wonder if their bodyguards are going to surrender their 'assault weapons'...

Do the Senators have armed guards with them or when they appear in public do they have police with them?

I hope they keep dragging this out.

I'm having a blast watching and debating with the left. The longer this goes on, the more the emotional response subsides, people are coming to their senses, the weaker their position gets. Not that they have a strong position anyways since the only argument they can make for Gun control is an emotional argument playing on peoples sympathy.

What happened to the Left being all analytical, basing their decisions and beliefs on facts and rational, demanding facts and substantiation, rejecting unproven philosophies and ideas that can't be proven scientifically such as religion, the belief in ghosts etc?

I invite you on the left to make a rational, empirical, fact based argument, leaving us without any doubt, using substantiation, that any new gun control laws will work to end gun violence.

You wouldn't expect us to take your word for it or simply choose to believe any new gun laws would work would you?

We know how much you hate believing in things that can't be proven and call any one that does an idiot.

You had an "Assault Weapons" Ban for ten years from 1994 through 2004. Show us the data to prove how well that worked...

You had an "Assault Weapons" Ban for ten years from 1994 through 2004. Show us the data to prove how well that worked...

Harris and Klebold used 9mm and shotguns (and failed timed propane gas bombs)...Cho, used 9mm as well.. look at their spree's...

Ted Kaczynski and Timothy McVeigh didnt use guns at all.

how many assault weapons murders in lets say Los Angeles during those banned weapon times? Thats right criminals DONT CARE

DoobieDo

So ban a whole Nation from owning something on a "What IF" ? Ok, I'll play. What if guns were never invented? What if all the Cops didn't have guns? Would it save at least one life? What if?

DoobieDo - What If scenario's....nice. What if the gun that someone was going to buy would have protected Sandy Hook? What if someone at that school had plans to buy a gun but was banned to do so and was unable to protect these little angels?

Fun isn't it? Would this teacher's restriction on purchasing guns be worth sacrificing all these children?

What if...Tell us!

How very odd..... IF it is the mean old GOP that is making this oh so difficult why would a Democrat bill not pass in the Democrat controlled Senate.... Very odd indeed

David Noah

I invite you on the left to make a rational, empirical, fact based argument, leaving us without any doubt, using substantiation, that any new gun control laws will work to end gun violence.

======
David, I'm uncertain of the claim that any legislation, let alone this legislation will 'end gun violence'. If you're talking analytical, to use your argument, there should be no laws what so ever. Your basic premise is that if the existence of a law itself isn't enough to prevent the act from happening, then there is no reason for the law.

I categorically reject that approach. If your plumb line in judging the value/worth of a law is to ask the question 'has the law been broken since it was enacted'....then the only logical conclusion is that we be a lawless society...because EVERY law we have on the books has been violated post the implementation of that law.

And for the record, within the presentation of your comments, you haven't met your own standard that you are demanding of the "left" that the continued surplus of weapons in the Country has statistically made it safer.

We've already got all your Names and Addresses in our Washington, DC. Database, anyway!

but you're too much of a pussy to come get us ;o) *Maddog anyone?

Try not to be so mad Commies4Obama..

because EVERY law we have on the books has been violated post the implementation of that law.

so passing more or banning more you expect different results when its proven wrong...dont hand me this sensible approach...arent laws passed sensible? when has murder become legal?

Insanity!

Yes, Chris, (#1.9) that is what I am wondering...

David & Caesar -

The current legislative proposals do not include just a ban on assault weapons, but also a limit on high-capacity magazines, 100% background checks and increased penalties for "gun-running".

It is obvious that although universal background checks are not a panecea, they are a logical way to make it more difficult for a criminal or mentally-disturbed individual to purchase a firearm with only a minor impact on law-abiding gun owners.

Increased penalties on gun-running may slow the flood weapons from states with lax gun laws to those with more stringent ones.

As far as facts, it has been proven that when assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are used the rate of injury and death increases. That is to say, a ban on these items may not reduce the NUMBER of violent incidents but would reduce the IMPACT of these incidents.

I suggest you read this excellent analysis:

http://kevinjashton.com/2013/01/24/the-physics-of-mass-killing/

I am sure I could present more facts, but NRA-supported legislation has limited the ability to gather information on gun violence and it's causalities.

What if it was only one? Is one life worth your personal right to own an assault weapon?

America's history has all been based on sacrificing lives for freedom. Look at all of the wars we fought to help keep people free. We sacrificed thousands of American lives in Korea to keep the people free from an oppresive regime. We sacrificed lives in the Revolutionary War to have all of the rights we have today which Britain, at that time, was trying to take away.

Also, the personal benefit for one person shouldn't over power the desire of others. A lot of passengers and I weren't allowed to eat the supplied peanuts on the airplane because one passenger said he was mildly allergic to peanuts. It was a very hungry three and half hour flight.

If Lanza had say 10 clips of 7 bullets each.... I am sure that every student at Sandy Hook would still be alive today.

/sarc

TNSEVOL - Limit all the magazines you want, I will just print more. Ban all the guns you want, I will just print more. They will also be untraceable and the production rate will be incredible. Being plastic and all they will be Cheap, Cheap, Cheap!

Necessity is the father of invention. You think you have troubles now? Wait until throw away guns are as common as cell phones and just as traceable. Legislate that.

RepublicansForObama-6186389 - Domestic Terrorists with guns brought you the freedom you have today. Weird isn't it.

Yes Morgs, but those were legal guns (snark)

100% background checks

have you ever bought a gun? There is already a background check. The private owners have no way of running such checks. Then there is the HIPA laws. This isnt about righting whats wrong, this about agenda and ideology from the left.. FACT. If you cared that much, look at Laughner, Holmes, Sencion and Lanza. THey were mentally ILL.. That fact is not being addressed. BAN GUNS BAN GUNS BAN GUNS mantra.

As far as facts, it has been proven that when assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are used the rate of injury and death increases

Why dont you go pull the stats on the deaths (homicides) from such 'assault weapons'. then take a deeper look at who committed these homicides.

NRA-supported legislation has limited the ability to gather information on gun violence and it's causalities.

or you cant find what you are looking for to support your argument. Because Im pretty sure the stats can be found through local Law Enforcement Agencies.

Lil Michelle -

If Lanza had say 10 clips of 7 bullets each.... I am sure that every student at Sandy Hook would still be alive today.

Maybe not all of all them, and maybe it would not have made a difference in that instance. It would have greatly increased the odds of at least some of them surviving if even a few seconds passed during reloading.

You sarcastically attack the ban on high-capacity magazines, items that are of NO positive value to ANYONE but if eliminated could save at least some lives.

In the few documented instances where either off-duty police of concealed-carry holders used their weapons to end a threat, they did it while the shooter was reloading.

Why not try to tilt the odds in their favor instead of the shooter?

Morgs -

Printable plastic guns? Really? You have been watching too much CSI. SHow me where it really happens in real life.

Caesar -

have you ever bought a gun? There is already a background check. The private owners have no way of running such checks

Baloney. They could have licensed gun dealer do it for a small fee. I cant sell a car without going through a registrar or titel agency, why is it so easy to sell a gun?

Yes, I own several guns. I can go to a local gun show and buy one without a background check, so your argument is bogus.

Why dont you go pull the stats on the deaths (homicides) from such 'assault weapons'. then take a deeper look at who committed these homicides.

Why don't you use the link and read the analysis. High-capacity magazines in handguns contribute significantly to the death count.

