gun laws. Isn't that something else the NRA is always screaming about?

DaNoid ... ya hafta get you aluminum conspiracy hat on and then ya can read between the lines. Those damn helicopters are getting blacker by the minute. Oh lookie there, inthemiddle12 is sporting his.

He is doing almost exactly what the NRA wanted with background checks and mental health. The weapon ban will not pass congress and will not pass a constitutionality test from the Supreme Court. Recent case law is in favor of ownership of weapons exactly like an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine.

The truth won't get in the way of the NRA screaming. The problem isn't really the NRA. Its the millions of morons in this country. Stupidity is the fastest growing disease in this country.

SickOfTheBickering

As evidenced by the 2012 presidential election results!

And all this time I thought it was evidenced by your posts!

Da Noid

Funny...I don't find a single one that talks about confiscating anything.

paranoia and propaganda is the best selling tool for the NRA

SickOfTheBickering

you seriously need to do some reading about Hitler and fascism because you are confused about which party Hitler would belong to if alive today.

bayllie-

SickOfTheBickering

you seriously need to do some reading about Hitler and fascism because you are confused about which party Hitler would belong to if alive today.

I think SickoftheBickering is afraid to find out he's one of them.

P.S. Here's a hint. Prescot Bush did business with Hitler.

and by the way, Your avatar alone should ban you for a day.

Salud

Fascism is on the side of a stronger government, the left. To the right of the spectrum is anarchy, no government.

elliot-3020456

Fascism is on the side of a stronger government, the left.

hahahhahaha

in your parallel universe maybe.

TomasGrande

and by the way, Your avatar alone should ban you for a day.

mine?

NBC reports: Nothing to see here folks, move along.

So if NBC reports it, it must be true, right? The president left himself a lot of wiggle room in these orders. As written they may seem innocuous to those without critical thinking ability, but they are so vague, they can be interpreted any way the executive branch wants.

Do you want patient privacy laws circumvented by the federal government so that they can place you on a federal database for seeking health care? Because that is what #2 is saying.

Do you want the federal bureaucracy determining who is allowed to own guns now? Because that is how #4 could be interpreted.

In seconds

the

conversation on EXECUTIVE ACTION... a constitutional right given to the President of the United States... got hijacked by HITLER talk.

.

.

And anyone (Marco Rubio) who suggests that the President is out of line....

“President Obama is again abusing his power by imposing his policies via executive fiat instead of allowing them to be debated in Congress,”

has no right imagining himself in that role someday...

Hyperbole from the NRA is bad enough...but Rubio...you should get yourself to a social studies class.

So the Constitution has saved us from what would be a tyrannical dictator if he actually had the power. God bless our founding fathers!!

• 
  
• 
  
• Now WE NEED to apply the appropriate PRESSURE on the Do-NOTHING CONGRESS to GET THIS DONE!!!!!!!!!!!

FASCISM - a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

This sounds an awful lot like the Republican Party and the party PURITY and following in lockstep on everything that they demand of every member.

RI Mom

Hyperbole from the NRA is bad enough...but Rubio...you should get yourself to a social studies class

Amen to that.

Salud

The 2nd Amendment:

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

What part of “shall not be infringed” does Obama and his America-hating minions not understand?

If one State's lax gun laws is responsible for a gun to cross State lines ... and become a weapon of death...can one State sue another State?

If that gun was illegaly transferred to someone with a criminal record...and winds up firing at innocent people...what about a class action suit?

We NEED A NATIONAL GUN CHECK REGULATION

2.23

Laker/ Bozo

Seems that the guns security of a free state

have been INFRINGED upon

by criminals, mental cases, lax regulations, accidental shootings, gangs, black market, and the NRA's stubborness.

Here are the real stats on Chicago.....the strictest gun laws IN THE COUNTRY BAR NONE:

President: Obama
Senator: Dick Durbin
HoR: Jesse Jackson Jr.
Governor: Pat Quinn
House Leader: Mike Madigan
Atty. General: Lisa Madigan (Daughter of Mike)
Mayor: Rahm Emanuel

513 murders over the last year. Even Afghanistan has never had as many deaths in one year.

The State School System is rated the worst in the country
The State Pension Fund is over 70 Billion dollars in debt
The Cook County (Chicago & several suburbs) sales tax is 10.25% - HIGHEST IN THE COUNTRY

Guess we can't blame the Republicans! And people expect Obama to fix Washington? LMFAO

The right wing hysteria continues... they act like first graders in a sandbox.

This web site

shows the disparity between States

on gun laws/ restrictions/ permitting/ regulations

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jan/15/gun-laws-united-states

Click on your State in the "wheel"...

are you feeling reassured that an effort has been made to insure responsibility ? ? ?

or

"imposed upon by a restrictive government" ? ? ? ?

.

.

.

RI Mom

2.23

Laker/ Bozo

Seems that the guns security of a free state

have been INFRINGED upon

by criminals, mental cases, lax regulations, accidental shootings, gangs, black market, and the NRA's stubborness.

The national average response time to a 911 call in the USA is 10 minutes.

If you want to sit in your house and take chances with a robber with a loaded weapon while waiting 10 minutes for someone to show up to assist you, be my guest.

I'm not putting my life or my childrens' lives at risk waiting 10 minutes.

Well said Laker Steve...

I live about 45 minutes North of Chicago and let me tell you... THIS STATE AND THE CITY OF CHICAGO SUCKS!

I want to move so bad, and I am looking into it right now!

PS - Obama is a hyprocrite, he knew he would get impeached if he tried to ban guns via exec. order...

God Bless,

Jonathan

RI Mom

This web site

shows the disparity between States

on gun laws/ restrictions/ permitting/ regulations

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jan/15/gun-laws-united-states

Click on your State in the "wheel"...

are you feeling reassured that an effort has been made to insure responsibility ? ? ?

or

"imposed upon by a restrictive government" ? ? ? ?

Yeah, I trust a United Kingdom website to give me real figures on something in the USA. No wonder you voted for Obama. Too many Americans who shouldn't be voting = our current government problems.

I'm going to give CREDIT to another VINER( Got Aspirin? ) who posted these on his link yesterday :

For all those that think that concealed carry is the way to go...Here's a fun one......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s

Got Aspirin?

And here's part two...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLN6_s66wTg

I BEG you to LOOK at these before you go RAMBO or RUBIO on your posts.

...and

I'm politely asking...

No more slur talk about the President

PLEASE.... take a look...and keep an open mind.

2.31

Laker/ Bozo

You've CROSSED THE LINE

(a) your posts reflect a limited knowledge...(low IQ, or attention deficit disorder)

(b) telling me I should not vote.... now that's UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Yeah, I trust a United Kingdom website to give me real figures on something in the USA

Apparently...reading comprehension eluded you along with common sense.

The aricle I submitted clearly stated:

Sources: The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, NRA Institute for Legislative Action, National Conference of State Legislatures

.

.

.

Allow me to repeat:

NRA Institute for Legislative Action

Let the NRA pay for armed school guards. They're responsible for causing it.

Actually Laker Steve, that would be incorrect. The number of Deaths in Chicago outpaced the number of TROOP deaths in Afghanistan (not necessarily troops killed by guns). It doesn't reflect civilian deaths at all. You should really work on your reading comprehension. You also failed to mention that most of the deaths are between gang members. The new proposed restrictions are geared more towards preventing mass shootings.

You are also putting up a straw man argument. There were armed guards at Columbine. The Fort Hood shootings took place on a military base. Kind of hard to argue that armed gun presence will prevent mass shootings. There is no evidence that any armed guard or on site-police force has prevented a mass shooting.

As to your straw man argument about waiting in your home for police, kindly point out to us where there is any legislation, bill, executive order, or anything of the sort that is suggesting they take away your gun if you are a sane, non-criminal citizen?

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

Does this information include the "fast and furious" lost guns?

elliot-3020456

"He is doing almost exactly what the NRA wanted with background checks and mental health."

Too bad he's half black, or it would be the NRA going along with what the President wanted... Easy calls for NRA too as they have no affect on their real clients' manufacturing and sales outlook after things slow down following the "Big Scare Sales" they worked so hard to generate off the backs of dead children.

Be careful who you shill for, it could stick.

Funny... I don't see one out of the 23 that would have stopped the Newtown tragedy.

Your move, lefty

@ DJ-422465

Actually DJ, concerning columbine you are correct they did have a deputy stationed at the shcool however he was at lunch off site when the shooting occurred. And as for the Ft Hood shooting at the time this occurred the base was a "gun free zone" no one on base had weapons on them.

2.38

Funny... I don't see one out of the 23 that would have stopped the Newtown tragedy.

Your move, lefty

Hmmm... I can see why the MENTAL HEALTH provisions might escape you.

But:

Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission)

Had the Newtown shooters Mother had her guns in a finger ID safe.... there is a good chance that access to the weapons would have been difficult, if not impossible.

Of course, I'm a registered INDEPENDENT... but that's my opinion....maybe a :lefty" has other thoughts.

So if a law would make everyone use an ID safe why don,t they just make murder illegal?

Now anything can be abused with the 'correct' interpretation and effort but, my only concern here would be

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

Ummm... The same attorney general that brought us Fast and furious, lost guns and dead Mexican kids... That Attorney General? Never mind that who decides what categories of individuals may be considered dangerous??? That will be in the eye of the beholder and could easily be misused.. We will need to be watching closely I suppose, as we always should....

No Steve, that's incorrect. Police were on the scene, and were simply outgunned. Here's a transcript from Columbine:

[Jefferson County Sheriff’s Deputy Neil] Gardner [the school’s community resource officer], seeing Harris working with his gun, leaned over the top of the car and fired four shots. He was 60 yards from the gunman. Harris spun hard to the right and Gardner momentarily thought he had hit him. Seconds later, Harris began shooting again at the deputy. After the exchange of gunfire, Harris ran back into the building. Gardner was able to get on the police radio and called for assistance from other Sheriff’s units. “Shots in the building. I need someone in the south lot with me.”

Virginia Tech, the site of the deadliest U.S. gun massacre ever committed by one person, has a police department on the grounds. According to the AP, the shootings in that incident took place over just 9 minutes — it took the campus police 3 minutes to reach the building, and five minutes to break into the building, which had been locked by the gunman.

At the Colorado cinema shootings earlier this year, it took police officers just 90 seconds to get to the scene of the shooting, but 70 people had already been shot; 12 fatally.

These incidents show that a "good guy with a gun" — in the words of NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre — can often do little to stop a well-armed intruder intent on creating chaos and willing to die.

@Laker:

Which part of "well-regulated" do you not understand?

The frigging nut jobs in this country who even remotely think that there is some vast "conspiracy" to actually ELIMINATE the 2nd Amendment, and for President Obama to "chip away" at the amendment ... so that it can take, what, another 20 years to do so...?

So he is "conspiring" with FUTURE US (democrat??) presidents to erode the 2nd Amendment? BS!

NO ONE is trying to "take your guns" from you. It isn't going to happen. Is not in the process of happening. Has never been mentioned of happening. Has never been threatened of happening... you people (my brother-in-law is one of them!) are delusional!

I own a Mossberg 500 12g "Persuader", and a S&W .40 cal 411 for home security. I have never been afraid of my GOVERNMENT taking away my weapons. I am an Air Force veteran. I am a well adjusted citizen, a health care professional of almost 20 years. I have never shot at anything but a target. I do not fear (as my brother-in-law does) that President Obama and the United Nations are going to come to my home and take my lawfully owned guns!

I am NOT a member of the NRA. I do not advocate removal of weapons from ANY home. I do believe there should be a limit on clip size. I do believe military-grade weapons belong in the hands of the military. Not private citizens. Let me clarify; I do not believe that Joe Blow down the street should be able to walk in off the street and purchase one. If he is a PROVEN collector or seller, and passes inspection and background checks, yes, s/he should be allowed. I do not believe that my brother-in-law, nor I even, should be allowed to go purchase an assault rifle of any kind.

The NRA is a whack job crazy uncle!

laker steve

You should read Scalia's majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). The right to bear arms can have limits to the type of "arms." Congress can place bans on some types of weapons without infringing on the 2nd Amendment. So, you may not understand what the 2nd Amendment means either.

Laker Steve

The 2nd Amendment:

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

What part of “shall not be infringed” does Obama and his America-hating minions not understand?

What part of "well regulated" do you not understand?

Don't you think the "America-hating" insults are going a little too far? Did you ever in your life use the word "minions" until it was taught to you by the Fox talking heads?

You call it America hating. Many others opposed to you are more concerned with saving the lives of people.

You want your rights. You are too lazy or too selfish to put up with the inconvenience of gun responsibility.

TomasGrande

... Your avatar alone should ban you for a day.

So you are a supporter of FREE SPEECH! You see... my avatar is a political statement...

I'll bet you would support the burning of the American flag as a form of free speech... all the while cursing me for my avatar! HAHAHA!

So... like the Nazi's, you prefer to censor my speech by 'banning' me for a day just because you find what I have to say 'offensive'.

Go figure!

(Who's the REAL Nazi here? Me thinks it's YOU!)

Gun Rights are bigger than the NRA and you people are so uneductated.

No one is talking about owning grenades or explosives. Anti-gun people are idiots. Military Style "Assault" Rifles are about the same thing as a typical hunting rifle except they look "Scarier." People are always afraid of what they don't understand.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed"

@ Don, you want to understand the 2nd amendment a little more? READ ACCOUNTS FROM THE FRAMERS OUTSIDE THE CONSTITUTION. They believed that everyday citizens should be allowed to carry arms to keep the government in check. I'm sure you'll be too "LAZY" to actually read up on this.

