Hey michigan . . .

I sincerely doubt a liberal would want to speak with you . . . EVER.

NDDR . . .

Really? Liberals WROTE the Constitution!

AMEN!

Da Noid

...but you are aware that we are not talking about banning all guns, yes?

No... because that is not what you are doing.

You want to ban assault rifles, then hand guns, then any rifle, then shotguns... (right?) Eventuall bows and knives... (right?)

The plan is to remove our freedoms and our constitutional rights slowly, in small steps so that it is not so noticeable.

Well guess what... WE NOTICED!

azindy

I really enjoyed your completely illiterate post. Ignorance and intolerance go hand in hand. No one wants to ban guns but I read nothing in the Constitution about citizens being better armed than law enforcement.

The other side of that coin (because you know there is always another side to the coin) is that perhaps current day law enforcement should try to keep up with current day weaponry.

My problem with the Federal Government getting involved in gun control is that they all make the laws "one size fits all". IMO, gun control laws should be left up to the individual states. I don't believe the laws that are needed in NYC or LA need to be the same as those in Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas, and Arizona, for example. As I have said many times the Federal Government is to big, spend to much, and has for years been infringing on the rights of the states. The federal laws currently on the books prohibit buying, processing and selling automatic weapons. Leave the rest to the States, if NY, CA or other states want stricter laws let them pass those laws.

Caesar Augustus-

Open the borders and ban guns..

Better yet, give all the guns to the Mexicans (kinda like Fast & Furious)...

THEN open the borders!

WHOO HOO!!!!!

(Documents? We don't need no stinkink documents!)

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

InSanity... :OP

(btw... come up with something new the "...show how truly sick you are" line is really getting old. Surely an intellect like you can come up with something wittier than that!)

HA!

Chicago now has some of the toughest gun laws in the country ... and it "AIN'T WORKIN" ! Chicago is now the gun violence capital of the U.S. !! You see violent thugs pay little attention to new laws ... it only restricts the law-abiding citizens are renders them unable to protect themselves !

"When guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns".

It would be nice if these @!$%#heads in DC would start fixing what's actually wrong with this country. Guns, immigration, gays, etc are nothing more than a distraction.

How about jobs? Economy?

The rest is easy:

Guns : 2nd amendment

Immigration : Illegal immigrants... illegal is illegal

Gays : Who really cares who/what you @!$%#.

Get back to the @!$%# that matters.

Yea, Obama shoots skeet. Why are we just hearing about this now? To fit his agenda & make him look like an expert on the subject! And what does he know about hunting? He probably shoots skeet like he throws a baseball in his mommy jeans.

AlexM-3929653

It would be nice if these @!$%#heads in DC would start fixing what's actually wrong with this country. Guns, immigration, gays, etc are nothing more than a distraction.

How about jobs? Economy?

The rest is easy:

Guns : 2nd amendment

Immigration : Illegal immigrants... illegal is illegal

Gays : Who really cares who/what you @!$%#.

Get back to the @!$%# that matters.

AMEN ALEX!

Voted you up!

Backhouse, its a talking point you say and yet you cant define what an Assault Weapon is. Tisk Tisk.

Wonder if my Ruger Mini14 is an assault rifle. Look it up since I know you have no idea what a Mini 14 is.

However I am glad you're insulted by me, it proves I dont fall into the flock of helpless sheep like you and the rest of the Obama Acolytes.

If the fight for Independence had been left to the conservatives, we would still be subjects of the Brits. They do hate change.

Yep and Reddev POS and NDDRe-reg are the reason why the word liberal is now considered an explitive. Way to go 'liberals'

SeekingSanity

Sick - perhaps if you'd actually post something that didn't indicate a lack of mental acuity I wouldn't call you out on "sick" posts. But, we all know that isn't going to happen!

Oh come on! Use that "BIG BRAIN" of yours and come up with a real doozy! PLLLLEEEEAAASSEEEEE!!!!!!

HAHAHAHAH!

BTW... I am really sorry if you are unable to keep up with the logical progression that was proposed in my earlier post at #1.12

Given the patterns historically displayed by the left-wing lunatics regarding freedoms and constitutional right, specifically those related to the right bear arms... I think is seem a plausible projection!

HA!

What a loser! Now... I offer you the right of last insult... because I know that (as in inferior intellect) you thrive on such a thing!

:OP

Law enforcement at Newtown said they could not have stopped Lanza, given his Bushmaster assault weapon,

LOL "Bushmaster assault weapon".

This kid would not have even tried to attack the school if there were armed guards.

Stop blaming inanimate objects.

Lanza could've walked into that school with a super-soaker filled with gasoline and a lighter.

Wanna ban squirt guns and gasoline too?

SOTB,

I know you are but what am I

No one wants to ban guns

You haven't listened to recent sound bytes from New York's Commissioner Kelly yet have you? He has moved on from the assault rifle, admitting that only three out of 1,400 instances of "gunplay" in New York last year were caused by assault rifles.

He says that handguns are the "real enemy."

He has set the game in motion for the ban on handguns.

michigan northerner in Post #1,

Relative to the autocracy from which they rebelled, the Founding Fathers were liberals through and through.

expect us to take their word for it over trained professionals

and these said trained professionals you speak of Fisty come from where again? Starbucks...LMFAO @ YOU

It would appear judging by these comments that public oppinion isnt quite on the liberals side.

RedDev . . .

If the fight for Independence had been left to the conservatives, we would still be subjects of the Brits. They do hate change.

That they do! And to this day, they still need retreats and binders to figure out why exactly so many can't stand them and their inability to do just that.

A 200 year old document deserves to be updated to cope with changes in technology. It isn't set in stone.

you're right, it's on parchment. and there are ways to change or amend the constitution. Too bad it isnt as easy as you want but the reason was to prevent TODAYS LIBERALS from destroying by way of Animal Farm the Founding LIBERALS vision.

TODAYS LIBERALS are more alinged to Marx, Lenin and Trotsky not Adams, Jefferson and Franklin

Noid- I waited in numerous long lines to sign anti-Patriot Act petitions, went to numerous town hall meetings, was a part of many demonstrations and called my representatives more than a hundred times, to have that piece of crap never see the light of day, obviously it was all for nothing. I ask you this. Because Bush did it, does it make it right for President Obama to not only re-sign it, but to add to it and add new ones?

The eleven bullets per body in those little children in Newtown, pulverized them. May you never see that happen to anyone you know. See, i care about you too.

Unless you somehow personally saw the bodies, I'll respectfully disagree. a .223 is made for a hard target, not really built for a soft one (a human body for example)

To Michigan Northerner....oh you great Patriotic American You; The Constitution wasn't ratified until 1788. The Declaration of Independence that was written and signed in 1776.

But, you didn't even know that, did you? Oh you constitutional scholar, you.

It, by the way, gives us all the "inalienable right to life" Something, that is being taken away by gun nuts who shoot and kill other people in this country.

Screw your 2nd amendment right. I INVOKE MY INALIENABLE RIGHT TO LIFE WHICH WAS GRANTED TO ME THE MINUTE WE BECAME A COUNTRY !

The liberals of today love to attempt to claim they were the liberals around the times of our forefathers. This is so far from the truth. The classical liberal is someone who stood for liberty, independence and personal responsibility. The liberal of today stands for centralized, federal powers that usurp independent, personal responsability. Look at the comments of those here who claim the liberals wrote the constitution and what they would do to an individuals rights.

ZMan - do you also invoke your INALIENABLE RIGHT TO LIFE against the automobile, the knife, the baseball bat, the bathtub, electricity, and the thousands of other inanimate objects that kill people? And, if you have an inalianable right to life, why do people then die?

From the article above:

"As we've indicated before, the only way that we're going to be able to do everything that needs to be done is with the cooperation of Congress," Obama said, ticking off some of the heftiest provisions in his gun-violence plan.

That's unlikely unless Grover comes up with a new pledge.

Or unless the Gerrymandered House of pancakes does their job.

Salud

This kid would not have even tried to attack the school if there were armed guards.

Please provide a source to back this up!

"Common Sense".

Here's something else for ya:

The problem is disturbed, young men ranging in age from late teens to mid-twenties.

NOT inanimate objects, or the law-abiding owners of the 330 million guns already out there.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/01/for-young-men-a-dangerous-age-for-mental-illness.html

Schizophrenia, for example, is usually diagnosed in men in their late teens to mid-20s, and in women about five years older.

What are you gun haters going to do when the Mexican government gives American criminals over 2 thousand "assualt rifles" and our good citizens don't have any to fight back with? The Obama administratiion sent over 2 thousand "assault rifles" to Mexican cartel members so we could be paid back some day. Please tell me how you are going to handle that.