Caesar Augustus-

because EVERY law we have on the books has been violated post the implementation of that law.

so passing more or banning more you expect different results when its proven wrong...dont hand me this sensible approach...arent laws passed sensible? when has murder become legal?

Insanity!

==================

...yet the same crowd supports making new immigration law even though we've had immigration laws on the books for how long and we still have umteen million illegals in the Country?

You use murder and legal in your reply...but I don't see anyone advocating for the removal of our murder laws simply because the acts of murder have continued even with the laws of the books.

We use the law to define who we are as a People. There are varying degrees of punishment associated with the law(s) that the People have broken.

The correct judgement of a law is not to ask, did it ever happen again? The correct judgement is to determine that if an act so affected us as a Society..did we form a national debate...did we utilize our way of governing to facilitate that conversation and did we put our actions into legislation with the goals of not only mitigating the chances of the act happening again, but put in place adequate punishments for those who violated the law in the future.

TNSEVOL - You are missing the point on the ban of high capacity clips...

1. It is a useless law. Useless laws cost a lot of money to enforce. They cost even more money when fought over in court.

2. You are making every current law abiding citizen with a high capacity mag a criminal.

You are doing very little to tilt any odds with this.

Background checks, check away. This is reasonable. You are keeping the individual in check and not their tools.

Sci-Fi? Really? http://defensedistributed.com/ The only thing not printable on a $2000 printer is the barrel. And as you know technology never makes improvements so this will probably just go away. Someone said it best....low information voters...

How many people would be dead because they did not have an AR-15... at least two that I know of off the top of my head..

If we really wanted to make an impact on deaths... maybe we should consider banning bars and only allow people to drink in their homes

TNSEVOL

David & Caesar -

The current legislative proposals do not include just a ban on assault weapons, but also a limit on high-capacity magazines, 100% background checks and increased penalties for "gun-running".

(emphasis added by me...)

Eric Holder and Mr. Obama better watch out!

***********

DoobieDo

David, did you ever stop to wonder how many more people would have been killed had the weapons ban NOT been in place? What if it was only one? Is one life worth your personal right to own an assault weapon? What if that one life was your daughter's? Would HER life be worth sacrificing just so that you could own an assault weapon??? Tell us.

Nope. And you may find this harsh... but a single life is NOT worth sacrificing our freedoms. BTW... over the life of this country hundreds of thousands... perhaps millions... have sacrificed their lives in protection of those freedoms.

The good of the many outweighs the good of the few (or the one).

No. A single life is not worth sacrificing that.

**********

TNSEVOL

Lil Michelle said: If Lanza had say 10 clips of 7 bullets each.... I am sure that every student at Sandy Hook would still be alive today.

Maybe not all of all them, and maybe it would not have made a difference in that instance. It would have greatly increased the odds of at least some of them surviving if even a few seconds passed during reloading.

WRONG! It wouldn't have saved a single victim. Changing a magazine takes less than 2 seconds. If he entered the room and shot the teacher first the kids would sit in fear.

WHAT WOULD HAVE SAVED THOSE KIDS (at least some of them) is a good-guy with his/her own gun!

Regarding background checks, Obiden...whoops, I meant, Biden, had this to say:

“And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately.” – Joe Biden

Biden admits the government does not have the resources to enforce all background checks.

Government solution: Pass more laws.

I cant sell a car without going through a registrar or titel agency, why is it so easy to sell a gun?

you're state is screwy.. I can sell a car without a going through a title agency or registrar. But cars a priveldge, guns not so much (a right).

Baloney. They could have licensed gun dealer do it for a small fee.

oh really, again have you even bothered to see how much in the way of guns are for sale? Go to armslist.com for example and look in Tennessee. Most gun shops are small and couldnt even handle or want to handle that influx...especially now. Besides thats called consignment. its not as easy as you make it out to be.

I can go to a local gun show and buy one without a background check, so your argument is bogus.

NOT FROM A FFL

Why don't you use the link and read the analysis. High-capacity magazines in handguns contribute significantly to the death count.

why dont you see who is attributing to these death counts..how many in that statistic are from people that have NO LEGAL rights to own a gun.

You use murder and legal in your reply...but I don't see anyone advocating for the removal of our murder laws simply because the acts of murder have continued even with the laws of the books

the law of hyper-redundancy will not change anything and you have proven that..Murder is illegal regardless of how or what you use to murder.

ADDRESS THE ROOT ISSUE.

Morgs74

Sci-Fi? Really? http://defensedistributed.com/ The only thing not printable on a $2000 printer is the barrel. And as you know technology never makes improvements so this will probably just go away.

===========

Yet in every aspect of our military, technology is the advantage maker. A tad over a decade ago, we didn't even know what texting was and you have the ability to make this post from a computer at a desk, or a computer in your hand from nearly anywhere in the world with that logistical ability to have your message reach millions in a nano-second...but in the end you're probably correct, technology never makes improvements and will probably just go away.

Allen - Omaha - Next they will be legislating printers. More laws. More bureaucracy. More wasted dollars.

Morgs-

You are missing the point on the ban of high capacity clips...

1. It is a useless law. Useless laws cost a lot of money to enforce. They cost even more money when fought over in court.

2. You are making every current law abiding citizen with a high capacity mag a criminal.

You are doing very little to tilt any odds with this.

I think you are missing the point. If high-capacity magazines are made illegal and can only be manufactured and sld under strict regulations then we can reduce the supply.

If high-cap mags used n crimes are confiscated we can further reduce the supply, and if we sponsor a buy-back or swap program we can further reduce the supply.

Eventually there will be significantly less in the hands of criminals.

The only thing not printable on a $2000 printer is the barrel.

I am not saying this will go away - I am saying that the cost of the printer, the cost of the raw materials, and the limitations of the printed gun to perform repeatedly will make it a very expensive option and therefore not readily available to the "common" criminal or gang-banger.

Similar to counterfeiting, it will be fairly easy to track the sale of a few large printers and the required raw materials and identify the culprits.

It is far more difficult to track millions of guns bought by "straw-man" buyers in places like Virginia and Arizona that are sold without background checks to criminals.

Sick of the Bickering -

Your "good guy with a gun" has a better chance to hit the shooter if he has to pause to reload.

Why are you so against helping out the "good guy with a gun"?

Sick of The Bickering, nice avatar BTW

I keep reading that new guns laws won't stop criminals from getting guns, and then they go on to list non-criminals who commited mass murders like tim mcveigh (no criminal record), adam lanza (no criminal record). and ok more murders are commited by handguns so you are right we should concentrate on banning them. And while the second amendment does say " a well armed militia" there are already limits on what guns you can buy. You do know the 1st amendment talks about free speech- but your not allowed to say anything you want. so were not saying get rid of all guns just ones that have no other use than killing as many PEOPLE as quick as possible. What is wrong with that?

Hey Morgs74,

The funny part is that the left would see this 'AR-looking' weapon and want to ban it as an assault rifle... but did you notice how the guys was shooting it?

Single shot for each pull of the trigger... no different than my little Marlin Model 60 .22 cal rifle (which is built with a 15 round tube magazine integrated into the barrel/stock and sounds like it might be illegal under their proposal.)

These clowns know NOTHING about guns!

TNSEVOL -

Lets walk though your high-capacity clip logic...you want to limit the amount of rounds you can fit into a magazine because you think it will slow down a maniac with a gun. You also think that while reloading it will give the victims an upper hand to fight back or flee. A law that you write on paper will do none of these things, you need to understand this basic premise if you are to understand why this law will be useless. Anything you say beyond that is fluff.