I'm pro-gun but I've been saying for days that pro-gun people have been overly worried. All the political thumb suckers in D.C. will do is strengthen existing laws. Obama can't pass laws with executive orders. A ban on black semi-auto rifles (which is all they are) won't make it through Congress. I just don't see it happening.

If by some slim chance they do get something through Congress it won't affect all of the existing firearms/magazines that are already owned or currently out in the marketplace.

I do wish I had a pile of 20-round & 30-round magazines I could sell right now. People are making a fortune off of them. I looked today:

1. Ten 20-round AR-10 .308 caliber pmags sold for $1,025....Normally, you could buy 10 of them for around $170.

2. Five 30-round AR-15 pmags are going for $450 right now

3. A case of 100 30-round AR-15 pmags is going for $5,225 right now

Normally you could buy 5 30-round AR-15 pmags for around $75. Oh well, another opportunity to make a few extra bucks is passing me by.

First, Al in Visalia:

1. Government cant confiscate unless they know where they are. Locating "can" be a first step. Enlisting the assistance of the medical profession is a great way to do this, as most trust their doctors.

2. The phony justification ("“Doctors and other mental health professionals play an important role in protecting the safety of their patients and the broader community by reporting direct and credible threats of violence to the authorities") - is ridiculous.

ALL states have the equivalent of the "Tarasoff" case in California, as well as the Lanterman-pettris Short Act". As to the former, a medical profession, when faced with a CREDIBLE threat that a patient IS imminently going to harm another, MUST report to the authorities - it is one of the few exception to Dr/patient confidentiality.

The latter is where, certain enumerated professions (doctors, social workers, family) with specific articulable facts, have a good faith belief that a person is a danger to himself or others, can involuntarily commit that person for 72 hours, for a mandatory mental health exam.

In either case, the questions must INCLUDE a finding that there is not only a threat, but ideation and plan to put that threat into action; thus, that would include asking whether there were weapons available to carry out the threat; thus, this new provision, is repetitive and unnecessary. IF a doctor can ask, with NO probable cause, what is he to DO with that info ? The logical next step is to report it - I mean, JUST the fact that his patient is in possession. (otherwise, existing law already covers that Dr's ability to report).

Just a little note for those throwing around "facist" and "facism" labels.....pot calling the kettle black NRA folks!

Noun

1. An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
2. (in general use) Extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

Gee, I don't find one specific fact that was proven or disproven in this article....or even mentioned; only an automatic kneejerk reaction by a media toad, defending the Emperor in the white house from valid criticism. The fact that I dare the NBC brownnoser to disprove is that the Emperor continues to bypass the established balance of power system by invoking 'decision by fiat' because his wacko proposals are so ridiculous as to have no chance of being approved by any congressional body.

Wow pat where'd you get that horse crap from? You have no basis for that remark. Just like I'm sure you called tea party members "Racist." I'm not in the NRA, but I believe strongly in the 2nd Amendment.

So where are these "intolerant" views? Apparently you are intolerant of people practicing their 2nd Amendment right. Who the F*** gives you the right to tell me what I can own? You are a fascist! "To conquer a people, first you must disarm them" - Adolf Hitler. YOU FOLLOW SUIT RIGHT BEHIND HIM RIGHT?? No! It is not my doing that you can't get it in you narrow mind that CRIMINALS don't care about the law (Hmm Drugs are banned, must not be any drugs out there. Hmm prohibition didn't cause gang violence and alcohol was nowhere to be seen). GET A CLUE DUDE! You are so pathetic to not even realize how an armed law abiding citizen is more of a threat to criminals than you would know. I don't like to insult people, but man WAKE UP!

Oh raise your hands if you heard that Americans are being held hostage in Algeria by Islamic Terrorists! Probably no one because the media (Including NBC and MSNBC) are so rediculous! Anyone read that Japan devalued their currency and our dollar is so weak it might collapse and begin a currency war? NO NO of course NOT. Our Obama will save the WORLD! Ugh ignorant left that know just enough to be total eff ups!

I need to be banned for a day I think!

My husband plans to buy an AR-15 before they get banned. Also, I have NO INTENTION of answering ANY questions from health care providers concerning guns in my home - it's simply NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS!!! What are they going to do, have me arrested for not answering???

2.57

T Bourlon

And don't put a trigger lock on any of your guns when you sleep with them.... that'll be none of anyone's business either.

(I think you already gave a clue about your MENTAL HEALTH in your post)

RI Mom

2:28

This web site

shows the disparity between States

on gun laws/ restrictions/ permitting/ regulations

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jan/15/gun-laws-united-states

Click on your State in the "wheel"...

I don't know about other states, but I do know Florida laws, in fact I have a copy of the statutes next to me and this site is wrong on 4 Florida laws.

No one on the left finds any issue with the way Barry always takes advantage of the CRISIS? No one speaks out from the left with anything he says or does?

And no one questions why your Doctor needs data about your gun ownership when you went in for the flu?

Death by a thousand cuts......... no single cut is deadly, but together freedom is lost and NEVER regained.

That silly Reince Priebus misspoke. He said, "Representative government is meant to give voice to the people," when we all really know that the AMERICAN form of representative government gives voice to the wealthy lobbyists and special interests!

2.59

Dear Antistupidity,

Hopefully, you clicked on this link within the page:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-news-blog/2013/jan/16/gun-laws-need-to-know

Yes... some of this is generalized, but that link mentions it as a disclaimer.

Still, it does show that in the UNITED States....the laws are not universal.

That is why I asked the QUESTION on post # 2.24

Joe-903244

@ Don, you want to understand the 2nd amendment a little more? READ ACCOUNTS FROM THE FRAMERS OUTSIDE THE CONSTITUTION. They believed that everyday citizens should be allowed to carry arms to keep the government in check. I'm sure you'll be too "LAZY" to actually read up on this.

The 2nd Amendment was never intended to mean ANY gun for ANY person ANY time ANY place. Some, not all, people then, as now, believe that guns are to keep the government in check. Many, not all, people then, as now, believe that our government is checked by our democratic process. Gun owner responsibilities are also decided by our democratic process. If you don't like the laws that are passed in your state you can petition for a ballot initiative. If you don't like how your Congress member votes, you can vote for the other guy.

You may, in your narrow little reactionary conspiratorial view of the world believe that you need a gun to fight the government and that it would accomplish something more than getting you killed. I don't share your view of the world and I am thankful that no one like you lives next door to me.

I am very aware of our history, enough to know that no opinion then, as now, was unanimous. They had their three-cornered hat version of tin foil hats back then, and they had people who looked at government as the enemy rather than we the people. Folks like you consistently talk about "the framers" as if they all were in complete agreement. Nothing could be farther from the truth and history should tell you that reaching agreement on the Constitution and Bill of Rights was a tough process.

RI Mom

I just looked at it, it doesn't really say much. Fact is they are just wrong on 4, it's black and white, there is no gray area. They may not understand them or choose not to explain because there are subsets to the laws, but they are cut and dry.

To DJ-422465 the Army members killed at Fort Hood were not armed. This was the same as your normal gun free zones. When the shooting started it continued until armed security could respond. It may be hard to believe but on a US Base unlike Israel are troops are unarmed unless they are at a range or a special armed guard assignment. In Israel the troops carry their weapons even when they have time off. Several times terrorist attacks against buses have results in the death of the attacking terrorist because they happen to choose a bus that carried off duty members of the defense force.

Pathetic liberals are at it again, applying truthspeak to fascism. Here's a hint. Giving more power to we the people is NOT fascism. Surrendering more power to an all powerful government IS fascism.

Claiming republicans are fascist just because they are blocking democrats from imposing more control on we the people just shows how stupid you are.

Da Noid

Funny...I don't find a single one that talks about confiscating anything.

Your move, NRA.

Actually we just did and Obama blinked. Signing up 250,000 new NRA members in just 4 weeks has gotten the attention of everyone in Washington. Its all a buzz. Obama was going to use Executive Orders to institute a new Assault Weapons ban and thereby circumvent the Congress but you didnt see that did you. If he had done that youd see a reaction across this country that would have been historical. Like I said "he blinked".

Elliot: did you get your talking points today, because that is all your doing is reading from the Talking points and not being honest as always. The Supreme Court has settled the 2nd amendment. Scolia said that People do have the right to keep and bear Arms. But the Government has the rights to regulate these assault style Weapons and the Clips that hold more then the gun was made with witch is 10 or less rounds. Scolia is the rightest leaning member of the Court, That was his option. Now it is settled and that's the end of it. So you do not have the right to own anything and everything you want. You can not own an automatic weapon at all. Haven't been able to for a long time now. The worst thing that could happen is we would go back to the Old ban that Bush let laps.

I know I will add to the madness, but to the woman that said her Husband was going to buy an AR 15 and she isn't going to tell her DR. about it, and to the one that said if they don't know where the Guns are they can't take them. Did your forget the Patriot Act that little Bush pushed into law. That gives the Government the right to spy on us. You just told the government what they want to know. They know what Guns you have and how many much Ammo you have. They know if you belong to a militia or a gun club. And you be sure they know if your up to no good. That's why your so paranoid. In a few years when you figure out that the NRA sold you out and got your to run out and pay 2 times what you should of had to pay for a AR 15, in hast to beat the Ban that most likely will never happen, then who are you gonna be pissed at. Or will you blame that on the President. What suckers you all are. Scared little people with Pee sized brains. I bet some of you didn't pay your house payment to get these Guns. Good for you. And down the road when you find out that you never needed these Guns, Good Luck trying to sell them as they will be worthless. What you paying for that AR 15? $ 2,500 or so? Or has the NRA run the price up the $5K . Man what a little well place fear can do for sales.

Nobama, on the way to making 4 million law abiding citizens into criminals...Impeach him now...

2.64

Antistupidity

DANG...we are a mess.... no two States can agree and apparently some rules are different county to county.

What impressed me was that we are culturally territorial in our gun thinking.

I just wish we could agree on the SAFETY issues.

The article stated:

Sources: The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, NRA Institute for Legislative Action, National Conference of State Legislatures

coyote

Did you even read the proposals? How could you been so ignorant as to think that any one of the measures he took today make 4 million citizens into criminals?

@ Don, Every civilization thinks they are immune government power. Look at the Jews in Germany. Look at the coup that took down the Czar in Russia. Revolutions occur in civilized nations. Secondly, I'm not advocating for Civil War, I'm advocating home defense. If you look at the problems down near the border, or areas with gang violence, or places where there are crimes, then you will see a need for guns. Sure the police will be there (After the fact) when they are there to do their investigation. Rarely do you hear about murders where someone was armed, but you do hear a lot about how guns have saved lives.

Now to get into our founders,

In the period before the war, there were Rebels and Loyalists. The loyalists with the British tried to take the arms (Gun powder at the time) from folks in Virginia. This began the involvement in Virginia along with the unreasonable requests from the crown.

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

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always
possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use
them."
Richard Henry Lee

"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the
United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms"
Samuel Adams

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."
Zacharia Johnson

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we
cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between
having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the
management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms,
in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us,
as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise
the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness,
enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others
of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind.
Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."
Thomas Jefferson

"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans
possess over the people of almost every other nation the governments are
afraid to trust the people with arms.”
James Madison

"By calling attention to ‘a well regulated militia,’ ‘the security of the
nation,’ and the right of each citizen ‘to keep and bear arms,’ our founding
fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy… The Second
Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military
relationships in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense
of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be
important.”
John F. Kennedy

"The great body of our citizens shoot less as times goes on. We should encourage
rifle practice among schoolboys, and indeed among all classes, as well as in the
military services by every means in our power. Thus, and not otherwise, may we
be able to assist in preserving peace in the world… The first step – in the
direction of preparation to avert war if possible, and to be fit for war if it
should come – is to teach men to shoot!”
Teddy Roosevelt

"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the
Constitution."
Thomas Jefferson

Unless you are a felon or do not have the mental capacity to wield a gun, then the government shall not tell us how to arm ourselves. However, I do believe mandatory training shall used. I don't believe citizens should be able to own explosives. But all semi-automatic rifles and pistols, they should. I normally do vote for the other guy. I was going to vote for Cuomo, but not anymore. We don't have a ballot initiative right in New York. And one of my local congressman voted against NYs new gun control measures.

I'm also blessed that I don't live next to you. You are probably one of those P.I.A. neighbors, always getting into business that isn't yours. I also live in a not so good neighborhood where there is crime.

PS My views aren't narrowminded. Your ignorance of putting your laws and regulation on everyone else for security is a bit rediculous. I think people should pass a mental background check to vote as well One more quote by Ben Franklin and it is on of my favorites!

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Have a wonderful day!

"The NRA called for the government to pay for an armed guard in every school in America."

I thought Republicans had declared the United States "officially broke", now they call for the American Taxpayers to pay for "an armed guard in every school in America"!

We are broke.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Over $10 trillion of US Debt is owned by Foreign Countries, so we are paying them A LOT of interest! That's extra money that keeps going out of this country and oversees. So you can blame Republicans all you want for shipping jobs oversees, but this government does it for you as well. The more spending, the more money goes oversees! YAY

So where would we pay for this. We'd probably have to get rid of some worthless state workers or some worthless assets that the gov't keeps around for no reason at all. That and reining in the wastful budgets. It would also create some jobs which might get a few people out of welfare.

bayllie

TomasGrande

and by the way, Your avatar alone should ban you for a day.

mine?