ZMan - President Barack Obama took away Mexicans "INALIENABLE RIGHT TO LIFE" when he shipped those guns to their country. Why don't you ask him why he did that? But he'll just say he has an executive priviledge to that. And then turn around and say we can't have the same tools.

That is about as stupid asthe Six nutjobs who shot themselves at Gun Show

Bev,

The funniest part of that is these are so called "professionals"shooting each other... LMFAO!

Remember the Dick shot his friend in the face on "accident"

I say let them hold a gun show on every corner, after a couple of weeks they will NO longer be an issue!

Screw your 2nd amendment right. I INVOKE MY INALIENABLE RIGHT TO LIFE WHICH WAS GRANTED TO ME THE MINUTE WE BECAME A COUNTRY !

then inversely it can be applied to Screw you I have the right to defend myself against enemies both foreign and Domestic. my Inalienable Right to life.

"Common Sense".

you just Effed over the liberal think tank LOL

Feisty - isn't it amazing that the minute you say the word "guns" the nuts come out of the woodwork screaming at the top of their lungs and spouting the lies the NRA and FOX tells them. They are nothing but puppets and not one of them is rational. Scary that THESE are the ones fighting to keep assault weapons!

Bookem' Danno

The liberals of today love to attempt to claim they were the liberals around the times of our forefathers. This is so far from the truth. The classical liberal is someone who stood for liberty, independence and personal responsibility. The liberal of today stands for centralized, federal powers that usurp independent, personal responsability.

My guess is you are not a liberal.

Where do you come up with this crap, "The Classic Liberal....?"

Rush, Hannity and Beck Strikes again!!!

Salud

There isn't a bigger oxymoron then a conservative having "common sense" LMFAO!

A Liberal with integrity. OH SNAP!

Actually SickoftheBickering with regard to our border, the Mexican government is hoping desparately that America wises up and bans assault weapons (guns that shoot many bullets very fast for the "definition" nitpickers) because the major suppliers of these type of weapons to the drug cartels on our border is the US! You want to make our border safer? Then stop making it so bloody easy for criminals to get guns like this so they can outshoot the police. And the a brilliant someone above suggested just arming the police better? Great, so now innocent citizens can get mowed down just being in the wrong place at the wrong time when a fire fight breaks out. Do you really want to live in that kind of country?! The regular folks, the ones who don't need to cuddle up to their guns at night, have rights too. As someone above said, there is a great deal more to the constitution than the 2nd amendment. By the way, you gun lovers need to get your definitions right as well. People who want to do away with the constitution are anarchists. Liberals generally want to live by the constitution in peace and have it apply equally to everyone and conservatives use it as a weapon to knock people over the head with.

guns that shoot many bullets very fast for the "definition" nitpickers

Wow, where did you get this fine definition LOL...Are we talking bolt action, semi auto, auto? I can shoot my semi auto 22 (mossberg Plinkster) as fast as I can shoot the Bushmaster .223 Assault Rifle. How fast would you say that is.

Yeah strawman argument my azz, you can't defend your sheep like crusade.

I will make it EASY for you, so take out your ear plugs.

Assault weapons are what was banned from 1994 until 2004.

To the great effect & benefit to the safety of our citizens.

Maybe Michigan Northerner needs an assault weapon to kill and dress out a deer all in one blast. You never know when a deer may come charging at you.

BS Backhouse

Please explain the great effect.

@TomasGrande

Perhaps you should do a little research and read what Bookem said rather than coming up with your own revisionist view of the history.

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

The Founding Fathers were "Classical Liberals", today they would be considered "Libertarians". They wouldn't recognize the neo-Social Nationalists (a.k.a. Neo-NAZIs) that make up the democrat party.

The so-called liberals of today have nothing in common with their ideals. The so-called liberals simply took the word for their own, much like the word "progressive".

"Please explain" why You - want to negotiate about life and death.

Why not just say you are OK with about 33,000 people per year, dying horrific deaths?

Just say you are Ok with innocent bystanders being blown to smithereens via weapons of war--

Here in our Homeland, on our own turf.

BS Backhouse

Please explain the great effect.

Columbine H.S. massacre. During the Great BAN....

Backhouse talking out your backside

Louie Bee, where in the 2nd Amendment does it make mention that Arms are to be used soley for hunting?

You Lefties have no argument in this. Where is that Constitutional Brainiac EDDY in NY. The one that is more qualified then the S.C. to discuss this matter.

Just say you are OK with folks dying horrific deaths via weapons of war- in our Homeland.

like a Toyota Camry or a Chevy Corsica?

Backhouse I see you admire Joseph Goebbels. Repeat it and repeat it often. Dont you wish you had a loudspeaker too?

One day if you wish upon a star hard enough you liberals can send us nonconformists to reeducation camps. One day

I knew it was just BS from Backhouse.

S/B Backend, it just spews crap.

Please do not tell me you are spiritual people.

Or that you believe in human rights.

The page will explode.

And leave out Goebbels - who has not been mentioned thus far, except by you.

Perhaps we should embrace the NRA's defense of the second amendment. It would mean a few sacrifices, however.

The first amendment would be lost to us, if we place blame as the NRA does on our media and eliminate our freedoms of speech and of the press.

If we embrace the NRA's suggestion that our best defense is to have more "good guys with guns", then this leads to a police state in which the third and fourth amendments would have to be disposed of.

If we choose to crack down on criminals as harshly as the NRA would like, we would find that we need to eliminate the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth amendments as well.

Conservatives have never had much use for the ninth amendment, so toss that one into the garbage as well. They love the tenth, though, so that one can stay.

One wonders, if we eliminate or compromise our rights guaranteed by eight of the amendments of the bill of rights, what remains to protect with the second?

FAUX entertainment may not have reported on: "The eleven bullets per body in those little children in Newtown, pulverized them".

Actually, the number of bullets in the childrens' bodies ranged from two to eleven.

The sight was sickening, and not spoken/written about in the media immediately.

That OK with you?

GOT KIDS?

I'm just curious. Was the police chief from Chicago there? Oh, by the way, Sidwell Friends School in DC has added two additional armed security guards since Sandy Hook, bringing the total of armed guards on staff to 11.

And leave out Goebbels - who has not been mentioned thus far, except by you.

and the fact that you attempt to spew propaganda under the guise of human rights. Spare me Navy. Follow your pied piper. you cant defend your position because you have no idea what your position is. At least mountainlady attempted to peddle her bvll@!$%# with spewing bullets very fast definition.

you act no different from Rush Limbaugh except your on the opposite side of the political spectrum.

GOT KIDS?

nice Gambit. Never let a crisis go to waste.

Is it a LOW

I.Q.

problem

with some of the Gun posters?

We aren't taking away your guns.

We just want that massive frantic buying of weapons all LOCKED UP AND ACCOUNTED FOR safely before you decide to sell or trade them.

Is responsible gun ownership difficult to comprehend?

Diogenes22

@TomasGrande

Perhaps you should do a little research and read what Bookem said rather than coming up with your own revisionist view of the history.

The Founding Fathers were "Classical Liberals", today they would be considered "Libertarians". They wouldn't recognize the neo-Social Nationalists (a.k.a. Neo-NAZIs) that make up the democrat party.

And there's the nazi reference....

The so-called liberals of today have nothing in common with their ideals. The so-called liberals simply took the word for their own, much like the word "progressive".

Once again, I was correct.

Your "belief" of what "Liberals" are, is purly based from what Rush, Hannity, Beck and the rest of the Faux sNewzzzzz a-holes tells you.

You have NO idea what liberals, Democrats, or Progressives believe in or stand for.

So in conclusion, it looks like you have gulped the 72 oz. KooK-aid again (yes I said KooK).

Move along Rove-bots. Back to Drudge for you.

Salud

Nathan,

More Good Guys with guns means CITIZENS. Not Police. That's where you lefties get caught up. You think only the police should have guns. Cracking down on criminals would not effect thier rights. They would still have the right to trial. They also would not be subject to cruel or unusual punishment. Long prison sentences for gun crimes is not on the lines of cruel or unusual punishment, nor is it excessive bail or fines.

The Emperor, budding PROPAGANDIST for the NRA & multi-billion dollar gun manufacturing industry:

At any cost to human life.

6 cents an hour, and all the bullets you can eat?

Backhouse

O is engaging with everyone on the gun safety issue. Police chiefs that have seen the mass shootings up close.