I am saying that the cost of the printer, the cost of the raw materials, and the limitations of the printed gun to perform repeatedly will make it a very expensive option and therefore not readily available to the "common" criminal or gang-banger.

Again, you are talking about something you know nothing about. Large printers? They are commercially available to anyone who wants one and they fit on the top of your desk. They will be available in Wal-Mart within 5 years. How you going to track that?

Gangbangers have nothing but time on their hands. If they can make credit card skimmers, they can run a printer. And if you think a gangbanger will pay $2000 for a printer they can get at a 5-finger discount you are living in a dream world.

TNSEVOL

Sick of the Bickering -

Your "good guy with a gun" has a better chance to hit the shooter if he has to pause to reload.

Why are you so against helping out the "good guy with a gun"?

Oh believe me pal... I am not against helping the good-guy.... but HE (the good-guy) has to have a gun to (how did you put it?) 'hit the shooter'.

Think about it.

;-)

Oh yeah... regarding this comment...

I am saying that the cost of the printer, the cost of the raw materials, and the limitations of the printed gun to perform repeatedly will make it a very expensive option and therefore not readily available to the "common" criminal or gang-banger.

I thought you guys were worried about the mass-murders... you know... the one's that are taking out our kids in schools and theaters!

Now you want to talk about the poor 'gang-banger' that won't be able to afford one of these guns?

REALLY? Those b@st@rds probably have more money than any of us! And if it gets them access to a weapon the none of us have, and can give them an upper hand... you bet your arse they will find a way to get one.

(Stupid statements - not well thought out.)

SickOfTheBickering - I also own a tube mag .22. Most accurate open-sight gun I own. They are awesome.

If it looks scary it must go!! Ruled by emotions they are.

If it looks scary it must go!! Ruled by emotions they are.

oh yeah a tube loaded .22 is Horrific..... LOL...

Your "good guy with a gun" has a better chance to hit the shooter if he has to pause to reload

WTF? assuming he hasnt taken cover to reload. but we can play out scenarios all day long...end of the day, youre still of the mark TNS

Tnsevol - You mention a "Universal background check", and on paper is doesn't sound to bad. I have a question, who is going to maintain and monitor this and how is it going to be established? If you say the Federal government, which I know you will, it would be a big mistake. Hell the Government can't even keep the "No fly list" accurate, how in the hell are they going to handle millions of gun owners and would these background checks be immediately destroyed once the sale has or has not been completed?

Caesar Augustus-

Sick of The Bickering, nice avatar BTW

Thank you, sir!

And may I compliment you on yours as well!

;-)

Interesting how LESS THAN 4% of Americans think this stuff is great:

gun trafficking, straw purchases, allowing felons & the mentally ill buy guns (because we don't have universal background checks) etc.

Yest as soon as there is a gun safety article posted here, within min, all 4% must come crawling out from under their rocks to protect their rights to mow down 20 little kids in less than a minute.

I guess you also believe that little kids don't have a constitutionally protected right to grow up.

.

I hope that Congress will still do what Gabby Giffords said, "BE BOLD! BE COURAGEOUS! AMERICAN IS COUNTING ON YOU!"

.

FORWARD! :-)

Thank you, sir!

And may I compliment you on yours as well!

bitte mein Freund

Morg

And you are ruled by low brain matter.

I am a Responsible gun owner. If the punk "macho de macho" group wants there guns with out Any restrictions..fine. ButAX....T the hell out of Guns & Ammo It would hurt me & other Sane gun-owners....but if we hit the Idiots in the wallet, maybe they will think a little clearer.

KC_NC

Interesting how LESS THAN 4% of Americans think this stuff is great:

gun trafficking, straw purchases, allowing felons & the mentally ill buy guns (because we don't have universal background checks) etc.

Yest as soon as there is a gun safety article posted here, within min, all 4% must come crawling out from under their rocks to protect their rights to mow down 20 little kids in less than a minute.

KC_NC...

Comments like yours indicate exactly how ridiculous you really are.

NO ONE HAS A RIGHT TO (how did you put it) MOW DOWN 20 LITTLE KIDS IN LESS THAN A MINUTE!

If you think you have the RIGHT to do that you are the one the should be put in a cell!

What a totally asinine statement that was, but so typical of the lunatics on the left who will pull at every heart-string to push their agenda and demonize their opposition.

You sicken me with your tactics!

And I hate to tell you but those of us who feel that our freedoms are under attack measure much more than the 4% you seem to fear! And we don't believe that "this stuff is great"... certainly not the stuff that you mentioned any way. But it doesn't surprise me that you totally missed the point and wrongly equate those things with our desire to protect our freedoms. You and your kind never seem to worry about actually being correct in your statements... all you worry about is inciting fear and anger.

SUCK IT!

Boy!

you NRA and Ted Nugent Neandrethal Knuckle-dragging "Gun-Nut" types

are having your own little "Circle-Jerk", now aren't you?

Thank-God our President has made it Legal for Hell-Fire Drones

to take out American Domestic Terrorists,

if the Need ever arises!

Thank-you Prsident Obama for protecting my Family and the Families

of Peaceful Law-Abiding, Freedom Loving Americans

from the likes of Al-quada, the Taliban, all those Foreign Terrorists,

and you "potential in the future" Domestic Terrorists!

KC_NC - It is embarrassing to me as an american that you think so low of your fellow people that you think 1.2 million people are defending the right to kill children. This is the liberal extremist mind set. If they aren't with us, they must be against us. If they are against us they must be idiots. There is nothing progressive about you.

Caesar Augustus-

bitte mein Freund

You are welcome!

:-)

You sicken me with your tactics!

And I hate to tell you but those of us who feel that our freedoms are under attack measure much more than the 4% you seem to fear!

SUCK IT!

what do you expect from the low info Proletariat lynch mob mentality lefties. These same shltheads will get violent on you like a feral hog.

I have the RIGHT to own a gun and you have the RIGHT not too..Have no fear though, I promise I will not use my firearm to protect you when youre being assailed. I would hate to infringe upon your RIGHT

are having your own little "Circle-Jerk", now aren't you?

sure, id rather be a part of that, then the recipient of the Liberal Bukaki that takes place daily on here..enjoy

praysalot - Damn man...hit criminals in their wallet. Now there is some logic for you. Criminals will risk jail time over stealing a piece of candy. What in the world gives you the idea that increasing costs will stop a criminal.

A few bad eggs and you are willing to restrict the rights of the entire populace. I know of some homosexuals that are spreading AIDS purposely , should we restrict homosexuality? Purposely spreading disease is already outlawed but it doesn't work so we should go after the people right?

These laws will do as much as you Praying for us will.

4% is 1.2 million of the populace. There are 5 million NRA members. There are more than you think.

RepublicansForObama-6186389

Boy!

you Neandrethal Knuckle-dragging "Gun-Nut" types

are having your own little "Circle-Jerk", now aren't you?

Thank-God our President has made it Legal for Hell-Fire Drones

to take out American Domestic Terrorists,

if the Need ever arises!

First... you have obviously NEVER been a republican.

Second... if we WERE neanderthals we would just beat you to death with our clubs and stones (which, if Oblahblah has his way may actually happen).

And Finally... What's the matter man... ain't you got no friends?

:O(

HAHAHAAH!!!!!

#1.49 and #1.51

Why so serious, Batman?

Is it something I said?

Hey you crazy-beautiful "Gun-Nut" guys!

I've got a Great idea!

Want to be my Facebook friends?

or at least be one of my "followers" on Twitter?

do you? do you?

LOL!

Now THAT is FUNNY!