Of course not, Bayllie.

I was referring to sickofthebickering.

Sorry for the confusion.

Salud

I think some people would love it if we could be taxed 100% and the gov't gave us assisted living, free health care, free food, FREE STUFF. That should be tried! Oh it was and those states failed because there is no incentive in being great if everyone is equal (Minus the elitists or the ones with the power). Our lives would be mondane. There would be no reward for being inivative, being competitive. No IPHONE, No ITUNES, No vehicles, No planes, No rockets. Not in this country at least. We wouldn't be the leaders, we would be the followers.

RI Mom

2:70

Gun laws have been left up to the states for the most part, I don't know what else is right or wrong on their site, I just know Florida, but why are you using a site from the UK to find US law?

There is no difference on safety, the safety rules stay the same no matter where you are, the laws change from state to state, the basic safety rules remain the same.

1. treat every gun as though it was loaded, even if you have just cleared it yourself.

2. Never point the muzzle at anything you are not prepared to destroy or kill.

3. Never put your finger on the trigger until your sights are on the target and you are ready to shoot.

4. Be aware what is in line with, next to, and behind your target.

5. Any questions see rule 1.

That's it, as long as these rules are followed there should never be a problem.

We are not a mess, some of the laws I agree with, some I don't but Florida state government passed a law that state laws supersede all laws when some city's tried to pass their own. There are no differences city to city or county to county.

I see no territorial cultural difference, the safety rules I posted above were put together by Colonel Jeff Cooper and are pretty much universal worldwide, whether you shoot skeet, trap, target, tactical, competition, defensivly or just for fun. Any one that is a responsible gun owner knows and follows them no matter where they are or are from.

Isn't the first sign of insanity something like "doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a diferent result"....definitely in Uncle Joe's court, better not allow him near a firearm. He was part and parcel of the first one in 1994. The one that was in effect when Columbine occurred.

Registration is the first step to confiscation, and some influential libs have already gone on record for that, (i.e. whom ever the Governor of NY is).

Also, wrote a dissertation back in the '70's on mental illness related to social dysfunction within a culture, used the old Soviet Union. Be very careful of who designates what might be considered dysfunctional behavior, that would be a very slippery slope to fall down. Heck, the framers of our Constitution would be classified as extremists.

Why is it ok for government officials to be protected with "assault rifles", but we can not protect ourselves with them....are they "better" than us as individuals? That is not what it says in our Declaration of Independence which initiated the Constitution.

Finally, why pick on "assault, military style weapons" that have caused far less lethal carnage than fists, feet, and/or blunt objects according to table 11 of the FBI 2011 Homicide statistics?

@ Chuck. The Patriot Act was bipartisan. Secondly, Spying has increase exorbitantly under Obama. The wiretapping was between us citizens and foreign countries. Killings using Drones has increased. Killing someone is better than dunking someones head in water I suppose! Invasion of people's civil liberties with senseless pat downs of kids and grandparents at airports began with Obama. So please quit with your Bush Bashing, Obama has done far worse and YES the media has covered up most of it. Point - Benghazi. Never hear much on that. Snippets every once and awhile.

The 2nd amendment was never intended to be a blanket cover for all firearms in all situations. It was initially intended for the southern militias for controlling their slaves.

"The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.
In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states."

For the rest of us firearms have always been regulated. And always will be. Go Prez!

Local TV crews have filmed people walking into gun stores, buying thousands of dollars worth of guns, and then walking out and selling them on the street to anyone with money. The Feds saw this and decided to track guns sold like that to see where they went. It turned out those guns have been going to gangs and drug runners, some in Mexico.

Why do you republicons want to arm gangs and druggies?

Daily Kos: The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

DJ, I was responding to you comment about there being security on campus at the time of tthe shooting.

"A Jefferson County Sheriff's Deputy, Neil Gardner, was assigned to the high school as a full-time uniformed and armed school resource officer. Gardner usually ate lunch with students in the cafeteria, but on April 20 he was eating lunch in his patrol car at the northwest corner of the campus, watching students in the Smokers' Pit in Clement Park.^[23]

At 11:22, the custodian called Deputy Gardner on the school radio, requesting assistance in the Senior parking lot. The only paved route took him around the school to the east and south on Pierce Street, where, at 11:23 he heard on his police radio that a female was down, struck by a car, he assumed. He turned on his lights and siren. While exiting his patrol car in the Senior lot at 11:24, he heard another call on the school radio, "Neil, there's a shooter in the school".^[23] Harris, at the West Entrance, immediately fired his rifle at Gardner, who was sixty yards away.^[23] Gardner returned fire with his service pistol.^[31] "

So had the deputy not gone to the other side of the campus to have lunch, would the results have been as horrendous? Something we will never know. I am not disputing the fact the there was in all of these shooting a lot of carnage and suffering. And to be perfectly honesty and open I am not a big fan of our current president's policies, but that does mean that I think he is totally wrong. I can see a lot of upside to a lot the EOs that he has recommended, however there are some that I believe will do absoluty nothing to curb the violence and will make criminals out of law abiding americans. Somewhere in the middle there has to be a balance, but we need to open and stop the name calling and bickering to get there.

Why does Obama travel with ARMED protection and why does he think his idiot ass is more valuable than ours? It's not like he would be missed if something unfortunate was to happen (heaven forbid). He doesn't even understand (or has no respect for) how our govt is structured and the way it was designed with checks and balances.

When he leads by example, disarming his many secret service agents who protect him, then he possesses the moral authority to spew his bullsh!t.

Let's examine some facts, something the left avoids:

In Venezuela, civilians are not allowed to possess machine guns, sub-machine guns, carbines, pistols and revolvers, be they automatic or semi-automatic. Civilians are only authorized to hold .22 rifles and shotguns

United States murder rate: 5.22 per 100,000

Venezuelan murder rate: 47.21 per 100,000

In Colombia, the law requires that a record of the acquisition, posession, and transfer of each privately held firearm be retained in an official register.

Colombia murder rate: 40 per 100,000

In Mexico, only licensed gun owners may lawfully acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition.

Mexico murder rate: 11.59 per 100,000

The solution is to follow the Constitution and wannabe tyrants like Obama can go to hell and stop trying to infringe on my inalienable rights

Obama is so clueless......

Love the way he side stepped Big Pharma's responsiblity of the Sandy Hook shooter..... What drugs was he on and for what psychological disorder.

The fact that this shooter broke FEDERAL LAWS by KILLING HIS MOTHER FIRST, STEALING WEAPONS, THEN SHOOTING UP THE SCHOOL- in a GUN FREE ZONE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Love the way Obama let Hollywood off the hook with their morally bankrupt movies and soft porn we call rated 'R'.

Love the way that "Assault Weapons" are rarely used but because they look evil- we must ban them. THIS IS FOR YOU LIBTARDS- SEMI AUTOMATIC GUNS ARE NOT MACHINE GUNS. LEARN THE DEFINITION OF SEMI-AUTOMATIC.

Love the way he leaves out that the GANG BANGERS IN CHICAGO SHOOT AND KILL 500+ EVERY YEAR- IN A CITY THAT ALREADY HAS A GUN BAN. Now stupid NEW YORK wants to become a bigger sewer than Chicago with Cuomo.

Love the way Obama states that 40% of all guns purchased don't have a background check??????? Where did he get this BS?????? THESE GUYS MUST MAKE THIS @!$%# UP!!!!!!!!!

Anybody who is not a brain washed, racist, xenophobe, beer addled, uneducated righty, son of the soil type, son of a bitch, knows fully well that most of the sound and fury generated by the righties against President Obama is a bull@!$%# storm produced by some of the most devious hateful @!$%#s in the history of modern humans.

There is no reality in any of the righty narrative regarding the President.

Oh and by the way - Executive orders are part of the constitution you retards !!!! Obama won. Righty lawmakers filibuster out of pure hatred - Solution - Executive orders - Go suck on that !!! Tee Heeeee !!!

What part of “shall not be infringed” does Obama and his America-hating minions not understand?

If the second amendment does not allow restriction or regulation of arms, then laws banning possession of explosives, chemical and biological weapons, and nuclear weapons are all unconstitutional, and therefore not only is it wrong to restrict those weapons from citizens of the US but it is also wrong to attempt to stop other nations, such as Iran or North Korea, from acquiring those technologies.

"...publishing letters, writing memos, and appointing administrators."

And all for the low, low price of just half a billion dollars!

Please, someone, do explain where the money is going to come to pay for that, given that we are over 16 TRILLION in debt and running deficits in the Trillions to boot. Oh I know, just "tax the rich."

Joe. The Patriot Act was forced trough by the Rep. Controlled house and Senate. That is a fact. And President fighting a smarter war that didn't make as money for the Rich people. I guess you would rather let our young people keep being killed over there. I bet none of your kids were or are over there. I bet your pissed that we are out of Iraq. And you will really be pissed when we get out of Afghanistan. And yes President Obama Got OBL and most of his top people with missal strikes. Bad president. I Swear there isn't anything President can do that you people like. That's alright, the President don't need your Approval. He has plenty of on his side.

Joe

EVERYTHING that will be done about gun laws will be done in a manner consistent with the Constitution. One of the problems with so many of you people defending your 2nd Amendment rights is that you fail to read the part that says WELL REGULATED militia. No one is taking away your 2nd Amendment rights. It appears, though, that you want your rights without any regulation. I would rather see you lose the right to bear arms entirely than to fail to regulate the use of firearms by citizens. There is a middle ground here. You need to cooperate a little bit.

You feel the need to have a firearm. Lots of people in this country feel that irresponsible use of firearms is a major public safety problem. Both groups have a say in this matter. You might not get 100% of what you want. Too bad.

Robert - that is the typical straw man argument from those opposed to the right to bear arms.
The word "arms" has always been referred to as a weapon that, when used, would allow the user to discriminate as to his/her target. A rifle or pistol bullet affects nothing outside of its trajectory. Someone shoots at someone, and hits someone. An explosive/nuclear weapon/chemical weapon does not allow the "deployer" to discriminate as to the weapon's effect. It causes damage well above and beyond what the operator could have determined, and is not controlled in such a way that it allows the user to inflict damage upon a single target which he/she determined was a threat. Which is why they aren't legal and never have been legal. That scenario isn't even in the same ballpark. Same goes for the RPG argument, the tank argument (fully functioning tank weapon attached), or fighter jet argument (with destructive devices attached).

Militia and right to bear arms are not connected, a ruling by the US Supreme Court in 2008.

The President today has infringed on our right to bear arms as best he can. Even causing a hassle or being a nuissance is an infringement.

Obama is carried away with himself, he's not presiding, he's dictating. He has no guts to meet with congress. Rather he speaks via news release. He can't stand being argued with and the microphones don't argue. He has now even admitted he will not negotiate with congress. Using the children as a human shield today seemed like a heck of an idea to Obama. He doesn't have a clue how pathetic it is.

But Congress has 30 days to throw out all or some of the executive orders, and can take up measures as well. So let's give Congress 30 days to defend the Cosntitution or not.

A failed attempt to exert leadership and address the problems of our country.

• The sky is falling!!! The sky is falling!!! The sky is falling!!! The sky is falling!!!
• The same government that people say cant' do a single thing right, the same government that can mess up a one car funeral suddenly is capable of going door to door and taking away every single gun in the nation. Be afraid!! Be afraid!! Be afraid!! Be afraid!! The AFT will fly their black helicopters to your house tomorrow!!!

obama LIES,has tax evaders(geithner,holder-MR FAST AND FURIOUS,SIGN IT READ IT LATER pelosi,US constitution no-good use South Africa's supreme court judge bader,(should be tried for treason)motor mouth biden,democrat sen.frank&dodd of fannie mae fame housing market crash,reid bridge to nowhere fame.That's to name a few of his choice picks.

Ho hum - issuing some letters - whoop de doo. What was the 'hype' all about

I think I'll go to sleep - maybe tomorrow something more interesting will happen.

I'm much more interested in the status of the lawsuit in Federal Court challenging the Obama Administration's 'Executive Order' telling immigration officials to ignore existing Federal laws, in violation of the sworn oath of office for both Obama and other federal officials. Here's a link;

http://www.governorbryant.com/bryant-joins-immigration-lawsuit/

Robert - that is the typical straw man argument from those opposed to the right to bear arms.
The word "arms" has always been referred to as a weapon that, when used, would allow the user to discriminate as to his/her target.

Z, the word "arms" has always been a shortening of the term "armament" which is a tool, device or equipment that is designed to cause damage or harm to other living beings, structures or systems. It is not limited to handheld firearms. It is not a straw man argument. Either the second amendment does not allow infringing on the right to bear arms in any way, or it does allow regulation of military grade weapons. That includes NBC weapons. But the fact is that the point I am making is one that has been upheld by the Supreme Court, that the right to bear arms does not give one the unlimited right to bear any kind of weapon whatsoever, and that it is not a violation of an individuals rights to be restricted in the type of weapon that one can own.

A rifle or pistol bullet affects nothing outside of its trajectory.

Maybe not, but that doesn't remove accidental discharges, poor aim(especially if it is a civilian in a stressful situation), ricochets, and bullets going through a target and injuring or killing a bystander.