Law enforcement at Newtown said they could not have stopped Lanza, given his Bushmaster assault weapon, high capacity magazine, and armor protection.

Law enforcement has important things to say about gun violence, and we must listen to them. They put themselves at risk every day. The assault weapons and high-capacity magazines have to be banned for everyone's safety, now.

Would Lanza have gone to the school if there was an armed guard? He killed himself as soon as he heard a police siren.

By banning are we outlawing and confiscating existing gunowners' assault weapons and magazines? Unless you confiscate the millions of assault weapons. a ban will have little affect since guns are operational for literally decades.

Seems sensible after recent events to ban assault rifles and high capacity magazines.

It will seem sensible to ban revolvers after someone walks into a night club with three or four tucked under his coat and kills and 8 or 10 people.

It will seem sensible to ban single shot guns when some guy walks into a mall with three or four tucked under his and kills 2 or 3 people.

See how your rights will slowly be taken away?

In China, a man walked into an elementary and killed over 20 people....with a knife.

"Once you buy the argument that some segment of the citizenry should lose their rights, just because they are envied or resented, you are putting your own rights in jeopardy-- quite aside from undermining any moral basis for respecting anybody's rights. You are opening the floodgates to arbitrary power. And once you open the floodgates, you can't tell the water where to go." - Thomas Sowell

Feisty - isn't it amazing that the minute you say the word "guns" the nuts come out of the woodwork

Seeking,

They have to have some place to hang out while their roach motel is being fumigated! ;o)

Since all these hollyweird types want to ban me from being able to defend my family I have a little suggestion to hit them where it hurts too.

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.

Dawgfan, that's not what LaPierre said in his response to Newtown. He specifically demanded a police presence in schools. As for having more armed civilians charged with keeping the peace, I suspect that would infringe on many peoples' rights. What kind of trial did Trayvon Martin get?

The truth can be tough.

Law Enforcement said they could NOT have stopped Lanza, given his weapon, massive clip and armor.

Once again - that is what Police said in Newtown after the massacre.

RI MOM,

Hilter wanted all weapons accounted for too. Worked out well for the Jewish population didn't it?

Backhouse

The Emperor, budding propagandist for the NRA & multi-billion dollar gun manufacturing industry:

At any cost to human life.

6 cents an hour, and all the bullets you can eat?

Boo Hoo Backdoor. Too bad not a fan of the NRA but again Backdoor cant defend his/her position. The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. Especially by the Fringe Left.

“That means passing serious laws that restrict the access and availability of assault weapons and magazine clips that aren't necessary for hunters and sportsmen and those who -- responsible gun owners who are out there," he said.

This isn't all about sportsmen & hunters. Some of it has to do with throwing off the shackles of tyranny from oppressive governments - foreign or domestic...

Parker ... do tell? Assault weapon/gun/whatever definition? Which jurisdiction's definition would you accept? Any special time period?

@TomasGrande

Name calling rather than looking at actual facts. Typical of the so-called liberal mindset.

You accuse "Rush", "Hannity", the "Koch Brothers" or whatever the bogey-man-of-the-day is of making up the term "Classical Liberal" when the term has been around since the the founding of the U.S.

"Classical liberalism developed in the 19th century in Europe and the United States. Although classical liberalism built on ideas that had already arisen by the end of the 18th century, it advocated a specific kind of society, government and public policy as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization.^[4] Notable individuals whose ideas have contributed to classical liberalism include John Locke,^[5] Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on the free-market economics of Adam Smith and on a belief in natural law,^[6] utilitarianism,^[7] and progress.^[8]

The term classical liberalism was applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from the newer social liberalism.^[9]"

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

Nathan,

He said

“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

Trayvon Martin case is a whole different story. It all depends on WHO made physical contact first. If it happened as George laid out, then self-defense all the way. If George grabbed Trayvon and he reponded by punching, then George should be found guilty. At this point I doubt we will find anything other than self-defense. You have to look at facts and what evidence is presented. You can't act on emotion.

Having an Armed Officer in every school at all times isn't a bad idea. School are targeted for a reason. Every one that goes to a school to shoot it up knows there is no one there to stop them. GUN FREE ZONES allow for more people to be killed. They are sitting ducks.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL
This kid would not have even tried to attack the school if there were armed guards.

Please provide a source to back this up!

Thanks!

Law enforcement at Newtown said they could not have stopped Lanza, given his Bushmaster assault weapon,

PS: Dontcha just love how these keyboard warriors expect us to take their word for it over trained professionals! lol

Impotence & rage is a deadly combination with the RWNJ's!

Sidwell Friends School has 11 armed guards. How often is it attacked?

Feisty,

Obama's kids have a Secret Service Detail with them at all times. They are armed. Which means there are armed guards at their school in a round about way.

Just because people say they have never seen a gun on someone, doesn't mean they don't have one. I carry concealed everyday. I could stand next to you in the grocery store line and you would never know that I have a 1911 on my hip and a .38 on my ankle.

Read what this cop has to say:

http://www.policemag.com/blog/patrol-tactics/story/2012/07/the-aurora-tragedy-and-off-duty-carry.aspx

Interesting Obama didn't have that guy standing beside him.

I've stated it before; when it comes to conservative vs. liberalism, what was really and what is now is not even remotely the same. However, both parties are the same as they are beholden to corporate earning interests as both are heavily invested in them and both are invested in overseas interests where possible to continue the faux 'incline' of stock, corporate earnings. In the end, they serve the same and this DOES need changed to an American economical strong hold and interest, but won't until REAL representatives are in office... people like you and I, working class, doing what we can to make ends meet. The REAL representatives due to what we've been reduced to.

Pertaining to gun control, there should be more control of whom gets what. However, to deny assault rifles to law abiding, class-taken, non-fellon citizens is wrong. The same arguement over and over about how criminals will be the only ones with them is correct; it's very much the same as marijuana laws and I've stated this time and time again.

You will NEVER get rid of pot. Criminalizing it only puts control, money, power into the hands of those that run gangs, kill for such, and perpetuate great amounts of violence. You don't have to agree with pot use or disuse, only realize that it is a reality, it is here to stay. Same with weaponry.

Licensure, classes, back ground checks, etc... very much a good idea when it comes to purchasing assault weapons of serious capabilities. The second amendment does guarantee the right to bear arms, but not all have or should have the right to weapons of X devastating capabilities. To deny the right to those that are only buying/getting to protect against what the second amendment guarantees is not only wrong, but ascertains that criminals get the upperhand, that the price for assaults already on the market will go up, the black market will go up, other nation's supplies of such to the US will go up.... and in the end, violence will go up.

Make punishments stricter for those in violation, make sentences longer and mandatory destruction of said illegal device, etc... but don't give criminals not only the upper hand, but MORE incentive to do more violence.

Face it; if someone is hell bent on doing something, they'll do it with whatever weapon they can find; other guns, knives, axes, poisons, home made bombs, (whatever you can think of here).

THAT's what we need to work on.

Diogenes22

@TomasGrande

Name calling rather than looking at actual facts. Typical of the so-called liberal mindset

Classical Rovian blogger tactics.

False equivalency's; Projection and mirror; Blame game; berate, belittle, demonize

YAWN!!!

Sorry, but you lost when you decided to get out of bed this morning.

Be gone! Your evil Rovian-Drudge-Rush tactics are as obsolete as a pay phone.

LOL.

Salud

Dawgfan, he said a lot more than just that. He specifically called for a police presence in schools.

As for Martin/Zimmerman, how is that completely different? You're talking about arming civilians to patrol, and that's what Zimmerman was, an armed civilian on patrol. It's a pretty clear cut case of the possible implications. At best, Zimmerman was overzealous and incompetent and deprived someone of their constitutional rights to due process. At worst, he is a murderer taking cover under the very laws the NRA promoted as necessary to keep us safe. It is relevant, but you need to expand your tunnel vision, friend, since you only seem to be seeing the things you want to.

Dawgfan, our other rights have already been greatly restricted and done away with, where were you and your ilk with your 2nd amend remedies then?? You all are cowards, that's the main reason you need to have guns, if you weren't cowards you would have exercised your 2nd amendment to protect the others when the Patriot act and NDDA were being proposed? why was your kind not in the streets protecting our rights with your 2nd?

You were not there cause as i said your kind are nothing but cowards, you want your guns for the simple fact of you want your guns, not because it is your right or to protect other rights, just a simple toddler mentality of mine mine!