(sad, pathetic, begging for friends... but FUNNY!)

Want to be my Facebook friends?

or at least be one of my "followers" on Twitter?

beggin for liberal friends on FR...That is indeed good times..sure Fisty Rottencrotch will friend you. after all yesterday she tried to peddle her husband as a gun totting tree hugger. Now that is funny

Comedy, the Final Frontier!

To boldly go where No comedian has gone before!

You are welcome!

:-)

I didnt catch that...danke

I've been studying slavic just so i can carry a conversation with the liberals in here. they seem to admire Lenin...

Is one life worth your personal right to own an assault weapon

Say this to the 50+ million people who've lost their lives due to "gun control" then you'll have an answer.

Leahy warned of late nights for lawmakers next week, saying the sessions will go "as late as necessary" each day and continue into the following week if need be.

LOLOLOL.......

Figure the odds of anyone staying "as late as necessary".

All the lawmakers are out the door by 11:30 am for Happy Hour at their local bar.

Caesar and Sick - Glad you two had a happy little circle jerk. We communists love to see your kind make friends.

Obozo the Clown

Wants to disarm Americans and destroy the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the US while arming Al-Quida in Syria

The Syrian rebels are aligned to Al-Quida and the Government of Syria with Iran. This is a no win situation

WTF!

REpublicans for obama Shut the h up with your drivel.you Fing commie facist punk

# 1.62

The assault weapon ban will not be voted on, it would cost Reid the majority leadership in 2014.

If the senators were smart (yes, I know, snowballs chance) they would pass one single law that would have had a chance to have stopped the 'sandy hook' school shooting.

Such a law would fly through congress.

The law: all owners of scary looking semi-auto rifles (mis-labeled as assault weapons) must possess a gun safe with a combo lock.

There would have been a chance that the shooter never could have gotten to the weapons.

None of the other proposed laws would do a thing to protect any of us.

I had to go in the gun safe yesterday and while in there was reminded by the nonsense of this "large magazine" discussion we are having. In my gun safe I have a Smith and Wesson 40 cal Sigma and the magazine holds 14 rounds. I have 4 magazines. I can swap out an empty magazine with another magazine in less than 2 seconds. So that means I have 52 rounds that I could shoot in less than a minute.

So this whole argument about "you don't need 30 rounds" and is justification for "banning" magazines of that size is a false debate. I can shoot 30 rounds with multiple magazines just as fast as somebody with one 30 round magazine.

Sometimes a liberal simply needs to look at an argument with logic rather than with emotion to see that their approach is flawed to begin with.

Confronted with such a formidable backlash, they the gun grabbers needed a timeout to refine and plan their next assault on the constitution.

There are entire states and local jurisdictions all around the country as well as many police organizations that have all committed to ignoring any obvious nullification of the 2^nd amendment coming from this administration.

Pushing such unconstitutional legislation will do to the Democratic party that which the Republicans could never do.

Americans First, you name is inaccurate... you want to take freedoms that are guaranteed by the Constitution. You place American's last and should change your name accordingly.

The people who put America First are those who serve or served in the military, fought for the freedoms that people like you are so eager to relinquish and bled for our rights whether they be speech, religion or bearing of arms.

When there's a shooting in a movie theater in Aurora, CO then the discussion needs to be more than just about school safety.

...and what should the discussion be about?

#1 Actually reforming our background check progress and prosecuting people that are breaking these laws?

#2 Trying to pass a pre-existing anti-gun agenda against responsible gun owners because they don't like guns and don't care about #1?

The people in Colorado were killed by a shotgun. The high capacity drum magazine the shooter tried to use jammed (like they always do) so he switched to the shotgun. That's probably why he killed so many people.

The NRA is a American institution of American citizens who relish and honor the right to bear arms.

In a sense they will be saying... Are for America or for America, because both are the same thing.

What is against America and all she stands for is the surrendering of the rights our forefathers fought for, bled for and died for.

The blood of 20 Children should not wash away the blood of millions of Americans who died to keep this nation free, the children s blood should enrage us to bring morality, honesty and accountability back into our society and stop living as if we are entitled... the only thing we are entitled to is LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of Happiness.

Weapons don't kill, people kill.

They can run, but they cannot hide from their votes, a vast majority of Americans are calling for standardized back ground checks at the very least.

They can't and will be unable to hide from their votes!

Why is there push back on background checks.....There is a chain of ownership/possession on cars, homes and lots of other purchases. Some prescription drugs are controlled.

Why not on weapons? Especially weapons, instruments of potential death!

Johntho according to the FBI only around 400 people per year get killed by the rifle. Now the FBI says that around 600 people per year get killed by clubs and hammers. Now clubs and hammers are not made for killing but yet more people get killed by them than the evil assault rifle. I would think that the familys of these peope are just as sad as rifle victims familys. The bottom line is we as americans are free and have the right to leaasl have an assult rifle which can be use for target poratice killing bears etc etc etc. Which is what the law abiding folks that own one does with them. See taking away law abiding foks rights becaue of a few criminals is not what we do in this country. In all reality we must go afte after hammers and clubs because according to the FBI more people got killed by them than rifles.

Dan Wilson, The NRA is a subversive lobby group for the gun manufactures, the only purpose they serve is to sell guns and has nothing to do with gun rights. No one is talking about taking the right to bare arms away from anyone. Yet you persist with the ignorance.

Take the weapon out of the hands of the killer and he has to find another way. You are stupid enough to believe the NRA is in any way a benefit to this nation or anyone in it. Why would I think you are smart enough to figure out that you are a minority, out of 300 million in this country you speak for less then 10 million people. You are not a responsible gun owner, you are slogan slinger that endorses the killing of kids.

Dan your wrong. Weapons kill.

Johntho,

Yes, let each member of Congress go on record with their vote for gun reform.

The country is watching... and parents, grandparetns, school teachers... and the children...

Pass a strong gun law, background checks, ban assault guns of any kind, strenghen school safety.

High Rolla, you get the bovine excrement award for stupid. Only 400 huh, what if one of them was one of yours. These guns serve no purpose in civilian hands and need to be banned.

Absolutely Northstar, I am a gun owner and user, I enjoy the outdoors and owning a gun. A majority are like me. Not like our idiot friends that need an extension of their penis in order to play army of for what ever purpose they feel their AR serves. These people are children that never got over playing cops and robbers or cowboy and Indian. If they want to be G.I. Joe so bad, perhaps they should join our military.

What about the hammers Johntho they killed more than these weapons that have no purpose in civilans hands?

When hammers kill 20 school children call me, other wise I am not going to fall for your straw man argument that has nothing to do with the discussion

Dan Wilson - the NRA is the new mafia. It is financed by gun manufacturers as well as foreign investors who want nothing more than the demise of this country. When Wayne LaPierre is the best any organization has to act as spokesperson, you're in bad shape.

High rolla - you're a liar. Hammers do NOT kill more people yearly than assault weapons and high capacity magazines. At least TRY to not look ridiculous!

So 20 school children is more important than 20 non school children that were killed by hammers. May I ask what makes their life more important?

The NRA is the new mafia

Also, The NRA is the new Taliban.

and twenty non school children killed by hammers are more important to you then thousands of people killed by guns in general? Face it High Rolla, you have nothing. Hammers are not the subject, there is no discussion about hammers except in your own little and I repeat little mind.

Guns in general are not up for a ban. Are at least thats what we are being told thats its just assault weapons.Why is hammers not the subject since more people get killed by them than rifles? That is kinda the point Im making John. Thew fact is only 400 people per year get killed by rilfles so banning something that kills less people than hammers is pretty damn stupid.