Someone shoots at someone, and hits someone

Or someone shoots and misses and kills a bystander.

. An explosive/nuclear weapon/chemical weapon does not allow the "deployer" to discriminate as to the weapon's effect.

Depends on the type of NBC weapon. There was a method used by the KGB to inject ricin pellets into a human body without that person knowing. You could use radioactive material to poison a person. You are assuming that all NBC weapons are exploding weapons. Not to mention how accurate small, targeted explosives can actually be.

To all the anti-gun losers out there:

You all really crack me up. You are soooooo terrified of guns that you will cheer ANY laws or regulations that are passed in regards to them...irregardless of whether they actually make any SENSE!!

You all made such a big deal about "assault weapons"...and yet most of you ignorant clowns can't even intelligently define what one is. Don't feel bad though kiddies...your stupid government can't define them either in any meaningful way.

I know this because I actually READ THE LAW!!

Do you know what the "assault weapons ban" actually targeted? Guns that LOOKED dangerous. That's right children. The federal assault weapons ban had NOTHING to do with a weapon's actual capabilities, other than the high capacity magazines. That's right, you heard me. Zip, zilch, nada. It focused specifically on COSMETICS!!

But that's what you get when you let the idiots run the place. Bravo.

One last little thing for the anti-gun Nazis to remember. You can pass whatever laws you like, say whatever you like, demonize whoever and whatever you like. But guess what?

Those of us who own guns will simply ignore the laws and ignore you. And there's NOTHING you can do about it. Period.

This stupidity, this fraud, needs to be confronted and exposed for the stupidity and fraud it is every time it is asserted --

_____

inthemiddle12 Comment collapsed by the community

Funny...I don't find a single one that talks about confiscating anything.

Give 'em time.

Obama and the rest of the left wing lunatics know that it would be next to impossible to wipe out the 2nd Amendment in whole in one swing. So, he takes it one step at a time. He slowly knocks away at the constitution until he is able to get as many guns from as many people as possible.

_____

1. The gov't isn't afraid of your pop-gun: IT HAS NUKES.

2. I'd like to see gun nuts post actual law, instead of non-law junk they haven't a clue as to intent. Especially as concerns their false claim to be about "defending" the Constitution, which they HAVE NEVER READ, and in which is expressly stipulated, at Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. --

"The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to . . . SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS."

That is why, in writing the Second Amendment, the premise of which is NATIONAL DEFENSE, the Congress chose against standing armies -- which are a threat to civilian rule -- and for militia: because they DID NOT intend the militia be a threat to gov't. In fact, militia had always been and continues to be UNDER the rule of law,, as an arm of gov't, commanded by state's governor and legislature, and or President and Congress.

The Founders SHOWED that fact IN ACTION by using the militia to SUPPRESS Shays's and Whiskey rebellions, and then try and convict the perpetrators.

3. The "Declaration of Independence" --

A. Has never been law;

B. It applied EXCLUSIVELY to BRITAIN. The Founders NOT declaring independence from the colony gov'ts, which they controlled.

The NRA is a non-profit tax-exempt special interest front for the multi-billion dollar gun industry. They aren't about "patriotism"; they are about selling guns. It's all about the MONEY. And their insistence that the private "right" to shoot people trumps public safety is a flat out terrorist's lie. It is, in short, a criminal rationale.

See the NRA for what it is: 40 per cent of all gun sales are made without background checks. That GUARANTEES that criminals will get guns. The NRA is OPPOSED to background checks: it WANTS criminals to get guns, because the whole point is, by means of their Politics of Fear, is to sell guns, guns, and more guns.

Those who persist in spewing the NRA lies, and the out-of-context non-law found floating around on the net, are pushing a criminality based upon LIES, and propaganda which is and promotes domestic terrorism.

The lives of the twenty children murdered in Newtown have a greater right to live, than the individual stubbornly illiterate punk does to own guns. The Founders knew that, and not only engaged in gun control as a matter of routine, but also confiscated weapons from those who shouldn't have them. The principle is simple and obvious: no sane society leaves dangerous objects and substances lying around unregulated. Those who believe otherwise are the very people who should be prohibited possessing dangerous weapons.

The Wizard of Wisdom

To all the anti-gun losers out there:

You all really crack me up. You are soooooo terrified of guns that you will cheer ANY laws or regulations that are passed in regards to them...irregardless of whether they actually make any SENSE!!

_____

The well regulated militia of the Seccond Amendment is regulated by means of statutes. That means -- despite the lies you've been fed -- that anything held to be "protected" by the Second Amendment is NOT protected FROM regulation.

In view of the fact that you neglect to ccite the "Heller" abortion: it holds --

1. Falsely, that the Seccond Amendment protects an "individual" right _outside— well regulated militia;

2. CORRECTLY holds that gun control regulation is CONSTITUTIONAL.

Tell us, punk: which half of that law do you reject?

"You all made such a big deal about "assault weapons"...and yet most of you ignorant clowns can't even intelligently define what one is."

IN LAW, and ASSAULT weapon has long been clearly defined:

1. To point an UNLOADED gun at another is the CRIME of "Assault with a Deadly Weapon".

2. If it LOOKS like an assault weapon, it IS an assault weapon.

Now tell us, "responsible gun owner," why you DON'T know that laws the "responsible gun owner" is REQUIRED to know?

JNagarya,

You're not too terribly bright are you?

No sane society leaves dangerous objects and substances lying around unregulated

Really cupcake? Hmmmmm, I guess you don't consider household chemicals, power tools, common poisons, and a hundred other objects and items I can name "dangerous" huh?

There are many things in this life that are dangerous and societies don't regulate even a fraction of them on a regular basis...so your argument is pathetically erroneous.

the government isn't afraid of your popgun. It has NUKES.

Ummmmm...yeah, so what? You don't honestly believe the government would use NUKES do you genius? Yeah, brilliant idea. Let's use a bazooka to try and swat a fly. That'll go over REAL well with the general population.

because they did NOT intend the militia to be a threat to gov't

Wow, your continued ignorance of the Founding Fathers keeps on trucking doesn't it? The 2nd Amendment was specifically added to the Constitution in order for the People to BE A THREAT to government. You apparently know nothing of the writings of men named Washington, Jefferson, Adams, etc. do you?

In fact, militia continues to be UNDER the rule of law as an arm of government

Exactly what militia would that be? The Army? Nope, they fall under Posse Comitatus and cannot be used on US soil against the civilian population. The National Guard? Hmmmm, wrong again. The federal government does not have direct authority over the Guard and must, BY LAW, receive permission from the state Governor of the Guard unit's home state first.

Yep, you're just another anti-gun Nazi who spouts gibberish and ignores the most simple truth of the whole argument.

Neither YOU nor the government will EVER take guns away from the general populace.

And your comment about "promotes domestic terrorism" is beyond laughable. Mindless...but laughable.

One last thing genius. You claim that the 2nd amendment doesn't protect the rights of the individual to bear arms...yet you're the liar here pal. The Supreme Court has ruled on multiple occasions that it DOES.

Oh well, believe what you wish cupcake. It really doesn't matter what YOU think does it? The government of this country will never be able to take guns away from its citizenry and there's nothing you or the other anti-gun Nazis can do about it.

Sucks to be you doesn't it?

And calling me a punk just makes you look even dumber. You're pretty gutsy behind your keyboard aren't you cupcake??

What a child.

JNagarya,

YOU, a pathetic little anti-gun Nazi, are attempting to speak about "responsible gun owner" laws to ME? How amusing.

If it looks like an assault weapon, it IS an assault weapon

That is, without a doubt, one of the DUMBEST things I've ever heard of. So, by your reasoning, if I took a bolt action rifle, tricked it out with a military looking folding stock, flash suppressor and some other high tech LOOKING gear...it's now an assault weapon huh?

Hmmmmm...so I guess that means if I take a bar of lead and paint it gold so it LOOKS just like a gold bar...the bank will have to pay me the value of gold instead of lead right?

Yeah, I'm sure that'll work.

Come back when you can actually utilize some basic critical thinking skills cupcake. You're beginning to bore me.

Wait... why would federal law prevent doctors from asking about guns in the house or prevent data collection regarding that?

RI Mom said:

I'm going to give CREDIT to another VINER( Got Aspirin? ) who posted these on his link yesterday :

For all those that think that concealed carry is the way to go...Here's a fun one......

Got Aspirin?

And here's part two...

I BEG you to LOOK at these before you go RAMBO or RUBIO on your posts.

#2.32

This "controlled test" is exactly that- controlled.

1. The target student carrying the pistol was placed in the same spot of the room in every single case.

2. The assailant shot the teacher, then looked to that part of the room where the chosen student was placed. I watched all 6 cases and the gunman always went for that area of the classroom first after the teacher.

3. These chosen students did not actually go through any sort of CCW class, which would have better prepared them for such scenarios, but rather just spent some time at the range to learn to fire the weapon.

4. The fellow students were not normal fellow students at all, but ABC workers of cops who were acting as part of the show. This is important because they did not act as real, surprised students would, making the chosen student stick out like a sore thumb getting the gun out while the rest dash out in practiced manner.

5. The shooter was aware someone would try to shoot at him, and was watching for the chosen student, on top of knowing where the student would sit. A shooter in the classroom is going to have a lot of people moving around and without training would not be able to instantly pick out a single student going for a gun.

All in all, this was a disaster as far as 'experiments' go. For this sort of experiment to have any sort of credibility (let alone statistical significance), the shooter could not know if there even was an armed student(s) in the room, and where they would be sitting. Other real participants should be used instead of fake actor students. This would at least come close to a double-blind, random sample that is the foundation of any good experiment like this. A basic statistics class should be required of journalists. Of course, if you know anything about statistics and the media, you'll also know the truth is but a grain of salt if they can't make a good story out of it.

So, there's not much in them...All bark...No bite.

Then why is the media not crucifying Obama for spending $500 MILLION of the tax payers money on NOTHING?

Liberals....That's your SOCIAL SECURITY money he's spending. That's where he's getting it from or borrowing from China.

So what part of accomplishing NOTHING is worth $500 Million of your SOCIAL SECURITY money? They're already talking about raising retirement to 70 so that you can work until the day you die and you liberals think that spending $500 MILLION on accomplishing NOTHING is a good use of tax payer money.

Please explain. This is the SOLYNDRA of gun control.

And, for all you liberals that are so proud, not one of these would have saved 1 child at Newtown. Again, lots of money...accomplish nothing. Good job, liberals.

Before all your righties bust a vein and die (which would be a great thing actually), I just wanted to point out that Obama has just released a series of recommendations for gun control.

It is still up to the congress to enact those recommendations.

Dictator - yeah sure. You hyperboles know no end do they ?

Obama is so clueless...........

He does not understand how we think- because he is Kenyan born...

Why did his college appication show kenyan- and why did he get financial assistance...

HE IS THE OUTSIDER LOOKING IN.

THIS IS WHY HE IS SUCH A FAILURE AS A LEADER

HE IS TRYING TO CHANGE WHAT HE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND - guns and American society.

Your ways are that of a dumb ignorant uneducated hick who is given to believing any and all bull@!$%# he hears on righty talk radio.

All your above mentioned talking points have been roundly debunked by every single credible source but if you choose to believe in some stupid blog-post or forwarded emails from people similarly diseased as you then there is nothing that can be done about it.

Besides comes to think of it - taking guns away from ignorant people like you is good policy.

Robert - that is not the definition of armament, but I'll stop us there from having disputes over semantics.

It is a straw man argument. If I had said, "Well, the second amendment protects our right to bear arms, so if we're allowed single shot 22 caliber rifles that weigh 30 pounds each, and that's it, then our rights aren't infringed, right?" It's a fallacy because I created this ridiculous situation, then I'll attack that situation, in an attempt to discredit your entire point. It's a straw man argument.

Arms protected by the constitution are those of a defensive nature. Poisoning someone in the manner you describe is not defensive. There are no NBC weapons in use today that have ever been used for strictly defensive purposes on the individual scale, other than less-than-lethal means that have been accepted as defensive tools (like pepper spray). Please stick to defensive weapons, those are the only ones that are protected. And those are the weapons the supreme court ruled on (as you referenced).

As for your mention of ricochets, overpenetration, etc, etc...again, situations that fall on the operator to determine. Whenever a weapon is discharged and something other than the intended target is hit, the operator of that weapon is guilty of causing that damage. You know that. That doesn't automatically make that weapon an "offensive weapon" and outside of the context of the Constitution.

Dave M

Do you actually believe you will convince anyone of anything based on your biased and uninformed rant?

The odds that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, that the Earth is flat and that you will win a Nobel Prize are exactly the same ...... ZERO

No I actually did that to see If anyone would respond......

You are the lucky winner.

Z, yes it is the technical definition of an armament, when used as a term for a weapon. If the second amendment was only limited to firearms and not all armaments, then why did the founders not use the term firearm, and instead used the more generic term arm? Because it was not limited to firearms, but encompassed all types of arms.

The only reason you try to deflect by incorrectly referring to my position as a straw man argument is because you are attempting to justify having no regulation or restriction on firearms by ignoring the fact that if the government has the authority to restrict access to NBC weapons then they also have the right to restrict access to high-powered rifles, automatic weapons, extended magazines, and armor piercing rounds.