Ceaser u wanted a simple definition and u got one from Backhouse "Assault weapons are what was banned from 1994 until 2004." no need to throw your lil tantrum, and fyi last i checked a Toyota Camry or a Chevy Corsica are not weapons of war, you accuse people of repeating the same thing over and over, yet that is all i see from you and every single right-wing minded drone that comes and posts on any lil article that mentions your God oops ment guns.

Thinking up insults and name-calling = 0-0-0-0. All life is invaluable, unique and irreplaceable.

All these games you are playing to justify the vile killing of fellow human beings: Are just contortions and aberrations of your Mind.

Let them go.

Ikarus since im not pushing to ban/regulate/restrict any guns I do not feel compelled to define Assault weapon. AS far as I am concerned I can assault you with anything and it be considereda weapon. How does one poster put it? semantics.

I see guns fit into a few categories. Automatic (legal with a Fed stamp and the proper Class III FFL and usually lots of money pre 1986), Semi Automatic (this includes shotguns, rifles and handguns), revolver (handguns), Bolt action or Lever action (typically rifles or carbines), muzzle loaded and pump.

Now where do you want to start and where does Assault fall into these categories. Yeah Strawman NOT!

Tomas Grande dont you find your entire rebuttal to be well ironic? no need to answer

Nathan,

A person who holds a concealed carry license and going to the store is not armed partol. That's what many of you seem to ignore. He wasn't out patrolling the neighborhood. He was on his way to Target when he saw something out of the norm, and called police non emergency line. Just so happened he was carrying at the time. You are assuming that George was out to detain Trayvon. That might be, but it's also possible that he wanted to keep an eye on him to tell the police where Trayvon went. We will likely never know.

Ceaser u wanted a simple definition and u got one from Backhouse "Assault weapons are what was banned from 1994 until 2004."

so a simple I have no fvcking idea would have been ok hypnotic. less time with copperfield and more in the real world will do you good

Dawgfan - wow - totally different than the story George told originally. Said he was out patrolling and then decided to follow Trayvon because he looked "suspicious." Said he patrols the area regularly. But then he's told sooooo many stories it's hard to keep them straight!

Which means there are armed guards at their school in a round about way.

Sorry Pal, that top don't spin...

I could stand next to you in the grocery store line and you would never know that I have a 1911 on my hip and a .38 on my ankle.

Interesting - you have to be "packing" while grocery shopping.

It's too late to save those cows laying in the meat counter from the tyranny of carnivores... lol

Hypnoticfreedom,

I'm no coward. I voiced my opinions on both the Patriot Act and the NDDA. I wrote my congressman to vote against them. I called them. You have no idea why I keep guns or what their purpose is. I have some because of their historical value, others for self-defense, others for competition shooting, and others that my grandfather used in WWII and his service in the FBI. I wasn't able to serve because of a knee injury I sustained playing football. Seems the Marines don't like people that have had a complete knee reconstruction.

If the stuff were to hit the fan, you better believe I would protect my family. You better believe I would fight for the freedoms of this country.

Ceaser Augustino said...

"Hey Backhouse, what is an Assault Weapon."

Too easy Sneezy... Something not described, addressed, or included in your second amendment rights that are not changing....

Do you need "assault weapon" description spelled out before you can understand the second amendment?... Or do you just foolishly assume "they're" covered by it when even you can't describe them?...

Since they weren't imagined by the authors of your second amendment and it still reads the same, even a minor dose of common sense might lead you to a correct answer as to why an assault weapons ban and the second amendment do not relate to one another.

There's not much point, folks, trying to speak reason to the gun groupies here. They spout the same old crap over and over and over again and have obviously memorized the NRA handbook. Asking them to think for themselves is obviously asking too much. Also I notice that there are always the same names over and over again (including mine I admit) so are you all retired or out of work that you have time to fill up these blogs? That sure narrows the sampling of public opinion... old people or bitter angry people. Curious.

fiesty,

It's not to protect the meat chilling in the display cases. It's to protect myself from being a victim of a crime. Crime is not reserved to inner cities or ghettos. You can't predict where crime is going to happen, so it's better to be ready, than to be a victim.

I think I've heard of concealed weapons, Fiesty. Check into it.

mountainlady,

I don't memorize the NRA sayings. I'm not a member of the NRA. I don't donate money to the NRA. I don't listen to Hannity, Beck, Rush, and all the others liberals like to list. I do my own research, I find facts from FBI records, police records, and court records, and personal experience.

Obama has yet to figure out the correlation between high unemployment and a rise in crime. As if these gun measures are going to solve the problem. Maybe Obama should use the same tactic he took with energy and just have a plan to make the price of guns naturally skyrocket like gas and heating oil has since he took office. Maybe if Obama drove up the price of hand guns to 3000.00 and assault weapons to 10K fewer would be sold. Obama could just levy a huge tax on all guns. That would probably ensure fewer people that never would have committed a crime will be buying them.

1. 77

Dear DIMGFAN
Hitler is dead, dead dead.

He doesn't want your damn guns.

Neither do I.

I would like you to return to school for reading comprehension.

Reference: Post #1.66

Rick,

A true Assault Weapon such as an M16 I own cost anywhere from $25,000 to $35,000. That price tag doesn't stop many people from buying them. Neither does the $200 ATF Stamp required for Class 3 weapons. My suppressed M107 is roughly worth about $25,000 as it sits. Without the suppressor it's about a $12,000 weapon.

Besides, there's already a black market where a criminal can go and buy a gun for $150-200. That wouldn't change even if the govt changed taxes or restrictions.

Feisty says:

The NRA and their gun loving nuts are as dangerous as the tobacco industry was to children 25 years ago!

They are truly a cancer in our society!

Please provide a source to back this up!

Thanks!

Feisty ignores:

Lanza could've walked into that school with a super-soaker filled with gasoline and a lighter.

Wanna ban squirt guns and gasoline too?

It appears that Feisty is less concerned about people being killed. It does matter to her if a gun is involved.

Please Feisty, try to not be disingenuous.

You really want all guns banned, don't you?

RI Mom,

all LOCKED UP AND ACCOUNTED FOR

All Hitler wanted was guns registered.

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has
full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and
the world will follow our lead into the future!"
Adolph
Hitler
Chancellor, Germany, 1933

Femme portfolio, too bad you need to get back to batting cage..your average stinks. So Femmy by ARMS you think perhaps we should just carry around swords.

Definition of ARM

transitive verb

1
: to furnish or equip with weapons

2
: to furnish with something that strengthens or protects <arming citizens with the right to vote>

3
: to equip or ready for action or operation <arm a bomb>

Man Femmy doesnt it suck to not understand your position

Drop the AWB and mag capacity non-issue, we'd have no problem, and could make significant inroads to the problem of gun violence.

At least if they keep it up they won't have to worry about President Obama coming after their guns. What if those guns had been those fully loaded assault rifles spraying bullets all over?

So called "assault rifles" don't just spray bullets all over. That's not the way that the mechanism works. It would like a fully fueled car going rogue on our streets. Doesn't happen, it can't happen. This is why EVERYONE should take a course in gun safety. Everyone should know how to safely handle a gun and be able to unload it safely. You people that post this ridiculous misinformation about how you "think" a firearm operates are performing a huge public disservice.

wow dawg, you wrote letters and made phone calls to protest the Pat and NDDA, guess what i did the same, without a gun.... thought your gun was to protect our rights? then again i ask why werent you and your kind marching with your guns to protect our rights? since that is what they are for right? cowards

i hurt my knee so i couldnt serve.... lol, hope that excuse worked for your proud serving family better than it does on here where anyone can make shzit up. it is true that i dont know your story and truthfully i dont want to know, all telling of ones story does here is to provide the other gang with kindling. Heres a little kindling for your side, i am a gun owner, or rly a rifle owner, i am a hunter and target shooter, i am also vry prepared to defend my family and my home, I am for gun control laws mainly because there are too many stupid people out there that show everyday that they dont deserve to have their 2nd amend right.

oh and btw ceaser, an "assualt weapon" is a semi-auto "firearm" (which as you knew when you typed it, would exclude lever/bolt/or pump action arms) that is able to accept detachable magazines of a range of capacities and two or more COSMETIC attachment features (ie, folding or telescoping stock, pistol grip, flash suppressor, projectile launcher, bayonet). You see i am not a sheep from the left that hears the word and gets scared and wants to ban the evil assault weapon, on the other hand the crazies from the right have not provided one single reasonable excuse why they shouldnt be banned anyway, infact the excuses and vile that is posted here from their kind makes me sick and helps drive me to support a ban on the "sexy" hunting rifle.

What part of"WELL REGULATED" do you not understand?