Johntho...in many southern states feral hogs are out of control. They destroy crops and cause topsoil erosion. Aside from the fact that this invasive species devastates the food supply of many native animals.

Trapping does some good, but the hogs wise up to the traps and will not go in them. Hunting them becomes one method of controlling the equivalent of giant rats. When there are 8, 10 or 12 of them going across a field, the gun of choice is an AR15 chambered in .223. Low recoil so you can get back on the next target quickly and multiple rounds insures the ability to take out several.

So your blanket statement, "Not like our idiot friends that need an extension of their penis in order to play army of for what ever purpose they feel their AR serves." Doesn't apply like you dream.

Also, by daughter is quite efficient at taking out the hogs with the AR15, so I'm not quite sure how the "penis" part applies. But from reading all your posts, I'm quite certain you will make an attempt.

High..."Guns in general are not up for a ban. Are at least thats what we are being told thats its just assault weapons."

It works like this:

Guy walks into a school with an AR15 semi-automatic and kills 20 people. Seems reasonable to ban AR style guns, so let's do it.

Guy walks into a mall with two semi-automatic pistols with 12 round clips and kills 13 people. Seems reasonable to ban semi-automatic pistols with more than 6 round clips, so let's do it.

Guy walks into a group of tourist and pulls out two revolvers and empties both killing 4 people, reaches under his coat, pulls out two more and kills 5 more people. 9 people dead. Seems reasonable to ban revolvers, so let's do it.

See how that progresses?

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

"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

so you need a ar to kill hogs? ok It maybe it is easier and quicker but necessary? And even if it is,how about a special use permit. you see we all dont live on farms where there are gangs of wild pigs running around. some of us live in cities and suburbs.

hs321- if you use the slippery slope argument why do we have any laws. why there are cars that can go 150 miles per hour if we ban them then whats to stop them from banning cars that go 100,90 50 10 - think about that the next time your in traffic

baby boomer the only things that are necessary for humans, in order of need for survival, are oxygen, water, food and protection from the elements. I never said I needed an AR for pest control. I was replying to Johntho's black and white absolutest statement regarding ARs.

I love to listen to the back and forth bickering from the anti gunners and pro gunners, especially the anti gunners. Let me give you anti gun type some advice. This argument is completely academic. Guns are prevalent in our society and are not going away. You can ban whatever you want, but with so many of them out there, you only increase their value by banning them. The only way to achieve the results you think you want is to outright confiscate them, and you know where that will lead. You cannot legislate morality, and you cannot stop a determined person. Nothing of any significance is going to happen as far as new laws are concerned, just get over it, you've lost this debate.

Chuckzul...a rational thought in the middle of this nonsense..thanks. I would add one thought; the government will never find the unregistered guns in this country, and they won't be registered any time soon.

the last baby boomer - "hs321- if you use the slippery slope argument why do we have any laws. why there are cars that can go 150 miles per hour if we ban them then whats to stop them from banning cars that go 100,90 50 10 - think about that the next time your in traffic"

We don't ban cars that can go too fast, we legislate against speeding and punish the people who engage in that unlawful activity. And when someone in a Ferrari speeds, we don't try to take away everyone else's Ferrari. Why would you try to take away the guns of the law abiding, instead of concentrating on preventing the activity of the potential murderers?

Nah, too easy.

Well when He gets back from vacation He isn't going to be too happy with all of the politicians who used His word to advance their political agendas.

lorie -

That would be because someone has to be the adult in the room. God knows the liberals and democrats will never take responsibility for their actions!

But it certainly can be regulated. "A WELL REGULATED militia."

Why then, Jontho, does your avatar suggest banning them all? I know the real agenda. Don't try to lie to me or bullsh*t me, because I trust every moron in Washington as much as I can throw them.

I own guns, both shot guns and a couple of rifles, why would I want to ban guns? You don't trust Washington, stop voting for republicans. The right to bare arms can be regulated, otherwise we could all own rocket lauchers and nuclear weapons.

I own guns, both shot guns and a couple of rifles

Bullsh*t.

You don't trust Washington, stop voting for republicans.

You just lost all credibility. If you think the democrats are any more trustworthy than republicans or vise versa, you are more ignorant than I thought.

The right to bare arms can be regulated, otherwise we could all own rocket lauchers and nuclear weapons.

A total straw-man argument. It is not possible to defend yourself with a rocket launcher or nuclear weapon. Don't be so fuc*ing ridiculous.

OH boy, Mr Steady nailed it.

Johntho, you may be a gun owner (if you say so) but, once you say something as stupid as

You don't trust Washington, stop voting for republicans.

you are done, dismissed, your opinion looses all value. To be fair, you would have lost all credibility had you said the same about democrats, once you pin it all on one side, you show your bias and your opinion is dismissible.

This is part of the problem too many biased vested interests, one side hides behind the BS 'won't someone thing of the children' and uses nothing but emotional kneejerk responses. The other hides behind 'I got my rights' and resists common sense. Nothing will change until everyone gets off their mindless party line spouting high horses and actually THINKS about the problem. Everyone knows a gun left alone and never touched by humans will never hurt anyone and therefor the problem is people. Until we seriously punish People we will never solve the problem of violence in any form.

American Usage and Style: The Consensus. Here's what he has to say:

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' only to 'a well-educated electorate' — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

Read more here: http://constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

--------

The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner. - Report of the Subcommittee On The Constitution of the Committee On The Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, second session (February, 1982), SuDoc# Y4.J 89/2: Ar 5/5

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

In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment protects the "collective" right of states to maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms. If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis. - Stephen P. Halbrook, "That Every Man Be Armed", 1984

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

"Historical examination of the right to bear arms, from English antecedents to the drafting of the Second Amendment, bears proof that the right to bear arms has consistently been, and should still be, construed as an individual right." - U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings, in re U.S. vs Emerson (1999).

Johntho has a problem with double standards, because Obama has lied.

Mr. Steady - "I know the real agenda." Another far righter who fears the boogie man! What a sad group of little boys you guys are - always thinking the government is out to get you!

There is absolutely no reason to fear the government. History bears this out:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What a sad group of little boys you guys are - always thinking the government is out to get you!

What a pathetic little sheep you are. You believe everything the government tells you all while the evidence is in front of your face that they are blatantly trampling on the constitution every time we turn around.

When all hell breaks loose, don't come crying to those of us who warned you.

hs321: Great post. I rest my case.

Another far righter who fears the boogie man! What a sad group of little boys you guys are - always thinking the government is out to get you

Then please explain this:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/02/missouri-democrats-intruduce-legislation-to-confiscate-firearms-gives-gunowners-90-days-to-turn-in-guns/

Yes, there is definitely no reason why I should fear our government. /sarc

I just love the way some take the words "well regulated" out of the context in which it was written in order to further their anti gun agenda.

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

In other words the intention was to limit the powers of government. Not to give powers to the government. It is the same with the rest of the bill of rights.

In other words the intention was to limit the powers of government. Not to give powers to the government. It is the same with the rest of the bill of rights.

Precisely! That's why it is called the Bill of RIGHTS. The founding fathers were quite clear and consistent in their insistence that the rights of the citizens not be usurped by an authoritatian government. It would be ridiculous to argue that one amendment within the Bill of Rights was to give more power to the government while another was to take it away, especially considering that they themselves had overthrown an authoritarian power.

You are also quite correct in the proper use of the word "regulated" as it applied at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights.