The right is not limited to weapons used for self defense. Guns are used to actively kill other people. The are not used to stop projectiles. Bullet proof vests are defensive items, shields are defensive items. Even swords can be used to block, and thus used in defense. Guns cannot block anything, they can only be used in an attack, or in an offensive matter.

Dave M

All of the rest you had to say was equally ridiculous. Why not try for an adult conversation next time?

Does not change the fact that Jimmy Carter was a genius compare to Obama.

Obama is a lousy leader but is the greatest divider of all.

Robert - I see that our viewpoints are so disjoint that it's going to be very difficult to get to a responsible conversation with you. Your mindset about firearms is obviously such that you cannot accept them as defensive tools, but as only offensive vehicles of violence. I'm sorry, but there's really no way we can ever come to an agreement here, especially on this back and forth hours between comments on the vine.

If you can find me the definition of "armament" as used in the 18th century, and it shows that you've quoted it accurately, I will concede that definition. I suspect that you cannot.

Again...arms are referred to as qualitatively defensive vehicles. As such, NBC does not, and will never, apply. The U.S. government has never restricted any high powered rifles, automatic weapons, extended magazines or armor piercing rounds. Of those items that could be construed as "restricted", there is simply either a secondary background procedure (which is no more intrusive than the standard procedure), or manufacturing restrictions on those firearms such that civilians cannot purchase those firearms manufactured after a certain date. Those firearms are easily accessible by any dealer allowed to deal in those firearms for sample use, and those dealers are largely every day Americans, who are also civilians.

I agree that a bullet proof vest is a defensive item. I further agree that a shield is a defensive item. However, I was talking about defensive weapons, which is where the confusion on your part sets in. Firearms are often used for the defense of self or others in this country and all over the world. The President's Secret Service carry weapons for the defense of the president. They carry defensive firearms. It's not a secret that they also have offensive weapons, but that's another matter, and not the first thing sought if a security issue arises. If one chooses to carry a firearm to protect his or her life, that firearm is defensive in nature. Is this hard to understand?

Would you be happiest if we could only carry swords to deflect bullets, or a bullet proof vest and shield to the supermarket? Even so, if shots rang out, what good are those items? Enough to possibly withdraw a few more feet before serious injury occurs? I'm not quite understanding how you believe that every gun is an offensive tool. Some firearms are rather neutral, let alone defensive. There was recently a story about a woman in Atlanta who defended herself and her children with a firearm. Please explain how this was an offensive act. Furthermore, insert any defensive firearm into her hands, and tell me how any AR-15 or "high powered rifle" would have changed the scenario from defensive to offensive.

Robert - Furthermore. On the subject of the woman in Atlanta. What good would a defensive shield done for her and her children?

And, can you think of a single instance where an individual would be justified in using any lethal NBC weapon to take a life in a defensive manner? Neither can I.

If you want to go into what the framers of the US Constitution meant by "bear arms" without referring to armaments, then the definition would more accurately be described as "serve in the military" or "fight as a soldier", as one can see if they look at the amendment as originally passed by the House in 1789. The House version included a clause about people who are religiously objecting to bearing arms not being forced to serve in the military. The framers certainly did not intend the term "bear arms" to mean carry or posses defensive weapons. If you read the actual minutes from the discussion in the House regarding the second amendment, they meant "bear arms" to mean "serve in the military" or to "raise an army". In other words, it was to ensure the rights of the citizens and the states to raise an army in defense from the federal government, if necessary.

There was recently a story about a woman in Atlanta who defended herself and her children with a firearm. Please explain how this was an offensive act.

Firearms, by definition, are only actually used when fired. They are not mean to protect, but solely to injure. She may have defended herself, but only by taking the offensive. When striking to cause damage, you are making an offensive move. There is a reason why there are blocks and strikes in martial arts, because while one may have to use offensive moves to defend ones self, it does not change those moves into defensive moves. They are still offensive moves.

The woman in Atlanta was in a small, enclosed space. Rifles are not intended to be used in small, enclosed spaces. Why do you think soldiers carry sidearms in addition to their rifles? If you are in a position where you are shooting a rifle at someone, then there is going to be some space between yourself and the person you are firing at. If that is the case, then it makes it questionable whether deadly force was required, and if it was not NECESSARY to stop a person from causing physical harm to another person, then it is murder.

Z, you think my mindset is that I cannot see an item designed to cause harm, and nothing else, as a defensive item, it might be because they are not designed to stop harm, but to cause harm.

Furthermore, insert any defensive firearm into her hands

As I pointed out, firearms are, by definition, designed to be used in offensive. "Defensive firearm" is an oxymoron.

And, can you think of a single instance where an individual would be justified in using any lethal NBC weapon to take a life in a defensive manner? Neither can I.

And that would matter if the second amendment said anything about self defense. It doesn't.

Again, it seems we are on opposite sides. There is no way you will accept what I have said, nor is there any way I will accept what you have said. One of us is right, and one of us is wrong. Or both of us are right or both of us are wrong. Either way, there's simply no reason to continue this back and forth, as, if there's no way we can agree on the fundamentals, there's no way we can agree on the extraneous details. The courts have ruled in a certain manner regarding the second amendment. If the discussion deviates from that ruling and the spirit of that context, it is pointless and erroneous. Have a good night.

Lets have a violence tax on hollyweird movies. Lets say if they make a violent movie the first murder is a freebie.

After that a $100,000 fee is levied for each murder portrayed in the film where a gun is used.

$75,000 if a bomb is used.

$50,000 for all other acts of violent murder are portrayed.

On top of that lets have a gun shot fee impossed on them as well. For each time a gun is fired in a movie there should be a $10,000 tax.

Each time a gun is portrayed in a life threatening measure then they would have to pay a $5,000 tax.

So on and so forth. Of course we really are not going to call this a tax but instead we shall refer to it as a fee.

Sitting - as long as you exempted historically significant movies from that tax. Saving Private Ryan would have cost billions of dollars to make, and therefore, we never would have been graced with it's impact on society.

Z, I would agree to that. Mine is only the basis to a suggestion. The details could be worked out. It could be promoted as "Do it for the children". Then if hollyweird balks at it, they could be labeled as heartless, child hating, liberal extremist

In NY it is now law that i get rid of my magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and only put 7 rounds in my 10 round magazines. Do you seriously think that a criminal will only put 7 rounds in a 10 round mag? This is the stupidity in gun control laws, the criminals will not follow them.

Elliot,
Am curious.
If you already own high capacity mags, what would happen if you were 'stopped' by police with them?
Is there a grandfather clause?

There is no grandfather clause. The law requires that all magazines with a capacity of 8 rounds or more be sold out of state and replace by compliant magazines.

It is a misdemeanor to be found in possession of such a magazine either on your person or in your home.

The law also does not prevent law enforcement officials from acquiring search warrants when an individual is suspected of owning such magazines. (better not tell your neighbors if you keep one...)

Except the 10 round mag only loaded with 7 exception. They honestly believe that criminals will only load 7....

Sick,
If this is true, then it is the start of confiscation that so many are in denial over.

Except the 10 round mag only loaded with 7 exception. They honestly believe that criminals will only load 7....

now what is scary is that they believe CRIMINALS will ONLY have 10 rd Mags.

Oh boo hoo... you can't own an AR-15 with a detachable magazine and one military modification. You know what you can still own? An AR-15! It's ridiculous, we have the strongest gun control laws in the country and they're still pathetic. An AR-15 should NEVER be used by a civilian. It is the EXACT same as the military's M16 except it doesn't do burst or full automatic. The military uses high capacity magazines, detachable magazines and long range weapons for sustained combat. We need to get rid of all assault (style) rifles. The AR-15 uses a .556 round which is meant for long range. If were to use it indoors and miss your target, it could easily go right through a wall and kill someone in the next room. I'm certain you don't need an AR-15 to hunt. Therefore, why is it that the "strictest" gun laws in the country are still pathetic and all you 2nd Amendment enthusiasts (who's lack of comprehension astounds me, and I have a pretty low opinion of you folks anyway) still whine and complain?

If you can't hit your target in 7 rounds, you shouldn't have a gun anyway. Unless the deer your hunting has it's own assault rifle, I think you're good with 7 rounds.

Your gun will not protect you from the tyranny of the government, the military will make sure of that. However you can vote which is much more effective than getting eradicated for pursuing a coup or something of that nature. In terms of home protection, again, if you can't hit your target in 7 rounds... you're doing it wrong and shouldn't have a gun. Besides, a gun in the home is 43 TIMES more likely to kill someone who is not an intruder. 43 TIMES more likely, that's not 43% more likely, that's 4300% more likely. If you want to hunt, fine. You don't need more than one, maybe two rounds to take down a deer. If you fire once and miss, the deer's going to bolt anyway. So tell me, why do you NEED high capacity magazines and assault rifles? I get that you WANT them, but I want people like you out of my country. We can't all get what we want...

I just got a form from my doctor, to fill out before my yearly appt. It's a check list that asks if I use always seatbelts, wear a helmet for biking, and keep firearms stored safely, among other safety -related questions. I assumed the check list was to start a conversation with the doctor, or perhaps gather data for public health reasons. I don't get what the controversy is about asking patients about the gun ownership.

Sorry Elliot... but in NY the law actually BANS the ownership of ALL magazines with capacity of 8 rounds or more. There is no grandfather clause.

It REQUIRES that citizens owning such magazines dispose of them. In NY you are no longer allowed to own such magazines. Simply loading them with only 7 rounds is not legal. If you are found to have such a magazine (EVEN IF IT IS COMPLETELY EMPTY) you are charged with a misdemeanor and the magazine is confiscated.

Sick, i was told yesterday you should be thankful that you can still use your muzzle loaded 'assault rifle'.

Thank you progessives for your generosity

Caesar Augustus-

Sick, i was told yesterday you should be thankful that you can still use your muzzle loaded 'assault rifle'.

Thank you progessives for your generosity

When you can tell me a legitimate reason you need an assault rifle you can have one. Trying to use semantics to say an AR-15 isn't an assault rifle is ridiculous, but for the selector switch, it's an M16 (and easily modifiable to allow for fully automatic).

You should be thankful, any real progressive nation has much stricter gun control laws and less crime and violence. Progressives have been responsible for every step in the right direction this country has ever taken. By definition, the very best a conservative can do is remain at the status quo, they can regress (but that's not change, that's regression, change implies something different). So thanks to progressives, women can vote and have control over their bodies, minorities cannot be slaves and can vote, you have the right to privacy, can work in safety, your food and drugs are safe (most of the time), you can be safe from unreasonable search and seizure (look at how the 4th Amendment has been interpreted by liberals and conservatives and see how conservative judges want to basically destroy the 4th Amendment)... so on behalf of all progressives....YOUR WELCOME

EDNYLaw....I don't need to justify WHY I own an AR-15 (which, by definition, IS NOT AN ASSAULT RIFLE). The 2nd Amendment doesn't require justification to invoke one's rights. An AR-15 is no different than a high-powered deer rifle except for the mag capacity. Using an AR-15 with a 30 round mag or 3 10 round mags will have little to no impact when an a-hole decides to shoot up a classroom, a mall, a theater, etc. The mag can be changed in 3 secs on average. And like you said, you can't always get what you want...it's my country, too, pal. And the document that established this country says I can own a gun...if you don't like the gun, too damn bad. I don't need your approval!

When you can tell me a legitimate reason you need an assault rifle you can have one.

ok 2nd Amendment. That is it, if that isnt legit enough. Since your 1st Amendment speech is hurting my feelings, maybe we should lobby limit yours.

an AR -15 is NOT an assault rifle. Looking military isnt the same. Tell you what I can make a Ruger10/22 look 'assault'. but if your hellbent, I have AS (an assault spork). i can attach a name to anything too.

Define progressives Eddy boy, if you link it to the DNC then woman can thank the repubs, blacks can thank the repubs for ending slavery and the CR movement of the 60's.

Progressives = stlye over substance and you talk of semantics

You're right, the 2nd Amendment only requires you be part of a well regulated militia, can I see your militia or military ID please? Oh, not part of one? Convenient that you can ignore the first clause of the 2nd Amendment yet champion the very next clause which is dependent on the first. Ah selective reading, it can allow you to twist anything to your liking.

As stated above, the document that says you can own a gun, says "a well regulated militia for the being necessary to the security of a free State..." so why doesn't that part matter to you? I don't understand how that part can be tossed aside in favor of owning weapons only the MILITARY should possess. You will not use your AR-15 for protection, you will not use it for hunting, you just want one like a little child wants a toy. Guess what, I want an unmanned drone to fly around, should I be allowed to have one? Maybe with some heat seeking missiles? How about if I want some hand grenades, landmines.... obviously there's a line at which point we say you can't have that. So why do YOU get to decide where the line is, and not the majority of the country?

Speaking to a Staff Sergeant in the United States Marine Corp, the AR-15 is exactly an assault rifle except for the fact it does not have a selector switch. Other than that it is EXACTLY THE SAME.

The 2nd Amendment is in fact not a legitimate reason. The 1st Amendment can absolutely be limited, I cannot yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire. I cannot threat to kill people. Time, place and manner restrictions on free speech are 100% constitutional and that's the amendment we hold above all others.

So I ask again, what legitimate reason do you have? See, we have a legitimate state interest in banning assault weapons, limiting magazine capacity and registering guns. That reason is to help to prevent gun deaths. The law (gun control) is rationally related to a legitimate state interest (preventing gun deaths). If you want to up the scrutiny we can do that too. The law (gun control) is related to a substantial state interest (preventing gun deaths). Oh you want strict scrutiny? Sure, preventing gun deaths is a compelling state interest, and the gun control law is narrowly tailored (we could just ban the damn things outright) to effectuate that compelling state interest. Further, its the the least restrictive means, again, we could just ban the damn things outright and demand you surrender them.