Michigan Northerner - So the liberals have hated the contsitution since 1776, huh? Funny, the constitution wasn't ratified until 1787. It does not appear that you are the constitutional scholar you thought yourself to be.

There is a Dual Scenario going on in America BOTH revolving around the existence of 310,000,000 guns in Our Country. Our "Economic" problem IS IDENTICAL to PreBastilleParis 1789 JUST BEFORE The French Revolution When the French rich aristocrats held 95% of France's wealth and People were in the streets with no food or shelter and unemployment then was 39%. The French people REVOLTED and with the help of FIREARMS Overthrew the aristocrat rich causing France's Misery and Decline.

The Closure of All Federal and State mental Hospitals Across America by Big Pharmaceutical corporations using their political servant legislators has put Many Many Many Many Very Dangerous males free on the streets to do what has been happening. I Know, "Well if these guns were not in existence, these tragedies would NOT have Happened" and so goes the reasoning.

Criminally Insane Humans will use ANY Instrument available ESP Knives to cut, slash and kill their intended victims for whatever SICK reason they harbor in their demented and HOPELESSS Minds. PB says "Hopeless" because big pharma's worthless pills doNOT deter these dangerous "men"; They ARE CRIMINALLY INSANE and Must Be LOCKED UP. Taking away ALL the guns Americans have and forbidding them is the same, NO Identical To, Prohibition and Alcohol; It FLOODED in across the borders and crime was rampant until Probition was repealed. With so many Foreign manufacturers of "Weapons of Choice" Just waiting for a ban to sell their wares TO ANYBODY with the cash; And People WILL buy them "Illegally"

We Need our Mental Hospitals ReOpened, UP and Running with A National healthCareSystem IN PLACE Like OUR SANE ALLYS HAVE with FULLY Staffed and Equipped Psychiatric Teams which have "Examine and Retain Authority" to get These Nuts Locked Up. America LEADS EVERY COUNTRY ON EARTH with Stalking Serial Killers after Our Women. No wonder The Ladies Always have to look over their shoulders when out and alone; There are so many dangerous MALES on the Loose who 40 years ago were locked up. The newtown, sandy hook, upstate NewYork FireMen Killings And So On And So On And So On were done by FREE On The Street NutJobs who WOULD HAVE BEEN Institutionalized. But then that would be limiting BigPharma's and "insurance healthcare" corporations Profit Line, which has made such a Terrible Change to America. You politicos want to Lock Up Our Guns?? OK, First LockUp our NutCases................

Dirt farmers of 237 years ago had much the same weapons the regulated militia had. Volunteers to the cause (Revolutionaly War) usually brought their own guns to the fights...

We are already being controlled. I don't have a drone, missiles, fully automatic weapons, a tank, or daisy-cutter bombs - not to mention nuclear devices.

The military already has the extreme, obtuse, advantage... How is it that the second amendment that guarantees the public the ability to own weapons, in order to throw off the shackles of tyranny pressed on by over reaching government (foreign or domestic), is being upheld today? The citizenry of the USA could NEVER stand up to our military, NEVER. But the ownership of certain weapons in so many hands does make the odds interesting...

What part of"WELL REGULATED" do you not understand?

Allow me to educate you:

Well Regulated

The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.

2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

[obsolete sense]

b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.

This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:

Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.

In the passage that follows, do you think the U.S. government was concerned because the Creek Indians' tribal regulations were superior to those of the Wabash or was it because they represented a better trained and disciplined fighting force?

That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troops always ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.

I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.
--- George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889))

The above quote is clearly not a request for a militia with the best set of regulations. (For brevity the entire passage is not shown and this quote should not be construed to imply Washington favored militias, in fact he thought little of them, as the full passage indicates.)

But Dr Sir I am Afraid it would blunt the keen edge they have at present which might be keept sharp for the Shawnese &c: I am convinced it would be Attended by considerable desertions. And perhaps raise a Spirit of Discontent not easily Queld amongst the best regulated troops, but much more so amongst men unused to the Yoak of Military Discipline.
--- Letter from Colonel William Fleming to Col. Adam Stephen, Oct 8, 1774, pp. 237-8. (Documentary History of Dunmore's War, 1774, Wisconsin historical society, pub. (1905))

And finally, a late-17th century comparison between the behavior of a large collection of seahorses and well-regulated soldiers:

One of the Seamen that had formerly made a Greenland Voyage for Whale-Fishing, told us that in that country he had seen very great Troops of those Sea-Horses ranging upon Land, sometimes three or four hundred in a Troop: Their great desire, he says, is to roost themselves on Land in the Warm Sun; and Whilst they sleep, they apppoint one to stand Centinel, and watch a certain time; and when that time's expir'd, another takes his place of Watching, and the first Centinel goes to sleep, &c. observing the strict Discipline, as a Body of Well-regulated Troops
--- (Letters written from New-England, A. D. 1686. P. 47, John Dutton (1867))

The quoted passages support the idea that a well-regulated militia was synonymous with one that was thoroughly trained and disciplined, and as a result, well-functioning. That description fits most closely with the "to put in good order" definition supplied by the Random House dictionary.

Note: The republican party was formed from a remnant of Whigs Plus Democratic-Republican defectors who were against slavery. The Whigs were originally formed to oppose the Andrew Jackson Democrats who wanted to rule just like the Democratic party of today wants to rule.

The Whig name was borrowed from the Whig party of England which sympathized with the Colonists Revolutions. The Democratic party was the party that the Tories joined.

Ban em! Ban all guns!

From Luby's to the Legislature" by Suzanna Hupp is the story of when a man drove his pickup into the front window and door to prevent anyone from being able to escape. He got out of his truck and began killing eventually 23 people, including the writer's parents.

The police and fire department were just across the street. Ms. Hupp remembered she had a gun in her purse, and, the gunman was about 12 feet away. Her purse was empty and she remembered she had left it in the car because of Texas Law.

Ms. Huff was not angry at the man's gun's. The guns were inanimate objects that did not come into Luby's pulling their own triggers.

Ms. Huff was not angry at the man, because he was obviously insane. She was not mad at him anymore than she would be an angry rabid dog.

Mr. Huff was angry at the Texas Law that left her defenseless in a gun free zone.

What part of"WELL REGULATED" do you not understand?

I bet you think it the US Army run by the EPA huh Hyptno? yeah i bet. and uh yeah the comestic features of an AR are not defined by that LOL...but you knew that didnt you. I can buy and upper and a lower with a standard stock (no picatinny on the foregrip or collapsible stock) iron sites and it will still be considered an AR. the M-16a-2 or A-1 are that exactly. Guess what else it is. Nope this is an agenda from the left and most of the lefty Sheep who get their 'Truth' from NBC and CNN parrot right along. This is an agenda to slowly remove arms from the populace and you have nerve to call the right NAZI's.

Morons

The American bar association has explained how the second amendment does not interfere with regulating weapons intended for private use, the second amendment "The right to bear arms" refers to "Militia service only" not to guns intended for personal use. The NRA doesn't know what they are talking about when it comes to the law of the Country. The NRA is just a group of loose cannons !!!

What part of"WELL REGULATED" do you not understand?

To date the court has upheld the notion that a person does not need to be a member of a militia to own a gun. Interesting factiod: as a citizen in many states as a resident you are automatically considered a part of that state's militia and can be called into service. This nonsense about splitting hairs about a militia is no longer pertinent.

Do something Damn it!

Caesar, Down with the Emperor!

Obama and DiFi's bills have ZERO chance of passing. Let that sink in a bit. ZERO. You know it, I know it-- everyone knows it. By the way the majority of NRA members do NOT support any of these measures. The media keeps citing the same 1,500 group of respondents-- hardly the voice of the NRA's 4,500,000 membership.

Oh, and for all you out there that want to ban firearms or further restrict them, keep preaching your ignorance. I haven't heard such drivel from people hating things they know nothing about, since the civil rights movement.

Anyhow, have fun bickering. You're not going to change anyone's mind. The amount of money, resources and man-power we have will squash all of your attempts to restrict our rights. You'll be lucky to get a surgeon general's warning on 30 round mags after the Senate is done with this bill.

clwyd-2621393

Caesar, Down with the Emperor!

Not of a Fan of Obama either?

Owebama took an oath when he took office, to abide by and protect the Constitution of the United States of America. Not change it.

Is it true that the U.N. (United Nations) wants all countries disarmed.?

Will all these new gun LAWS stop the senseless killings.??

Any further attacks on our Constitution will be dealt with..........