"I invite you on the left to make a rational, empirical, fact based argument, leaving us without any doubt, using substantiation, that any new gun control laws will work to end gun violence."

There will never be a complete end to gun violence without taking all the guns, however Canada, England, and Australia have proven without a doubt it can be diminished. Shouldn't we take lesson from these countries that have done so much better then us at fixing their problems?

What about the clubs and hammer Johntho? As a law abiding citizen I have a right to own an assault weapon for recreational purposes. This is american where the main objective of an abortion is to kill a fetus so it want come out of the womb breathing but yet a woman has the right to have an abortion. Only 400 people a year get killed by rifles and you are wanting to take the law abiding persons right away because of a few deaths by rifles. More people got killed by clubs and hammers than rifles but yet I dont here you mentioning the deaths of those people. May I ask why those deaths are not as important?

There will never be a complete end to gun violence without taking all the guns, however Canada, England, and Australia have proven without a doubt it can be diminished. Shouldn't we take lesson from these countries that have done so much better then us at fixing their problems?

By banning and then CONFISCATING everyone's arms. Is that the lesson you want, to confiscate firearms in America? You should be more careful your mask is slipping statist. And by the way while the gun death rate went down the overall homicide rate went UP.

If you really wanted to end 'gun violence' then END THE DRUG WAR.

No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems -- of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind. - Thomas Sowell

"The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants." - Albert Camus

NRA members overwhelmingly support reasonable gun control. It is the NRA leadership that opposes gun control. Fortunately Mayor Bloomberg has started a full scale political assault against the NRA leadership.

Why are conservatives usually blamed when there is a mass murder, but it's almost always progressive liberals that steal guns then go and kill movie goers and children in school --

I would ask you provide a valid source for this bull@!$%#, but never mind, I already know the answer!

Do you right wing nitwits ever grow tired of copying and pasting some NRA chain e-mail?

DAYUM, you can't fix stupid when it comes to low information voters;

In any case, we can categorically REJECT the notion that any of the shooters in question has been shown to be a registered Democrat on a case by case basis.

1. Nidal Hasan (the Ft. Hood shooter) lived in either Virginia (his state of residence prior to being sent to Ft. Hood) or Texas, neither of which has partisan registration. Therefore the claim that he was a "registered Democrat" is false. I do not know if he voted or how he voted, but I do know that unless he was registered in a state in which he did not reside, that the claim that he is a registered Democrat is FALSE.

2. Since Virginia does not have partisan registration there is also no way to tell whether Seung-Hui Cho was a Democrat, but again because there is no partisan registration in the state we can say that the claim that he is a registered Democrat is FALSE. (Update: A more obvious point is that Cho was a resident alien, not a US citizen, so he was not eligible to vote in the US)

3. The allegation that James Holmes was registered Democrat was based on a Breitbart blogger Joel B. Pollack, who found voter registration records for a DIFFERENT James Holmes who was about the same age. Alex Jones’ Infowars and other right-wing websites then dutifully repeated the lie without verifying it. It was later determined that the Colorado Theater Shooter James Holmes was NOT registered to vote, as evidenced by this retraction: {Newly-released information on the suspect’s birthdate (which, as indicated in our initial report, was a slight mismatch), combined with new details Breitbart News has obtained about the suspect’s likely addresses, together suggest that the suspect may, in fact, not have been registered to vote.}. However, most of right-wing media continued to promote the lie without printing Breitbart sites retraction. The claim that James Holmes was a registered Democrat is FALSE.

4. The claim that Adama Lanza is a registered Democrat has been suggested based not on any evidence that he was registered as one, but on the rather dubious claim that because Connecticut has almost 2 to 1 Democratic registration over Republicans, he was probably a Democrat. (Claim: "Adam Lanza, NewtownConn murderer. Registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by about a 2-1 ratio in Connecticut. The odds are therefore that the Lanza family are (sic) Democrats.") This of course is a bogus argument to begin with, but even if we were to make the claim that a mass shooter’s political affiliation must be the same as the majority of the people in his area, we can debunk this foolish idea by taking this shoddy analysis down to the local level. Yes, Connecticut voted for Barack Obama, BUT the city of Newtown voted for Mitt Romney. If we look at the results we find that Mitt Romney defeated Barack Obama in Newtown by 7451-6784 votes or 51.7 percent to 47 percent. Republican Senate candidate and Tea Party favorite Linda McMahon carried the city over Democrat Chris Murphy by an even larger margin. Add in the other information we have that Lanza’s mother was a “doomsday prepper” and a home schooler in a Republican-leaning city and we can pretty well dispense with the erroneous assumption that Lanza must have been a Democrat (UPDATE: According to at least one media source, Nancy Lanza was a registered Republican. The source does not provide a link, but the author of this article is seeking further confirmation). We can therefore claim that with no evidence to support the claim, the assertion that Lanza was a Democrat is not demonstrated and that in the absence of any evidence it is likely FALSE.

5. Klebold and Harris of course were not old enough to vote and they had no apparent political affiliation. Allegations that they came from families of Democrats or liberal progressives appear to have no sources to substantiate those claims. What little ideology the boys demonstrated owed mostly to an admiration for Timothy McVeigh not Ted Kennedy. Harris’ father was a retired Air Force pilot and Eric Harris wanted to join the Marine Corps. The boys lived in Littleton, Colorado a relatively conservative and affluent suburb of Denver. The claim that their parents were Democrats is UNSUBSTANTIATED. Any suggestion that the two boys were Democrats is demonstrably FALSE.

Major 'smack down' Feisty!.....Darrell's post was so very wrong.....right-wing lies!

.....Down, down, down went Darrell!

Darrell's post was so very wrong.....right-wing lies!

Chilled,

I wonder why Darrell isn't spreading this crap on the NewsforDumbFux site?

Oh WAIT!

They shut down their litter box when the rhetoric got even too outrageous for them! lol

They shut down their litter box when the rhetoric got even too outrageous for them! lol

Sounds like it turned into a 'port a potty' that tipped over and spilled it's contents all over the place!

.....stinky.......

Fiesty, it is always a shame when you hit dimwit republican fascist with the facts. Ol' Darrell here must be Darrells brother Darrell.

GNOP Mantra - facts...who needs facts...we make up the facts......

like the fact that more people get killed by clubs and hammers than rifles but we wre going after rifles. God damn that makes no sense to go after the one who is responsible for less deaths. A big waste of taxpayers time and money is what it is. Why go after something that is responsible for so little of deaths? It just dont maske any sense whatsoever?

The Department of Homeland Security is set to purchase a further 21.6 million rounds of ammunition to add to the 1.6 billion bullets it has already obtained over the course of the last 10 months alone, figures which have stoked concerns that the federal agency is preparing for civil unrest.

A solicitation posted yesterday on the Fed Bid website details how the bullets are required for the DHS Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Artesia, New Mexico.

The solicitation asks for 10 million pistol cartridge .40 caliber 165 Grain, jacketed Hollow point bullets (100 quantities of 100,000 rounds) and 10 million 9mm 115 grain jacketed hollow point bullets (100 quantities of 100,000 rounds).

The document also lists a requirement for 1.6 million pistol cartridge 9mm ball bullets (40 quantities of 40,000 rounds).

An approximation of how many rounds of ammunition the DHS has now secured over the last 10 months stands at around 1.625 billion. In March 2012, ATK announced that they had agreed to provide the DHS with a maximum of 450 million bullets over four years, a story that prompted questions about why the feds were buying ammunition in such large quantities. In September last year, the federal agency purchased a further 200 million bullets.