So, now that you've been schooled in constitutional law, care to tell me again, what your legitimate reason is?

Elliot: You are welcome to move to Florida where I live. Not only can I HAVE a gun which holds 10 rounds (or more) I can carry virtually everywhere I go (grocery store, Home Depot, etc.).

Or if Texas finally gets their act together and decides the 10th amendment MEANS something and secedes from the union I'll just pick up 50 acres or so there and move to the country of Texas........

Caesar Augustus-

Sick, i was told yesterday you should be thankful that you can still use your muzzle loaded 'assault rifle'.

Thank you progessives for your generosity

I do believe you also get a choice of fife or drum.

I'll bet you'll select the fife.

"Viva la resistance!"

Salud

ProBusiness-

Or if Texas finally gets their act together and decides the 10th amendment MEANS something and secedes from the union I'll just pick up 50 acres or so there and move to the country of Texas........

I'll help you pack.

Salud

EDNYLaw: Amazing the unintelligent and uninformed liberal Obama supporter. You start out with the incompetent argument of "well regulated militia" and, again, argue that meant "government military".

First, congratulations on getting your high school diploma with absolutely no American History knowledge. This is very basic and easy to understand. "Well regulated militia" meant "the people". Think about it this way - if the Bill of Rights list the freedoms of the individual then why would the SECOND right (the 2nd amendment) say, in your opinion, the government has the right to keep and bear arms. That is such an illogical argument. The government doesn't need to put in a Constitution what THEY can do. No, the Constitution LIMITS the government and gives the rights to the people.

But, for the sake of argument, let's assume you still don't see the difference and want to argue the 2nd amendment does NOT give the people the right to keep and bear arms and meant a government military. Then how do I show your ignorance? Simply look at the quotes from the people that WROTE the Constitution or were involved during that time or shortly thereafter. Here are a couple:

"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))

"...if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?" (Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail, Johnathan Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol.2 at 97 (2d ed., 1888))

"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." [William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8)

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850))

"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 tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

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

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)

"No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion." (James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775])

So explain to me again how you thing the second amendment doesn't mean "the people"?

I wonder whether Rubio and Priebus actually read the list of executive actions before talking about "abusing his power" and "executive power grab". It all sounds like a pretty innocuous bunch of administrative actions well within Presidential authority to me.

TomasGrande: and I will LET you help me pack. But here is the funny part. Conservatives can live without liberals but liberals CAN'T live without conservatives. Why? Because who are you going to tax to redistribute income to moochers and leeches if the people that WORK leave to the new country of Texas and all you have left are those wanting extended unemployment benefits and welfare?

Want to see what happens when all the conservatives leave and move to the new country of Texas? Just look at Detroit - now imagine that all throughout the remaining states in the United States.

can I see your militia or military ID please?

minutemen.

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.

Selective reading you say

Ed i'll tell you what, you fear guns I promise I wont use mine to defend you, I would hate to make your uncomfortable.

ProBusiness the constitution (not bill of rights) already states 'provide for the common defense'. So dont be too hard on Eddy Spaghetti.

Pro Business

I can take quotes out of context too. Actually, unlike you, I'm a trained constitutional lawyer who actually understands the English language and history... oh and context, as in I can take quotes out of context too.

See, if you actually READ the 2nd Amendment, the right to bear arms MUST be for the purpose of a well regulated militia to secure the freedom of the state. If it were not, then that first clause would not need to be there. If it just said, to secure the freedom of the state, that would give it context and I'd concede, the right to bear arms is plenary (mind you, ALL constitutional rights are subject to limitation through judicial scrutiny, which for the 2nd Amendment has never been articulated). However, because they stuck in "well regulated militia" then you must be part of a well regulated militia (I realize this isn't an actual requirement as interpreted, but most of the conservative judges who interpret the 2nd Amendment do it through their own judicial lens, fogged with their beliefs, not the intentions of the founding fathers).

Your quotes automatically lose, because you used ellipses...the hallmark of a liar. Further, if you want to argue that you need a gun for protection against the government, I got news for you... the government will win. When talking to some military personnel, they outright laughed at the fact that anyone could think that armed civilians could even trouble the military for more than a few minutes. So you lose there as well. In terms of hunting...well if you want to hunt, go ahead. You don't need an assault rifle or a handgun to hunt. So you lose those. If you want "home protection," fine but you don't need an assault rifle or a rifle in general. Handguns are more likely to kill family in the home than an intruder... so who are you really protecting? You just want a shoot a gun? Well, the constitution doesn't say anything about your right to shoot whatever you want. So your textualist pals would not find that in the constitution and thus invalid that statement.

Care to ground your argument in 2013? If the founding fathers were around today, they'd laugh at you then hang their heads in shame to think the document they fought and died for was so perverted by backwards thinking people like you. It's disgusting how people like you would like to torture words to give them meanings they never had.

Militia: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency or a body of citizens organized for military service

Regulated: Control or supervise (something, esp. a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations

Argue with the definitions if you want, but you'll just look stupid. The definitions are what they are. You can't change the definitions of well regulated or militia to suit your purpose. We've agreed on the English language, so we're bound by its constructs.

ProBusiness

TomasGrande: and I will LET you help me pack. But here is the funny part. Conservatives can live without liberals but liberals CAN'T live without conservatives

From PolitiFact

'Red State Socialism' graphic says GOP-
leaning states get lion's share of federal
dollars

"Of the 32 states which receive more than they contribute, 27 states (84%) are REPUBLICAN. Of the 18 states which contribute more than they receive, 14 states (78%) are DEMOCRATIC."

Looks like it's the other way around from what you said.

But hey, at least you'll get to root for the Cowboys!!!

Salud

First of all it's EDNY as in Eastern District of New York as in Federal Court as in I have more knowledge about federal law than any one of you internet warriors. See, I'm not afraid of guns, I'm concerned about what lunatics like you people do with them. What, exactly are you defending me from. I'm perfectly capable of defending myself thank you... been doing it for a few decades now.

However, it is unequivocally true that you must be afraid of something. Be it the government coming to take your guns, someone trying to break into your house... you must constantly live in fear. It's really pathetic, you should talk to a therapist. You don't have to live in fear. The odds of you getting robbed at gun point in your house, pretty damn low. The odds of the government taking your guns or you rebelling against the government, virtually non-existent. So, what exactly are you afraid of?

I, on the other hand, think its better to talk things out, reason with people. With widespread weaponry, comes death. Two people who get into a fight, who may have just dropped it or gotten into a fist fight now becomes a situation where one is dead and the other is going to jail.

Constitutional rights have limits. They do. I'm sorry you don't understand how basic constitutional law works, but from your posts, I can see why you do not understand. If anything, I think you should be upset at the country that let you down by failing to properly educate you. In fact, I think you should try to get back at them by enrolling in a school and learning something. That'll teach them to make you look stupid!

In sum, say what you want... I'm licensed to practice, interpret and argue laws. You can't do any of that legally, moreover you don't even understand the basic fundamental principles of this country. So, your opinion on constitutional law means exactly nothing because you do not understand how it works.

If the founding fathers were around today, they'd laugh at you then hang their heads in shame to think the document they fought and died for was so perverted by backwards thinking people like you. It's disgusting how people like you would like to torture words to give them meanings they never had.

what a presumptious statement.

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.

what were the minutemen?

First of all it's EDNY as in Eastern District of New York as in Federal Court as in I have more knowledge about federal law than any one of you internet warriors.

I bet you do. So Eddy if it were that easy the 2nd Amend. would have been abolished long ago.

I bet you do. So Eddy if it were that easy the 2nd Amend. would have been abolished long ago.

The fact that you even say something that dumb, shows you don't understand constitutional law. No one is arguing whether you have a right to own weapons (though I do argue that right should be accompanied by a requirement join a militia), only you shouldn't be allowed to own every type of weapon should have to register them.

Constitutional rights come with limits. It's reality. You can deny it all you want, but that just lends credence to the whole, "gun nuts are just paranoid lunatics running around in tinfoil hats."

So feel free to deny that constitutional rights have limits, words have actual, static definitions, and that your internet brass means anything to the rest of the world.

ah, edny law you're a lawyer, which explains why you have no common sense. dont try to sell your bs to the supreme court, they already ruled you wrong. go back to chasing ambulances and bilking insurance companies for bogus injuries.

Don't worry caesar...I got your back.

Here, take this sack...you'll need it to carry an essential body part, which has just been handed to you, out the door.

:)))

Salud

@mrwood3,

I'll spread the word to my attorney brethren that you don't require their help next time you need some legal advice. As it so happens, I try to help people who are having their constitutional rights violated.

Of course, as is apparently the motto of the right wing, you don't want an expert who is familiar with the study and practice of constitutional law (mind you the only people licensed in the country to discuss and effectuate change regarding the constitution as interpreted), you'd rather leave important issues to morons who would rather watch Faux News than pick up a book.

That's fine. I hope I get to go against you in court some day. We (attorneys and judges) always laugh at Pro Se litigants. It's like a dog wearing clothes. They try to be attorneys but fail miserably. So, good luck... hope you never have legal issues.

EDNYLaw -

Eastern District of New York as in Federal Court

Then you understand that with that declaration you are in violation of Federal ethics standards.

EDNY: The founding fathers were crystal clear. The Bill of Rights are the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. They guarantee personal freedoms and limit government.

It is ludicrous and ridiculous to even THINK that the founding fathers wrote the first amendment listing what they felt was the MOST important right of the people (speech and religion) and THEN in the NEXT most important right of the people make a "oh by the way" comment that the government controls the military and the arms needed. I HOPE you are not in law because that is the most warped logic. Did you learn that in one of your liberal "constitutional law" classes? And then the third to tenth amendments go BACK to giving rights to the people?

But EVEN if you wanted to argue that the second amendment was to give the government the right to keep and bear arms (what a CRAZY logic) you still can't disregard the list of quotes I gave you. You state I took quotes "out of context".

Really?

When Thomas Jefferson said ""No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." what do YOU think he meant?

When Rep. Elbridge Gerry said "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."what do YOU think he meant?

When George Mason said ""I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." what do YOU think he meant?

When Alexander Hamilton said ""The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." what do YOU think he meant?

When Richard Henry Lee said ""To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." what do YOU think he meant?

Amazing how I give quotes FROM the founding fathers and a supposedly educated individual STILL wants to say the "quotes are taken out of context" and the second amendment was giving the right to keep and bear arms to the GOVERNMENT?!?!

How in the world does someone with THAT type of warped thought process ever leave a rubber room and still allowed to have shoelaces?

Then you understand that with that declaration you are in violation of Federal ethics standards.

In fact I am not. I do not work for them. I merely reside in the Eastern District and am licensed there. So nice try, but I actually know the ethical obligations of my profession. Moreover, even if I did work there, I can absolutely have an opinion. In fact it would violate the 1st Amendment if I could not have an opinion. If I were an employee, nothing I've said would indicate that I'm using any type of power of the federal government to pursue a specific outcome. So, thanks for playing but FAIL!

Probusiness:

Texas will no longer be an economic powerhouse after all of the military bases are shut down. What will become of El Paso and San Antonio, just to name 2 military dependent cities? How will you pay for the border patrol that will have to take over for the feds? Will they make more than minimum wage? What will your minimum wage be? Will there be a minimum wage? Get ready for a state tax.

But the most important question - why haven't you already moved to Texas? Why wait for them to secede? If you move now, you can join the movement and be in on the ground floor making decisions about the new republic and being the new age Jefferson or Madison or Hamilton or etc etc. Wow! You'd be in the history books!

If it's because of Obama, just wait for 3+ years and you'll have a new president.

Here, take this sack...you'll need it to carry an essential body part, which has just been handed to you, out the door.

I keep it between my legs Micks. it is heavy though :))) . But Eddy didnt hand me my ass Micks and you know it because the SC does NOT agree with Eddy. But if you feel the necessity to call me a gun nut, so be it, it wont win the discussion.

Auf Wiedersehn mein Freund

EDNYLaw,

Amen. Thanks for your posts.

EDNYLaw - So you're not saying in this statement that you are an employee of the Federal Court System?

First of all it's EDNY as in Eastern District of New York as in Federal Court

And yes you can have an opinion just not present yourself as an Employee of the Court while spouting that opinion in a public forum without prior authorization.

I've read many quotes from the founding fathers. They also say what a militia should be:

It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States,reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers No. 29

The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. Id.

There's a couple from Hamilton. However, perspective is also key. We don't hold a revolution when we disagree. We are not a colony with no rights. We are a civilized nation where I can walk to the store and buy my dinner, I didn't have to shoot it in the woods. I don't own slaves and guns are not my only means of defense. This is 2013 and not 1776. I do not, nor have I ever, advocated that the Constitution should be interpreted through the lens of 1776. Those who do not agree with this sentiment must then relinquish all rights based on the jurisprudence of privacy since it appears no where in the constitution. Further, you absolutely cannot have any type of gun if a state says so. Did you know that not a single right (bill of rights) applies to the states until it has been incorporated into the 14th Amendment? So, actually, the only thing you can be outraged about is an all out ban of weapons by the federal government. Under the original Constitution, the states would have had absolutely no duty to protect the 2nd Amendment. The conservative textualists never mention that one!