By whom, you and your buddies like that draft dodging anus Ted Nugent? Please, proceed. Make your move. I dare you. It will be fun to see you all at the end of an M16 barrel. But that won't happen, because deep down inside, you're just a scared little excuse of a man who only acts tough behind the keyboard . Just keep up the treasonus chatter and you may get more than you bargained for.

Backhouse

O is engaging with everyone on the gun safety issue. Police chiefs that have seen the mass shootings up close.

Law enforcement at Newtown said they could not have stopped Lanza, given his Bushmaster assault weapon, high capacity magazine, and armor protection.

Law enforcement has important things to say about gun violence, and we must listen to them. They put themselves at risk every day. The assault weapons and high-capacity magazines have to be banned for everyone's safety, now.

What part of The Bushmaster Assault Rifle was never usaed in the assault on the school. Lanza only used two handguns in his demented rampage. The assault rifle was found in the trunk of his car after the murders and his offing himself. Even the news networks showed the police removing it from his trunk during the search of his car.

What we have here are gun nuts, none of them even know the second amendment let alone can recite it. The fact there is plenty more to it then just the "right to bear arms shall not be infringed". It shows a complete disregard for law and order and if nothing else, law and order is what this nation was founded on. What they are saying is complete and utter nonsense. If guns cannot be regulated then any citizen could own an machine gun, or pistol, a cannon, even a tank or rocket launcher. The fact is you cannot. There is no civilian need for anyone to own a gun capable of shooting 20 children multiple times in just a matter of minutes. Yes, people hell bent on destruction will find a way to do it. However we as citizens have no need for a gun so described other then to kill human beings these guns are useless. If you want guns to start a revolution, or a civil war, or are even advocating for it you shouldn't own any gun, anything that could be used as a weapon, because quite frankly you are nuts.

I have a couple of question for the serious gun nut, when does your rights end, and mine begin? Do we share the same rights or are they just yours?

Owebama took an oath when he took office, to abide by and protect the Constitution of the United States of America. Not change it.

What part of stupid do you not understand? Where did anyone, anywhere at anytime say anything about changing the Constitution? Please, show all of us or stfu. Right now, it's just exploring the possibilities and no more than that. Since your brain is controlled by the likes of FOX, Limbaugh and the NRA, your panties are twisted in very tight knot. Relax. You may live a bit longer.

Guns, cause violence.

Silverware, causes obesity.

Cars, cause accidents.

Paper, causes bad laws.

Can anyone tell me how a pistol grip or thumb-hole stock makes a semi-automatic rifle or shotgun significantly more deadly?

Caesar Augustus-

Open the borders and ban guns..

Caesar, you must be mentally unstable. "Open the borders!" Yeah, let's just let the cartels that govern and run Mexico and other South American countries cross our norders freely, bring their drugs, their guns and death squads here so they can run around lopping off our heads for looking at them wrong or just plain pi$$ing them off! "Ban Guns!" So, nothing to defend ourselves with from them and every South American criminal who crosses oir borders.

Only things your comment tells me is you are either illiterate, illegal or a felon yourself!

The American bar association has explained how the second amendment does not interfere with regulating weapons intended for private use, the second amendment

Nonsense.

The SCOTUS has rules that the Second Amendment is an individual right.

"The right to bear arms" refers to "Militia service only" not to guns intended for personal use.

Well, you need to read 10USC311:

 Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

-STATUTE-
      (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
    males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
    313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
    declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
    and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
    National Guard.
      (b) The classes of the militia are -
        (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
      and the Naval Militia; and
        (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
      the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
      Naval Militia.

I bet you think it the US Army run by the EPA huh Hyptno?

no clue where you were trying to go with that one.... sad thing is i was agreeing with you that the ban of the so called "assault weapon" was a joke, and yet your political bigotry demanded that you still reply to me negatively, its cool bro. and if you want to be technical its not an AR, it's AW. The way the law is worded it is called assault weapon, an assault rifle is considered to be a firearm that has the ability to switch between fully and semi auto. These hidden agendas you dream of used to be called for what they were, conspiracy theories with not a shred of fact. that was until we started listening to the crazies in this country!

We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant

deduce all you like Sherlock, the base meaning of regulate is....

To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.

control, gun-control, hmmmm

Come on woody not you too!! i like you man why you gotta be jumping in with them.... truthfully i only used the "Well Regulated" as a catch phrase for better gun laws/controls, just like the other side of the "fight" likes to use "shale not be in-frn" as their catch phrase. everyone nit picks(split hairs) around the 2nd cause when read/implemented all together it supports both sides of this fight, and is poorly written ta-boot.

If guns cannot be regulated then any citizen could own an machine gun, or pistol, a cannon, even a tank or rocket launcher. The fact is you cannot.

Oh, but you can.

You simply need the proper permits and pay the taxes.

Over 250,000 US citizens legally own machine guns.

What a sickening pack of socialist but-wholes on this site... For example the Fisty Redhead Fk Face:

The NRA and their gun loving nuts are as dangerous as the tobacco industry was to children 25 years ago!

They are truly a cancer in our society!

The remainder of the communist sympathizers are truly a load of liberal bull pucky with nothing on their minds except kissing King Obama's a$$... It's depressing reading their sh#t on this site. Who is the real cancer on our society? Liberals with their "progressive" agenda to destroy this great nation by incremental destruction of the constitution, Alinsky style...

tonybeeerm is just another slug example. Nah, libbies ain't interested in destroying the constitution... just ignoring it as our Marxist leader does with regularity. And anyone who disagrees with their sick opinions are immediately labelled with all manner of degrading and dismissive insults... Oh, yeah, I get it. Libbies are so much smarter than any conservative, aren't you? Conservative values and viewpoints don't count with this crowd of ignoramuses, and the idiotic opinions expressed here, documented with fake news reports that are nothing but blogs by other extreme left idiots, is equally insulting. And then there all the constitutional experts. Lawyers all, i'm certain. What a friggin joke!

Obama
renews gun violence push

Stop the whining, somebody throw this idiot off the planet.

hey steven b, how many people in the usa legally own a rocket launcher, fully armed drones, nukes or chem bombs?

Only things your comment tells me is you are either illiterate, illegal or a felon yourself!

go look up sarcasm

deduce all you like Sherlock, the base meaning of regulate is....

go look up Minutemen. You'll find well regulated with that

These hidden agendas you dream of used to be called for what they were, conspiracy theories with not a shred of fact. that was until we started listening to the crazies in this country!

then there is no reason for this 'gun control' debate. AFter all gun violence won't decrease if you ban guns. You forget criminals are criminals not because they abide by the law. So call it a conspiracy theory but i see no reason to further erode our freedoms, apathy is hardly a good excuse.

So please splain to me why attaching a menacing word like assault to an inanimate object then promoting a restricition, ban or control in the name of safety benefits anyone.

Great article on gun homicides in our cities compared to the rest of the "violent" world. Kinda kills the "Chicago is the worst" fairy tail. New Orleans is the worst. Also kills the "guns in the hands of good guys make us safer" fairy tail.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2013/01/gun-violence-us-cities-compared-deadliest-nations-world/4412/

Dear gun control wackos -

We already have enough gun laws and restrictions. The rest of the b.s. Frankenstein, Obama and Biden are trying to shove down our throats will do NOTHING but waste money and punish law abiding citizens for no reason. I will do everything I can to prevent congress from passing these stupid utopian fantasy-land laws. If people want to do something about gun violence address the source of the problem, and stop trying to enact more restrictions and laws that completely ignore the root cause.

nukes or chem bombs?

now that is strawman. For one Nuclear material is a haz Mat thing as well as any chemical the material alone is regulated whether it be in a weapon or a reactor..Nice try though.

Adam L said it as well as i have in the past..address the root cause...

Instead, more red herrings. And im a crazy conspiracy theorist.

Why do you liberals believe only the Federal Government should be responsible for passing laws pertaining to gun control? Why not the individual states, since the Federal Government's "ONE SIZE FITS ALL" would not be fair or even rational in the 50 individual states. Federal law already bans military assault weapons and automatic weapons, except with a permit issued by the Federal Government. Do not mix up military look alike semi-automatic rifles with automatic military assault rifles.

As for the nut cases posting on here about RPGs, nukes and other asinine remarks need to use common sense and quick being stupid.

One thing I kinda agree with the NRA on is the problem of mental illness within our country and their ability to get their hands upon deadly weapons. And even though much funding for our mental hospitals has been stripped away by republican law makers, mental diagnosis before buying a firearm could work if implemented sensibly.

I'd deny the right to legally purchase guns to anyone who has delusions of grandeur, such as thinking of oneself as "Rambo","John Wayne" or other names synonymous with little man syndrome.