To put that in perspective, during the height of active battle operations in Iraq, US soldiers used 5.5 million rounds of ammunition a month. Extrapolating the figures, the DHS has purchased enough bullets over the last 10 months to wage a full scale war for almost 30 years.

Such massive quantities of ammo purchases have stoked fears that the agency is preparing for some kind of domestic unrest. In 2011, Department of Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano directed Immigration and Customs Enforcement to prepare for a mass influx of immigrants into the United States, calling for the plan to deal with the "shelter" and "processing" of large numbers of people.

The federal agency's primary concern is now centered around thwarting "homegrown terrorism," but information produced and used by the DHS to train its personnel routinely equates conservative political ideology with domestic extremism.

A study funded by the Department of Homeland Security that was leaked last year characterizes Americans who are "suspicious of centralized federal authority," and "reverent of individual liberty" as "extreme right-wing" terrorists.

In August 2012, the DHS censored information relating to the amount of bullets purchased by the federal agency on behalf of Immigration & Customs Enforcement, citing an "unusual and compelling urgency" to acquire the bullets, noting that there is a shortage of bullets which is threatening a situation that could cause "substantial safety issues for the government" should law enforcement officials not be adequately armed.

As we highlighted last month, the DHS' previous ammunition solicitation was awarded to Evian Group, an organization that was formed just five days before the announcement of the solicitation and appeared to be little more than a front organization since it didn't have a genuine physical address, a website, or even a phone number.

While Americans are being browbeaten with rhetoric about the necessity to give up semi-automatic firearms in the name of preventing school shootings, the federal government is arming itself to the teeth with both ammunition and guns. Last September, the DHS purchased no less than 7,000 fully automatic assault rifles, labeling them "Personal Defense Weapons."

The Department of Homeland Security is set to purchase a further 21.6 million rounds of ammunition to add to the 1.6 billion bullets it has already obtained over the course of the last 10 months alone, figures which have stoked concerns that the federal agency is preparing for civil unrest.

Wow, did you lift that off Infowars, the Illuminati News, Above Top Secret, or was it off one of the other couple thousand conspiracy theory web sites. You really should site your source when you copy/paste chain letter emails.

After 9/11, the United States government created the Department of Homeland Security to prevent future acts of terrorism and deal with other domestic issues. Now in order to keep doing such, the agency is asking for 450 million hollow point bullets.

The DHS has signed off on an "indefinite delivery" from defense contractors ATK that will include, for some reason, nearly 500 million high-power ammunition for .40 caliber firearms. The department has yet to discuss why they are ordering such a massive bevy of bullets for an agency that has limited need domestically for doing harm, but they say they expect to continue receiving shipments from the manufacturer for the next five years, during which they plan to blow through enough ammunition to execute more people than there are in the entire United States.

"We are proud to extend our track record as the prime supplier of .40 caliber duty ammunition for DHS," reads an official statement from Ron Johnson, ATK's president of Security and Sporting, who adds that his group will also be giving up weaponry to the DHS subdivision of ICE, or Immigrations and Custom Enforcement.

While ammunition itself seems not too unreasonable of a request by a major federal entity that emphasizes domestic durability and safeguarding the country from coast to coast, the choice — and quantity — of its hollow point order raises a lot of questions about future plans for the DHS. ATK says they won their contract with the US government by being able to provide them with 450 million HST bullets, which it describes as "the next generation in high performance duty ammunition."

What does that mean, exactly? On their website, the contractor claims that the ammunition is specifically designed so that it can pass through a variety of obstructions and offers "optimum penetration for terminal performance." Or, in other words, this is the kind of bullet designed to stop any object dead in its tracks and, if emptied into the hands of the DHS a few hundred million times, just might do as much.

Since its inception, the Department of Homeland Security has not only absorbed ICE and other government entities, but has arguably extended its powers much more broadly than many had imagined. Under the recently authorized Trespass Bill, H.R. 347, protesters that allegedly disrupt occurrences acknowledged by the DHS of being a National Special Security Event will be charged with a federal crime. As the DHS gains more and more ground in fighting terrorism domestically, the US at the same time has turned the tables to make its definition of terrorist way less narrow. With any American blogger or free thinking on the fringe of what the government can go after under H.R. 347, or the National Defense Authorization Act that allows for the indefinite detention of US citizens without charge, the DHS could just be blasting through what's left of its budget to make sure that its roster of agents across the country can get in their target practice over the next few years.

Of course, the government might just want to ensure that each one of those agents is more than able to assassinate Americans not just around the globe, but on their own soil. After all, for all of those angsty alleged Americans engaged in terrorism abroad, the US has the largest military in the history of the world to deal with them. In that case, they could argue that it only makes sense to equip their armed forces at home as well.

The DHS has signed off on an "indefinite delivery" from defense contractors ATK

More tripe from the tinfoil hat crowd.

She said that the government was seizing ammunition to stockpile for use in civilian unrest.

This woman, Wasilla Village Idiot, hasn't learned a thing....I think she's incapable of any form of intelligence, intellectual thought........

Word salads, from Sarah!

Interesting, she was the Governor of a large state and a vice presidential candidate. You sit in your mothers basement drinking Old English 800 posting on an anonymous chat board insulting her intelligence. You liberals are a never ending source of entertainment!

Interesting, she was the Governor of a large state and a vice presidential candidate

Interesting, she QUIT half way through her term to which she was elected and was a major factor in John McNasty losing in 2008!

Poor thing, even Chik-Fi-A won't hire Bible Spice after NewsforDumbFux canned her... lmao

Maybe Larry Flint will give her a call, she never turns down a dollar!

She probably has all the dollars she needs. She's rich. Sitting back & laughing all the way to the bank.

Rumor has it, Palin, the former beauty queen, can't resist the lure of a runway, and has been sighted recently in Denver.

http://boingboing.net/2013/02/16/bunnies-attack-at-denver-airpo.html

The rampaging rabbits at Denver are not a new problem: In 1999 they were biting their way through the wires of de-icing equipment - and now it seems they have moved their warren to the outlying parking lots http://thewesterner.blogspot.com/2013/01/they-need-wolves-at-denver.html

Rabbits On The Runway Cause Problems At DIA [Denver] http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1586158/posts

Mikein....says:

Interesting, she was the Governor of a large state and a vice presidential candidate.

Yup.....Neither turned out very well, did it!

Oh, but wait, after failing at both, she managed to personally suck a lot of money out of the low-information base, TeaPeople.......Yeah!

Oh, but wait, after failing at both, she managed to personally suck a lot of money out of the low-information base, TeaPeople.......

Chilled,

Do you remember the pics of the knuckle-draggers her base standing in line with their "couch change" waiting to buy her work of fiction?

I had NO idea spandex could stretch that far... LMAO

They even made a calendar out of them, it's called the People of Wal-Mart!

Feisty, feisty, oh feisty.......You're on a hilarious roll, especially with this:

I had NO idea spandex could stretch that far... LMAO They even made a calendar out of them, it's called the People of Wal-Mart!

It has to be one of those old wall size calendar....those shots wouldn't fit in a wallet size calendar.

Chilled depends on what your defintion of turned out well is. It turned out to make her millions and very very popular. So from that aspect of it I would have to say it turned out pretty good for her.

Statistics say, you are 22 times more likely to shoot yourself or somebody you know then to be a victim of a violent crime. People change and so does necessity. Why can't you?

I've had guns in my household for 40 years. If people change, she did she give up her concealed carry license?

I have had guns in my household longer then you. Exactly what point are you trying to make. The fact is there is absolutely no purpose in owning one of these guns unless you plan a rampage or are so egotistical that you need something to boost your manhood.