I'm going to give you a little Con Law class:

All constitutional amendments ONLY apply to the federal government (through the 5th Amendment Due Process Clause). The only time an amendment can apply to the states (IE a state may not infringe upon this right or must meet certain judicial scrutiny in order to legislate in this area) is right MUST be incorporated into the 14th Amendment by the Supreme Court.

This would lend credence to the fact that the Constitution is a living document. If you want to argue that the textualist approach is correct, then you are bound by the limitation that the amendments ONLY apply to the federal government. You CANNOT have it both ways.

So here's my challenge Pro Business, Caesar or anyone else who would like to chime in, rectify this:

If the Constitution is not a living document but should be read as is, under its original intent, and under original intent the Bill of Rights DID NOT apply to the states, you should have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM with states banning weapons and increasing gun control.

However, if you think the states should be banned from doing that, your are directly admitting that the Constitution needs to be interpreted through a modern lens. If that is true, then you must also admit, as society changes, so does the interpretation of the Constitution. Therefore, as the majority changes its mind that gun control is a good thing, you can't complain because you want the 2nd Amendment incorporated into the 14th Amendment and thus applicable to the states.

EDNYLaw - Just mentioning that because normally a lawyer would identify them self as a member of the New York Bar if applicable rather than something like "Eastern District of New York as in Federal Court"

I am not stating that I am a federal employee, I'm stating that I reside in the Eastern District of New York and I am admitted to practice in the federal courts. At no time have I said, or given the indication, that I work or am employed by the federal government. Eastern District of New York as in Federal Court does not mean I work there, it means the Eastern District Courthouse, that's all it means.

I'm entitled to my opinion just like every other citizen. In fact, I fight for citizen's rights to exercise their opinions and free speech and I would appreciate not having mine abridged through veiled threats that are unfounded.

Well, considering I was explaining the genesis of my screenname EDNYLaw, Eastern District of New York explains it perfectly. Whereas, NY admitted attorney fails to define the acronym EDNY. If you want to infer I work there, that's up to you. I have not affirmatively stated I work there. In fact, I will correct you if you do state I work there. I do not. I have never been a paid employee of the federal government. I do not represent the government's views or opinions. The opinions expressed by me are solely mine and mine alone in my individual capacity as a United States citizen and as a NYS and federally licensed attorney.

Would you feel more comfortable if I put that disclaimer on all my posts? Of course, that'd be you attempting to limit my speech, of course you're not the government (unless you work for them) so the Constitution doesn't apply to you (except for the 13th Amendment, but I don't think you're trying to enslave me). In summary, I am a licensed attorney who can practice in state and federal court. My name is derived from the district I live in and the courthouse I practice in, that is it.

Exactly, EDNYLaw! Having an opinion is not a violation of the ethics. Now, if you were talking about a specific case, then, yes. I love watching you handling the yahoos here. ;-)

Veiled threat?

Implying that I am some how breaching an ethical (or legal) duty which would subject me to civil or criminal penalties. Pointing that out implies nothing more than, you perceived what I was doing was in violation of something to which I would be "in trouble" if it were found out.

In my book, that's a veiled threat that if I'm a federal employee, I better stop or someone will tell on me.

Gablegal,

Thanks, I get bored and like trolling these people. Their lack of understanding of fundamental constitutional law principles is beyond entertaining. It's even funnier when I just cite law and they cite crazy opinions and interpretations that have never been made but for "2nd Amendment Enthusiasts." Anyway, thanks for the support. Maybe I should change my avatar to the troll face meme, would anyone get that?

Blearyeyed Goggle "H.J. res. 15"

[But if you feel the necessity to call me a gun nut, so be it, it wont win the discussion.]

Now everyone knows you don't need ME to call you a gun nut, but you have to admit it was funny.

You could have just said touché and been done with it, but you just don't seem to know when to cut your losses.

Yes, by all means - let's rag on EDNY because he's an attorney !

First, while most of you hate attorneys, over 90% of you are happy with YOUR own lawyer.

Second, the founding fathers didnt get it ALL right, or all wrong. Consider:

"We hold these truths to be self evidence , that all men are created equal;" (no problem there);

"That they are endowed by their creator to certain unalienable rights"

Meaning (IF you are a literalist of the Constitution), that the rights set forth below are G-d given and "unalienable", meaning, "cannot be taken away"

"That among those right are life, liberty and ownership of property" (later changed to "pursuit of happiness".

Thus, again, if you are a literalist, MAN (i.e., "government") cannot take away these rights, which, in turn, means that there can be NO prisons, and NO death penalty.

Now - am I advocating this ? of course not. The point is, that the MOMENT you become a NON-literalist, the Constitution, ALL of it - becomes open to interpretation, and thus, ABUSE.

It is precisely because of interpretation issues, that lawyers are necessary. NO founding father could predict things like computers; They DID, however, envision a government run amok seeking to take their citizens' guns away from them. Thus, the 2nd amendment. Could they have predicted every single instance where guns would be targeted by NON-criminal citizens ? of course not - back then, a gun was a tool, like any other -

You gun pssies will not be happy until the only gun allowed is a 6 shot revolver and allowed only in one's dresser drawer - but, of course, even then you'll want to outlaw them "just in case" a child's friend comes over and touches it. You wont be happy until you need 3 locks to unlock it - and, WHILE you're unlocking it..if your wife is accosted by rapist ? Well, you'll just tell her to "spread" - for the common good, of course.

If a military style weapon is really no different than a regular rifle, if the only difference is looks, if gun owners continue to make fun of those who don't know the difference, then why do gun owners even care? If you get the same performance without the look, then why are you resisting a ban? Perhaps there IS a difference that you are not telling the rest of us about? Why should we believe you?

Really pathetic argument. You want to ban a gun just because it looks mean. Do you have any idea how stupid that makes you look? We like having AR-15's for numerous reasons, from target practice, (yes it's FUN), to killing coyotes or wolves that attack cattle, to probably a dozen other reasons.

99% of gun deaths are from ordinary hand guns so you want to ban assault weapons? Please explain the logic in that!

Even if these weapons weren't available, do you think that 1% would be saved because the perp just said "Aw shucks, if I can't kill them with my AR-15 I just won't kill them"? That is the absurd logic you are trying propagandize us with.

EDNYLaw. My God thank you man. You said what I have been trying so hard to say, and you did it so eloquently. these wingnuts don't stand a chance with you. The Supreme Court settled this just not long ago. And the very fact we can't own Automatic weapons just about say's it all. The Government has the Right to regulate what kinds of weapons that can be sold. The Government can infringe upon the Peoples rights as to what Guns they can own. Can I get your Option on that. I do wish I had your education. I might not say is as sweet as you do, But I think for my self and have common sense.

Eddy and Mickey are both wrong per the S.C. Call my intreptation skewed all you want. You know Eddy here brags about how much he knows of Constitutional law yet we still have it [2nd Amendment]. I suspect Eddy here probably with his pal Mickey were the astute Constitutional Lawyers that orally argued the ACA in front of the S.C. We know the ruling was a TAX, not commerce which was orally argued.

I suspect DC Vs Heller will be upheld and expanded under this new 'shiny' from the left in the form of Assault Rifles.. Perhaps that is too Broad of Brush?

in the 'Corpse' we called you sea lawyers.

Hehe. The Nation of Texas would not last a month. The American Army would simply close the borders and wait. Nothing would get in or out. No food. Texas is not self sufficient. Their no.1 cash crop is cotton. No.2 is flowers. Not particularly nourishing.

It would take about a week to clean out all of the grocery stores, and then the rioting would commence. And all of those people would be packing. The texans would welcome the US Army pretty much like the Iraqi Army did in 1991 after being starved out. With open arms.

You know what "Seizure Gasbagstass?" STORE IT!!

[in the 'Corpse' we called you sea lawyers.]

Sure you did... Stop parading around as a veteran, its disgusting.

And you're still wrong.

You know Caesar, maybe if you didn't get so pissed off when someone points out your inconsistencies, you'd have a better experience here on the vine.

Yo Mickey! My friend who is a Psychologist would use the term "Narcissistic Personality" to describe "Seizure."

The concept that doesn't get any attention by the news article, or these posts, is the significant fact that if someone is going to shoot you, they aren't likely to talk to you. If they limit the number of rounds in a magazine to 7, in a clip that holds 10, because the State of New York says that's the rule, they are probably less likely to shoot someone in the first place. If they plan on shooting someone, and use 10 rounds in a 10 shot clip, even though it's against the law, do you really, really believe they are going to worry about a clip violation when they've committed a murder? How many people do you think debate the Second Amendment before committing mass murder? And what if they intend to commit suicide after committing murderous mayhem? Do you really, really think the licensed professional in the court system is of any concern to the murderer?

The murder rate by gangs in metropolitan areas like Chicago is significant because they aren't carrying long guns around to a great extent. I don't know, but I would guess that pistols would be more prevalent among gang members than rifles with large capacity clips, because they are readily concealable, and readily disposable. Pistols can be thrown from the open window of a car driving over a river bridge. A rifle can too, but with more difficulty. It would be far more difficult to carry an assault rifle with a drum magazine around under a long coat, than let's say a sawed off shotgun...which is illegal too.

What the Congress should do is fund the Attorney General's Office to prosecute violations of gun laws all ready on the books, and provide funding to schools for adequate door locks to classrooms. I wouldn't expect that someone who's going to kill you with a long gun is planning on doing much talking to you. I don't know how many people have been hit accidentally in the likes of drive by shootings, but I would guess that figure to be higher and more common than incidents of mass shootings which brought about this discussion. Chicago's homicide rate was over 500 last year, is at 25 so far this year, and there's no discussion on how many people were wounded and not killed, and that's gun violence of everyday occurrence, not the occasional mass shooting which the effort of hearings and executive orders is attempting to address.

most lawyers are so hung up on themselves, if you can't dazzle us with brilliance then like obama you try to baffle us with B.S. Go preach gun control to drug dealers and see where that gets you.

I apologize to those who've read what I've written and do not understand it. I'm sorry that Constitutional Law is difficult to comprehend. That doesn't mean, when I try to explain it, I'm trying to "dazzle [you] with [my] brilliance." I'm merely articulating what Supreme Court jurisprudence has said. As for my question, no one has answered it:

So here's my challenge to anyone who disagrees with gun control, how do you reconcile the following:

If the Constitution is not a living document but should be read as is (and anyone who argues that militia and well regulated mean something different in 2013 than they did in 1776 necessarily implies a textualist or originalist viewpoint of the Constitution), under its original intent, and under original intent the Bill of Rights DID NOT apply to the states, you should have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM with states banning weapons and increasing gun control.

However, if you think the states should not have the power to institute gun control counter to your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, you are directly admitting that the Constitution needs to be interpreted through a modern lens. If that is true, then you must also admit, as society changes, so does the interpretation of the Constitution. Therefore, as the majority changes its mind that gun control is a good thing, you can't complain because you want the 2nd Amendment incorporated into the 14th Amendment and thus applicable to the states.

Please, reconcile those views. If your "viewpoint" of the Constitution changes based on the issue, your viewpoint is invalid. You must remain consistent to have a sound and valid argument or else it holds no water if your "interpretation" of things change based on the issue at hand.

Laker Steve
The 2nd Amendment:

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

What part of "shall not be infringed" does Obama and his America-hating minions not understand?

What part of "well regulated militia" don't you understand?

EDNY -

Do NOT apologize for other ppl's shortcomings.

ahhhhh how sweet.......

EDNYLaw... So you don't feel bad, I read your posts. I also recognize that as time changes, interpretations change. From a statistical standpoint the killings due to mass murder is very small. President Lincoln was not going to even think about talking to the Confederacy until Union casualty figures reached 600,000.

ENDLAW,
So why then would you need to use The words Federal Court ?To invoke Respect,Intimidate,or was it You know best because you use these words? Why mention them at all??

Your quote:First of all it's EDNY as in Eastern District of New York as in Federal Court as in I have more knowledge about federal law than any one of you internet warriors

It Sounds more like your just a Pompous," Im better, smarter,and wield the power of Federal Court than you kinda person"weather that was your intent that's what it sound's like,from that post to most of your other posts...very condicending.

david, So when is the DOJ going to start following through and arrest the millions of illegals that were denied weapons purchases, as required by the LAW????

Those illegals just went to Arizona and bought them on the street from Americans who just bought them from a gun store. All perfectly legal there.

If you go to a gun show in CT or Mass or NY you cannot buy a gun unless you have a permit from that state or you have it sent to a dealer that has a fed firearms licence.

Bravo!

Minor problem with your analogy ... those ovens were explicitly designed for their purpose.

Actually BCWC... his analogy is spot on. Whether specifically designed for that purpose or not... the ovens were only put to use by madmen. Until put to use, the ovens did no evil. THAT is the point and it is valid.

bcwc is dead on. Makes the oven makers just as guilty as the guys who threw them in the oven.

The problem with the analogy is the ovens were only used for cremation. It was the Zyklon B fumigation gas that was used to murder them - A gas designed to kill.

Damn....you're right....it was the oven makers all along! I knew it, I knew it!!!!

Blaming the violence of madmen on the weapons that they use is equivalent to blaming the Holocaust on Oven Makers.

Allowing those madmen free and easy access to the weapons they choose to employ in mass murder is the ultimate in illogical.