Also anybody who makes a delusional claim that they have a personal relationship with the creator of the entire universe should be mentally profiled. ;)

Hell RTypo, you just disqualified half of the gun nuts if not all of them. Little man syndrome. Cowards at best. If you think you need a gun for self defense you probably should not get one. You might end up hurting yourself with it. Matter of fact you are 22 more times likely to hurt your self or somebody you know then you are to be the victim of a violent crime.

obama doesn't care about 'gun control', he's all about people control! His beliefs come from the communist manifesto.... control the masses... and he's doing a pretty good job so far...!

Relative to the autocracy from which they rebelled, the Founding Fathers were liberals through and through

Today's libbies are a far cry from the days of Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, and others.... they can't hold a candle to those guys! What a pity!

"I can't get anything done in the Oval Office" (Mr. Obama's words).....because of a lack of leadership abilities....

Therefore, "On the Road Again" to Nevada to push for Public OPINION on my immigration and gun control agenda.

Time to park Air Force 1 and Marine 1 for regular maintenance.

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

Really liked it when Senator Feinsteener said she had a concealed weapon permit and carried a gun for PROTECTION, but yet helped draft a GUNS BAN bill. Hypocrite.

Hypocrite means something different when an assault weapons with a 100 round clip is pushed as something that people need for protection! You are the Hypocrite Ido! A sick one at that!

Caesar,

I hated Emperor GW bushwhacker also! Now that he has the warrant out for his arrest by the Hague for his War Crimes I think that speaks for itself!

clwyd - You are full of s**t, there is no warrant out by the Hague for the arrest of President Bush. If there is, prove it by showing a copy of the warrant. Further the U.S. does not answer to the World Court nor do/would we permit any foreign court to try or even issue a warrant for any American politician.

@ newdayDAWNING...RETURNED

Really? Liberals WROTE the Constitution! The most Liberal idea of its age was that free men could rule free men (Aristotle) and the Founders saw that as their grand experiment in starting this nation.

All the Amendments have reasonable restrictions on them. You are NOT free to say anything you want to, for example. The Second Amendment is also eligible for reasonable restrictions.

For once and for all, understand this: The Constitution is comprised of many parts. It is not the Second Amendment alone, and the Second Amendment does not take away the right of citizens to be safe from all and sundry to have any gun they want.

#1.3

"" Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis) is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property.

Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment, (circa 1675) when it became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected the notions, common at the time, of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The early liberal thinker John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property and according to the social contract, governments must not violate these rights. Liberals opposed traditional conservatism and sought to replace absolutism in government with democracy and/or republicanism and the rule of law. Wikipedia.""

Now just exactly where in this definition of "Liberal" does it espouse the taking of wealth from one faction of society and giving it to another? Where does it espouse forcing the values of one faction of society onto another? Or basically a State run society. These are Marxist or Fabianist views, or socialist, which are typical views of the modern Liberal. Which didn't appear until the late 19th and early 20th century. The Founding Fathers were Liberals, (before it was corrupted) Capitalists and decidedly non Socialists.

And I am guessing you are one of those backwards thinking liberals who think our rights stem from the Constitution. WRONG. We are born with our rights, ya know, "Endowed by our Creator". The Constitution is a limit set upon our Government to what it can do with those rights. After all, it was the Constitution that created our Government, it did not create our rights, there was a little thing called the Articles of Confederation that came before this.

So, pray tell, what reasonable restrictions are placed on our rights? None that do not involve some criminal activity. You have the freedom of speech, but you can not use it to slander someone, nor can you use it to incite riot or cause bedlam. You have the right to practice your religion, but you can not use it to offer human sacrifice. And I have the right to keep and bear arms, but I can not use it to commit murder, whether it is with a .22 cal pistol, or an M1 A2 Abraham's tank. These are the restrictions placed upon my rights. I do indeed have the RIGHT to own any weapon or arm I can afford. And the limit the 2nd Amendment places is upon the Government not to infringe upon it, like it does with the 1934 FCA and any other following legislation. Also, many of the restrictions they are considering would also violate my 5th Amendment Rights, to be denied property without due process.

This is another can of worms they are about to open. By implementing many of the restrictions they intend to, they plan on making it too expensive for a lot of citizens to exercise their "2nd Amendment" Rights. And to tear a page from the liberal playbook, i.e. Healthcare. "If it is a persons right to have access to "Affordable" or free Healthcare, and the Government must subsidies it, as per the PPACA, then is it also the Governments duty to subsidize my Right to "Keep and Bear Arms"?

From 1918 until 1934, any one in the US could order and have shipped through the USPS, a fully automatic sub-machine(Tommy Gun w/30 or 50 round magazines) or even a BAR, (High power Machine Gun w/20 round magazines) no questions asked. Where were all the spree shootings then(other than criminal gangland)?

It was not uncommon to walk into a local hardware store and buy a case of Dynamite to remove tree stumps. If easy access to deadly weapons is the measure of a deadly society, why were things like the "Bath School Disaster" not regular occurrences?

NO, the only thing that has changed in the last 50 or so years is the Secular Progressive agenda has wove its tentacles into society. Family is irrelevant. Dads are irrelevant. Males, especially white males, are irrelevant or even 'need' to be marginalized. Morals and Personal Responsibility are irrelevant.

My point is, since the 60's and the Liberal Progressive march toward hedonism in this country, with the rise of the welfare state, abortion and easy divorce, discipline in this country is gone. There are no consequences. No longer are men being raised by fathers. And how do you become a real man, if you don't have one to show you the way? Granted it isn't always successful, but it seemed to be more successful than the alternative.

I have posted the above on several vines, and have to yet to have a single reply.

"The intelligence of a people is inversely proportional to the size of city and the length of time spent there in". Robert Reedy 1980

“To paraphrase Chairman Mao: Freedom and Oppression are dispensed from the END of a gun. Which END are you on?” Robert Reedy 2008

michigan northener

Liberals hating the constitution since 1776.

You couldn't be further from the truth. For one thing, the constitution is a truly great thing, it defines the extent of power and the responsibilities of the branches of our government. It can EVOLVE too. Secondly, all good Americans should be aware that the Constitution of The United States was not drafted until 1787, and was not ratified until 1788- 12 years after the date you thought it was drafted.

Liberals hating the constitution since 1776.

Uh... I think you mean:

"Liberals, AUTHORING the Constitution since 1776."

Considering the founding fathers were far and away, the biggest flaming liberals of their day and age...

Some of you keep spouting the 11 bullets per child. For you uneducated non-gun owning people, that could be false number put out by the anti-gun pros to stir sentiment. The reality is that depending on the ammunition used, one bullet can pass through several bodies before it stops resulting in multiple bullet wounds. I've seen it all the time in hunting when animals are in line with each other while grazing. While the shooting of children was tragic, the vitriol spouted by some of the extreme far left, including Diane Feinstein, is troubling. The far right extremists are just as troubling. There is a middle ground for compromise but the media seems to be unwilling to investigate both sides of the issue. Even Obama himself has inferred that the Fox News media reporting wasn't news. How long before he signs executive orders requiring the FCC to censor Fox News?

Even Obama himself has inferred that the Fox News media reporting wasn't news.

On the other hand, Fox News themselves have admitted to being opinion.

No one wants to ban guns, really? Yeah right! LOL

Feinstein has been trying to ban guns for decades & there are many like her out there (even on this website). Why don't most of you gun grabbers have enough guts to admit that banning all guns is your ultimate goal? Just admit it!

You can go on YouTube & watch Feinstein in a 1995 interview regarding guns where she says & I quote:

If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban picking up everyone of them, Mr. & Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it. I could not do that, the votes weren't here.

(just type in - feinstein gun ban 1995 - in the search box on YouTube)

So there you go. It's not about sensible gun control. If this old train wreck had her way she would have government goon squads kicking in doors to confiscate them, if they weren't turned in voluntarily, no doubt.

A complete ban is the ultimate goal of these gun grabbing, power hungry, egotistical, control freak, scum, who think they know how to run your life better than you do, when it comes to all topics under the sun.

It disappoints people like Feinstein that they can't do a complete gun ban all at once. So instead they try to take small steps & chip away at the 2nd Amendment until nothing will be left. But I have confidence that gun owners in this country won't let that happen.

Btw, just look at the draconian gun laws New York just passed a week or two ago. They are banning guns, including many semi-auto handguns by limiting magazine capacity to 7 rounds or less. Most semi-auto handguns have magazines that hold more than 7 rounds & since you can't buy magazines for these guns that only hold 7 rounds or less it means that you can't own them.

Don't give me any B.S. about how gun grabbing politicians aren't trying to ban guns. They want to ban average citizens from owning guns while at the same time these hypocrites surround themselves with armed security and/or have concealed carry permits themselves. If guns are so evil/bad & not needed in a civilized society or for self defense then why are these a**holes surrounded by people with semi-automatic weapons 24/7?

Oh yeah, silly me what was I thinking. They are better than common people & their rights/lives are more important/valuable than the rights/lives of common serfs, I means citizens.

I could have sworn the gunners made claims that Sheriff Joe from Podunk, USA would refuse to enforce any gun control legislation. Apparently Sheriff Joe from Podunk is alone in his view.

Not hardly, Sheriff's throughout the US have said the same thing...

that is because Reddev believes the nation is made up only of the eastern seaboard with IlliNOISE and Kalifornia

Most "sheriffs" are elected political hacks, many of whom have NEVER served in law enforcement before.

I believe you're correct bcwc, like the ones who are saying they will not enforce any of these new "laws" they deserve to be heard too. Right?

1SGFitzsWife4ID--Yes they do need to be heard--so people can realize that they are traitors to the Constitution they swear to uphold. Then they can be voted out.

blackcatwhitecat

Police officers need to be listened to ...blackcat, I say piss on Police officers. They are armed to protect themselves not you.

The right wing lunatic fringe seems unable to comprehend the sad fact that the American people are tired of their children being slaughtered on the altar of the Second Amendment. The 2nd Amendment does not exist merely to defend the perceived right of selfish, immature wannabe Rambos to accumulate pointless arsenals of deadly toys. The time has come to enact broad ranging gun control legislation. It is the right thing to do.

Interesting Sailcat. The Second Amendment exists because the Framers of the Constitution thought it important to make an amendment forbidding the government from denying Americans their human right to self defense against unjustified assault.

So you want people to be denied their human rights. Interesting, especially coming from a liberal.

Mexico has some of the strictest gun ownership laws in the world. How is that working for them? I will tell you, the drug criminals and others are going into peoples homes, killing everyone, and cutting their damn heads off and leaving their headless corpse lying there. Works great huh? Only the law-abiding citizens are without guns. Viva la Mexico!!! Oh make us just like Mexico. NOT!!!

Chris I live basically next door to ft hood, remember that one? why weren't they invited?

Really, hs? The current interpretation of the Second Amendment was established in the 1970s by a Supreme Court decision on The District of Columbia v. Heller. It was controversial then and it is a disaster now. We are only one little Supreme Court decision away from a complete...and more rational...reinterpretation. Stay tuned!

Hey anti-gun liberals...think before you speak. Four 6-shot revolvers with accompaning speed loaders can be just as devastating as any semi-automatic rifle. I am one of many people in this country who go through background checks that include our mental health. I am also a U.S. military veteran. I go through the gun checks anytime I buy a firearm. Yet, you and your liberal friends, including Diane Feinstein and Pres. Obama want to limit my ability to have any semi-automatic firearm that they deem a weapon of mass destruction. Feinstein herself has said that her goal is to dry up the availability of semi-automatic firearms. Can you say total ban on them? That's exactly what she wants and her own words prove it. This issue of violence isn't about guns. It's about political posturing in the face of an inability to prevent mental health issues from resulting in murders. Guess what? The last ban of certain weapons was a failure and they still want to beat that dead horse. Be careful what you ask for...your rights and freedoms are next on the banned list.

This issue of violence isn't about guns.

Once again, we're expected to believe that gun violence isn't about guns.

Brilliant.

Sailcat, allow me to provide you with a quote.

"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."
-Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

Mussolini did it, Stalin did it, Hitler did it, and now Obama is doing it. I believe background checks and all firearms should be registered. People fail to see that it takes one group of crazies to accomplish anything.

You think Hitler let anyone know what REALLY happened at the concentration camps? He told them the Jews and Poles were being imprisoned "for their safety," then while no one could see, he poisoned them, burned them, and shot them. Why do you think Auschwitz and most other camps were in Poland and not Germany?

The Turks told the Armenians they were being disarmed "for their safety," then promptly carried out a mass genocide of Armenians, of which, the Turkish government refuse to acknowledge they did (another broken promise of Obama by the way, cheating the Armenians for their vote like lying to people on food stamps that Republicans would take them away).

At Wounded Knee, the Lakota were disarmed "for their safety," and then the Europeans slaughtered my people, claiming the title of "Americans" as their own. Most of them were only women and children.

Many of the ignorant dolts of this country say we could not possibly stand up to the military if it turned on us. Evidently, the Taliban and Al Qaeda don't exist in these people's false realities.

Now then, Sailcat, if you would, please tell me why I should trust this currently garbage government that I am being disarmed or being barred from owning certain arms "for my own safety"?

hs321

"Interesting Sailcat. The Second Amendment exists because the Framers of the Constitution thought it important to make an amendment forbidding the government from denying Americans their human right to self defense against unjustified assault.

So you want people to be denied their human rights. Interesting, especially coming from a liberal"

Completely illogical conclusions look best in crayon.

The second amendment exists because a populace with the right to keep and bear arms makes for a ready (loyal) militia in time of need. The fact that you fancy ti as a stand against internal tyranny rather than being available for call-up by your own government is where it becomes clear you have lost historical context. Not terribly long before the amendment, British loyalist militias had attempted to limit access to weapons and ammunition to Patriot Militias.

Wrong Femmy and even the S.C. seems to agree with mine and others view on the matter. Sucks to be on the wrong side of 'Freedom' eh Femmy.

Thats ok though, Femmy thumb through your Communist Manifesto and maybe, just maybe you'll find something to support your desire for the Dictator of the Proletariat and Soldier.

So indeed bust out that Perrywinkle crayon and scribble outside those lines

Sailcat, allow me to provide you with a quote.

Your pointless and irrelevant quote merely proves that childish "gun enthusiasts" will grope for any virtually random combination of words that will provide the illusion of credibility, no matter how devoid of actual content or logic they may be, to support their insane agenda. You need to understand that hysterical paranoia is not an argument for anything. Fail.

Show me in the constitution where the military or police should be armed to the teeth. Funny Sally the Founders saw a necessity for the populace to be armed.

funny how you anti gun freaks will cling and grope to words like assault and rifle and gun no matter how devoid of actual content or logic may be to support you insane agenda.

You need to understand that hysterical paranoia is not an argument for anything. Fail.

henceforth you should take your own advice

Interesting choice of words in the title. Makes it sound like Obama is actually pushing for gun violence. I guess "gun control" has become a touchy phrase for the liberal media.

henceforth you should take your own advice

Hey, Caesar! Regaling the assembled multitude with examples of your lack of intellectual horsepower, are you? You seem always to fall on the side of ignorance, intolerance, and failure. Keep up the good work, little guy!

Something like that Sally. BTW our Giants won, I know old news but never got to congrat ya! Im a fan too

Sailcat, I respect your opinions, I've upvoted your comments in the past, I've agreed with you in a few articles, the least you could do is respect mine as well as others.

It would seem you would rather look over the Code of Honor on Newsvine and put yourself above everyone else on this site.

Hey, Caesar! Regaling the assembled multitude with examples of your lack of intellectual horsepower, are you? You seem always to fall on the side of ignorance, intolerance, and failure. Keep up the good work, little guy!

"When all else fails, resort to name calling!"

Obama and his gun grabbing bunch have been having brainstorming sessions for years to determine the most draconian gun control legislation they can hope to get through congress. They know full well that enacting their plan would violate the constitution so they reasoned the need for a media fueled highly emotional and irrational environment that would recruit gun haters and dullards to their cause.

After years of planning they had their finished product and only needed to wait for a trigger event to unveil it. They reasoned that trigger event was Newtown which provided the necessary cover for their true agenda and they're currently in a no holds barred push employing the usual threats and intimidation to elicit support.

Despite their best efforts, I believe their plan will fall far short of their true goals so they'll most likely end up with some kind of face saving compromise, until the next time.

Obama just said the republicans aren't willing to compromise. How does one compromise on the Constitution? Can you imagine demanding a compromise on the 1st amendment?

"It's for the children" blah blah

STILL waiting to learn your Grand Scheme to convince criminals to give up their guns..

(sounds of crickets...)

If it really is "for the children"..... why the silence for the 54,000,000 murdered under Roe v Wade?

If it really is "for the children"..... why the silence for the 54,000,000 murdered under Roe v Wade?

Another RWNJ concerned about the inventory problem for live target practice, fully armed with an assault rifle.