Hey Grey, conservatives don't know history, or facts- those pesky things that get in the way of their crazy rants...so pointing out the fallacy of their arguments or that they indulge in irrational comparisons does nothing- they are ignorant self-loathing hateful individuals that haven't a clue.

Ped,
Until madmen can be identified, this will happen.
Or are you all about removing ALL weapons?

DionysusOmega

Blaming the violence of madmen on the weapons that they use is equivalent to blaming the Holocaust on Oven Makers.
Illogical.

what a stupid, stupid analogy.

anyway, there is a HUGE difference between a mandman, and a mandman with a fully loaded AR-15. Guess what it is.

Bayllie,

there is a HUGE difference between a mandman, and a mandman with a fully loaded AR-15

Is there a difference between a 'madman' and a madman with diesel, fertilizer and primers?

Post #5 gets the award for worst analogy ever in the debate on gun control.

And he/she also loses the debate via Godwin.

I thought ovens were for cooking food

Post #5 gets the award for worst analogy ever in the debate on gun control.

And he/she also loses the debate via Godwin.

Godwin? he never called anyone except Nazi's, Nazi's. 5.12 gets the award for the least comprehension skills

DionysusOmega

Is there a difference between a 'madman' and a madman with diesel, fertilizer and primers?

a 6-yr-old with 11 bullets in his little body.

yes because being charred to death is much better BayLIE

The ovens weren't used to kill.

David,

It wasn't the President's supporters making all the noise about what he would do with the Executive Orders. It was those opposed to him that insisted he was going to try to take away all their rights and impose new legislation before waiting to hear what he said. I don't anything here that anyone should be opposed to if gun safety is really their concern.

I don't believe much of anything that clown(obama) says.No offence to any clowns out there.

No offence taken.

Whatever "offence" is.

OK...what is the solution? We used to "commit" people for observation and "forced" treatment when deemed (by doctors or courts) necessary; ACLU fixed that years ago. Now what? Tell us how the Lanza kid would have been prevented from mass murder via some mental health approach.

Grandfather............his mother, who knew he had severe mental problems and incredibly, chose to take him to a shooting range for him to learn how to use the weapons she purchased. What was she thinking? She had many other options to help him over the years, money was not in short supply there are plenty of private facilities she could have availed of to get him help, if she had the ability to discern normal vs abnormal behavior. Considering her son's challenges however, her actions of buying weapons such as she had would appear to me she had deep problems within herself.

Uhh, Grandpa ? no.

Your quote :

We used to "commit" people for observation and "forced" treatment when deemed (by doctors or courts) necessary; ACLU fixed that years ago.

Check California Welfare and Institutions code section 5150, et seq.

ALL states have laws like this.

you are 100% correct

CT used to have the facilities(about 1500 cap) but was mostly shut down by the state now down to about 150 patients.Better to keep them at home turn them out to the streets.

DionysusOmega

Yes, the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd Amendment allows restrictions by the govt. Read the decisions. The President doesn't make legislation out of Executive Orders. People just like to rail against something that they hadn't even heard yet.

Jed,
I do understand the rulings.
There is language in the rulings that still allow the government to control 'unusual' or 'military' type weapons.
Problem is, the civilian AR or AK is the equivalent to a semi-auto hunting rifle.
If you ban one, then EVERYTHING except single, bolt, lever or pump action weapons could fall under this ban.

Dionysus -

THAT is EXACTLY the long range plan..."they" just don't want anyone to know until it's too late.

Yeah, they'll be here in no time to take away ALL our guns!

We have a similar issue in my town.The city fathers are taking about lowering the speed limit on the main drag from 50mph to 40mph.

Obviously, their next move will be to take away all our cars.

Easy...tax the gun purchase....pay for mental health. Next problem.....

+Exactly my thoughts Grandfather, I evenwrote to the VP to say the same thing

Or make gun manufacturers responsible for the carnage caused by someone using their unsafe product. After a few gazillion dollars spent defending themselves and in payment to plaintiffs, they will find a solution to the problem they currently refuse to address (or admit it even exists).

blearyeyed what is unsafe about a gun?They have safeties on them,the problem is nut cases getting to them,no different than a chainsaw,if you can't use it correctly you will cut off a leg or hurt some one else with it.I'm sure you wouldn't let your 10 yr old play with it or your mentally challenged 20 yr old cut a tree with it ,same thing with a gun.It's as dangerous as the person handling it.

gunfsafety,

A gun is the only consumer product you can buy where you are barred from suing the manufacturer for any reason and the manufacturer is exempt from consumer protection laws. There is no other product you can legally buy that enjoys such special treatment.

The next generation will be too busy figuring out how to pay the debt this stupid generation left for them.

Tab, Unfortunately, most of those painful histories that you mentioned were due in large part to governments taking away their own citizens' right to defend themselves.

Seems to be taking about that long for the obesity issue as well....1/3 of the population is obese and in denial....so nothing new there. Difference is, smoking cessation results is an observable improvement attributed to the cessation act itself.....nothing we've seen so far will result in reduced gun violence, especially the killing of kids by the mentally ill or disturbed. Just as with obesity, we're in denial about effective means to control gun violence. It's not hard, we just don't want to do it.....and we can easily remain within the current 2nd amendment. If that becomes a problem, then change the Constitution. It seems intellectually dishonest to tell ourselves, as Obama did today, that the first priority of our society is to protect our children; then claim in the next breath that we do not have the means in law to do so. That suggests there is a fatal flaw in our construct for governance.....or....Obama is not telling the truth.

your right he's lying

Yeah, the same people who want voter id and all sorts of other means to prevent people from voting. But guns? No way, don't restrict guns. What a bunch of pathetic people.

9ball,
Seriously??? Picture ID to prove your who you say you are, only keeps you from voting if your illegal or not who you say you are,We need them to cash a check,drive why would a legal voter have a problem showing it? That voter infringement was just more of the same ol Propaganda from the left.Bunch of Pathetic BS people.
We have come to expect it from the left.

Let's see... They spent untold hours and resources passing laws to prevent something that there is no documentation ever occurred (voter fraud).

12,000 gun deaths per year is documented. And they don't want to do a thing about it.

LOL, J.

I'd rather deal with the party that always says "no"...then the party that NEVER says "no".

Yeah the party that wants people to have IDs to vote, just like you need one to get a job, tax purposes, , background checked so better not try and buy a gun, get a welfare check, register at college or not be arrested for vagrancy among other things.

Ster2,

Seriously??? Picture ID to prove your who you say you are, only keeps you from voting if your illegal or not who you say you are,We need them to cash a check,drive why would a legal voter have a problem showing it? That voter infringement was just more of the same ol Propaganda from the left.Bunch of Pathetic BS people.
We have come to expect it from the left.

The point being made is you need picture ID to vote but not to purchase a weapon. Voting is just as much a right as bearing arms, but suggest a picture ID or registration for buying a gun and it's a step too far!

I consider myself somewhat liberal, though I lean conservative on a few issues. I have no problem with a picture ID to vote. The biggest problem for the last batch of these laws was the timing. Bills were introduced in Spring 2012. They should have been introduced January 2010 to give people time to get the required IDs and give states time to implement the laws effectively.

9Ball:

There have been instances (I don't believe it's as rampant as some would have you think but it does happen). In this area (southeast New Mexico) a couple years ago the librarian of one of the small towns let 5-6 people who didn't live in the area use her address to register to vote. That whole election was a circus: one of the candidates paid a stripper to ambush his opponent and secretly filmed it and then leaked the video to the media and there were other "improprieties" as well. The winner of the mayorial contest was given an injunction that prevented him from stepping on to city property or having any contact with city employees so he couldn't take the oath of office. His election was declared void and the town had to appoint a mayor to serve out his term and the one they appointed wasn't his opponent from the election, it was some kid in his early 20s who stood up a city council meeting and nominated himself for the job. I don't it has been settled yet.

Pragmatic,
There are laws in place already that mandatory ID and background checks for a gun purchase,are there some that slip through the cracks of course as with any law,none are perfect,but the voter ID is and should never be a problem for anyone who is legally voting,I have always been asked for my picture ID to vote since My very first vote.
And BTW,thank you for your for a grownup response to my post :) it's nice to NOT to be accused of being a racist or biggot just because we may disagree,which I don't think we do,Picture ID should be required as well as a background check for a gun purchase and Picture ID to vote Period,if you don't have one or its questionable then you don't get to buy a gun or vote.

Broker = Loser!!!!

broker,

since you have such contempt for the president and the majority of Americans who voted for him, I suggest there are flights leaving the US at least every 15 minutes.

now if you have something usefull to contribute......

Lori,
We would love to see you go,and take O with you.

you repubs were all set to go start your own country if Obama was re-elected. Once again a republican lie

Ster

The MAJORITY in this country voted TWICE for Obama and TWICE against the Rep/baggers.

SOoooo don't let the statue of liberty kick you in the ass on the way OUT. Majority Rules.

Moron!

Yup, the majority was uneducated twice. My daughter was a democrat until she got a good paying job. Then she decided everyone else should work too. If majority ruled there would be no Obamacare, the majority of Americans don't want that either.

I'm just glad no one said the vast majority that voted for him, percentage wise it was a virtual draw.

Yup, we lied, just like all you libs lied when you said you'd leave if Bush won, I've been waiting for all those hollywood libs to leave for a couple decades.

praysalot, by extended logic, majority ruled to keep the Republicans in the majority for the House of Representatives.

There is also no need for calling people morons here, there's a reason for the CoH.

Praysalot,
NO it's not majority wins.....And Obama did not win by much,it was a squeaker at best,but I was speaking to Lori telling Broker1 to pack his bags and leave the Country,I remember when Bush ran and many on the Left threatened to move to Canada,even Alex Baldwin and several Hollyweird folks said the same, if Bush won....well he did win And they are all still here,and still living LARGE in America,so quickly the Left forgets...

Oldgreywolf,
Thankx for that :)

Yeah right!!

late with your meds again @edwardo?

Ya know, Bob. You just gave me an idea how to solve this country's problems. Let's pass a law that says only mentally competent people can vote. That ought to eliminate most RWNJs.

Whom gets to decide who is 'mentally competent'? You? (A--wipe)

It's a tough job, but somebody's got to do it.

Unfortunately, I don't have the time. But thanks for asking.

I'll leave it to the mental health professionals. You're not afraid of them too, are you?

9 Ball....better yet. How about we make it so those who DON'T collect welfare are the only ones that vote? Awww cr@p! then Obama wouldn't have a CHANCE! my bad...

Interesting... Let's go one step further and say that citizens of any state that gets more federal dollars than it pays belong to a welfare state and therefore have no right to vote. That should eliminate 90% of Republicans.

Then there was the woman in Georgia who said that poor people are too stupid to be allowed to vote. And then came the voter suppression attempts and long lines with those poor people waiting up to 9 hours to vote.

That is right. Say you want to suppress voters and voters will not allow republicans to suppress their right to vote. They will stay in lines and wait their turn to vote with conviction.

@By the Border

I'm curious what you mean about #6, and its "interference" with commerce?

He wants to be able to sell that nuclear bomb he made in his garage.

GREAT question, UNITED -

Take a look at "Wickard v. Fillburn".

The Gov. had the right to regulate anything that "Affects" interstate commerce. The ruling in that case states that, if you DONT put anything INTO interstate commerce, those lost dollars "Affect" interstate commerce and thus, the Commerce clause can still regulate when you dont put anything into it.

THAT case...was the death-knell of Federalism.

There is proof that guns sold by private parties on the streets in Arizona ended up in the hands of gangsters in Texas. That is not only interstate but international as those guns went to Mexico first. All done within the law in Arizona.

check the facts about FAST AND FURIOUS gun dealers notified BATF and were told tosell guns and BATF would track them.They were found at murder site of border guard.

That is because in Arizona there are no gun laws. Anyone can send in someone to buy a load of guns as long as the money is there. That is the problem with Operation Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious. Nothing was accomplished by the ATF because it was impossible to track the guns with no registration requirements. One thing I know is that republicans are hypocrites to try so hard to blame this on President Obama and on Eric Holder who were not involved at all.

Stupid lib.......

JB: I don't know why you're so worried. You and your ilk will be able to kill children and innocent people with any weapon you choose. Hell, you and your ilk won't be stopped. Stop worrying about it. Take a breath.

TJefferson:

That is, by FAR, the most idiotic comment on here. Your momma would be so proud.

What about the people who sell their weapons thru Craigs list, or some other private way?

ive never seen a gun on craigs list, but you should have to complete the sale through an ffl who would do the backround check. as i have had to do with guns i have bought on the internet. you cannot ship any gun bought on the internet directly to the buyer, it has to go to an ffl who delivers it to the buyer after a backround check. that is current federal law. i dont know where all you liberals get the notion you can just go online and buy a gun and have it shipped to you.YOU CAN"T.

craiglist does not sell guns,you can't list any weapons that site

The NRA has become a republican organization for the worst and most ignorance gun owners who believe everything said on Fox. My husband served in the Army for 21 years and is now is a sheriffs deputy. He has guns of all sizes and shapes and really loves his guns and likes to go shooting. He was with the NRA but got sick and tired of all the begging from the NRA and tired of their attacks against Democrats. He got fed up and has been done with them for years. Seeing how they are just tied to gun manufacturers shows how little they care about people at all. The police should want sensible gun laws for their own protection and well-being.