I shoot competitions with one. Do you realize what a small percentage these types of weapons are used in shootings? It's a fraction of handgun deaths. You said there is no purpose for owning one. What is the purpose of owning a car that goes more than 100mph? It's not legal to go that fast anywhere in the US. What's the purpose of owning a $10,000 Rolex?

Well Johntho, the purpose is irrelevant. Its this neat thing called a RIGHT...read up on it.

Freegecko, The government is well within their right to regulate guns. Read up on it.

You are making a large assumption on how far that regulation is allowed before it becomes an infringement.

Look, I don't care how irresponsible you are, that means nothing. A majority of responsible gun owners agree there is no purpose for that kind of gun in civilian hands. Only a few in perspective do. You happen to be one of those. Answer me a question, IF there is a ban on these weapons and you are ask to turn yours in, will you?

The Rolex is a good example of why people want this kind of weapon in their arsenal. Basically its an ego thing only. Look what I got. I got a bigger penis then you so I win right? You can shoot competition with a BB gun, next.

You are making the assumption that the government cannot regulate guns without infringing on your rights. You are wrong.

You are full of it. "Responsible gun owners" dont support banning guns of any sort. They advocate being a responsible owner. If you are too much of a coward to live in a free America where people can exercise their rights feel free to move somewhere else.

I am not the coward here, I don't need a gun, I do own guns, but I don't need a gun to defend myself. You are the coward here.

Oh, and by the way, even a majority of NRA members themselves agree responsible gun control is needed. That was a Pew poll I believe.

Sorry, but you are clearly the coward. You are so afraid that normal day to day people are going to snap you want them as harmless as possible. Your fear of your neighbors should make you ashamed.

Yeah, I'm the coward, I don't have to have a gun, but you do. Yeah, right. Go touch yourself inappropriately, you have had your ass handed to you and are too dumb to know it.

You seem to have a real fixation with people touching themselves. I am not even sure why you keep bringing that up in a gun debate. You are losing this one, sorry.

I walked to the hospital when my husband was sick

I worked at a hospital, they are gun free zones. Did she check her weapon at the door, or simply "forgot" about it?

Did else anyone notice that the language in Feinstein's bill specifically excludes members of Congress?

Surely, you can provide a link to the bill supporting that claim. Good luck, it does't exist.

Page 15 of the acutal bill from Feinstein's site.

''(A) the importation for, manufacture for, sale
2 to, transfer to, or possession by the United States
3 or a department or agency of the United States or
4 a State or a department, agency, or political subdivi5
sion of a State, or a sale or transfer to or possession
6 by a qualified law enforcement officer employed by
7 the United States or a department or agency of the
8 United States or a State or a department, agency,
9 or political subdivision of a State, for purposes of
10 law enforcement (whether on or off duty), or a sale
11 or transfer to or possession by a campus law en12
forcement officer for purposes of law enforcement
13 (whether on or off duty);

Where in this list does it say members of Congress are excluded?

Are they not part of State or Federal Agency?

...by a qualified law enforcement officer...

Congress is not an agency or department.

An agency would be something like the FBI and a department would be something like DHS.

wait...NoMoreTax...are you a lawyer or judge or law professor?

what is the context of this sub paragraph?

what are the titles in the paragraph hierarchy?

are you taking things out of context again?

@NoMoreTax - Congress is a legislative branch of government, not an agency.

So members of Congress, who are elected by their own state, are not considered part of an agency, department or subdivision of the state where they were elected?

moot, this subsection on Page 15 of the acutal bill from Feinstein's site covers who - ...by a qualified law enforcement officer...

It says... or a qualified law enforcement officer

line 6

You're right, let's also eliminate laws against murder since people are still murdering each other.

They don't have time to worry about guns. America is falling completely apart with the Sequester. We are having to cut 2.4% of the projected increase of the spending from last year. People will die a horrible death. Planes will crash & the Black Plague will engulf all of America.

Please send help, King Obama our Savior.

jaywillie dumass

You going to answer the question or you waiting on mom to do your research for you?

Deerhunter-LMAO

We will need no laws after sequester hits.There apparently won't be anything left.

Deerhunter...with all due respect, you forgot to mention that this is all Bush's fault.

You are only law abiding until you wrongly pull a trigger, then you become an outlaw. Why can you not see you are no more law abiding then many of these mass shooters were before they went on their rampage?

So Johntho, your theory is that everyone is capable of crime and we should treat everyone like criminals? Seems foolish. You may suddenly snap and stab people so I dont think you should have knives of any sort. You may suddenly become an arsonist so I dont think you should have access to matches. That line of thinking is foolish at best and maybe you should reconsider it.

and you may suddenly get some sense, oh wait, not going to happen any time soon, you will continue the ignorance of continuing the same o, same o, which by the way isn't working. Do you touch yourself inappropriately? That would be my guess.

So you are saying you plan to continue with this foolish logic? What happened to the presumption of innocence? Do you believe in any of our rights at all?

What I am saying, is you are going to continue to be stupid while children die from gun shot wounds. Your answer is a nil. I believe in all our rights. The second amendment is as important to me as it is to you, however I don't have a screwed up vision of what it means. Remember when it was written there was no guns capable of killing more then one person at once.

Really, it is stupid to want to protect our rights and instead focus on the real things that might protect children? I have answers, or at least thoughts, on what we could be doing but you dont seem interested in those. You are a gun banner, pure and simple. You have no respect for the 2nd Amendment and that you claim its important to you is a lie at best.

And come on, when it was written there was no internet...does that mean the 1st Amendment doesnt apply? Same goes for TV. Technology advances, our rights dont change because of that.

Following Johntho's concept of disarming before the crime is committed, then I'm certain he/she will be first to volunteer having his/her tongue cut out before he/she yells "FIRE" in a crowded theater.

Or perhaps cutting off fingers before someone tweets something that would incite a riot.

Or cut off the hands before someone beats someone to death.

Or cut off the feet before someone kicks someone to death.

Hey, I like Johntho's concept of disarming before the criminal act can take place.

Soon there will be no more sticks, bats, clubs, vehicles, knives, swords, meat cleavers, bricks, rocks.....ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could have all our rights and freedoms without any risks?

Unfortunately, the world never has and likely never will work that way.

But people with the emotional maturity of a 12 year old can still dream.

Toronto strict gun laws, Canada strict gun laws, very few murders compared with the U.S. Chicago is not a good example as those in Chicago hell bent on breaking the law simply go to Indiana to purchase guns or straw men go to Indiana to buy guns for resale in Chicago. See the problem he is you offer nothing but negative, no solution just more of the same that has led us to be less safe then many mid-eastern countries. Third world countries are safer. Account for that.

Illinois residents cannot buy handguns legally from Indiana or Wisconsin.

Even at gun shows? liar.

Check your law before you call me a liar. You can you only purchase long guns in Indiana and Wisconsin if you are not a resident. Nice try MORON! Maybe you should find out actual facts before spewing your crap.

Jonhtho, again you prove your ignorance. He is correct, it is against federal law for that to happen.

Bovine excrement award given to free. It happens all the time. Answer me this, when does a gun become illegal? It is legal when it leaves the factory, is it when it is sold, or is it some other time?

Speaking of morons, so explain how all the guns got to Chicago? Let see, straw men go to Indiana as an example and buy a bunch of guns and bring them back to the city and you f-ing know it. Others are stolen from others that do not take ownership seriously enough to keep them locked up. Every gun is legal, when it leaves the factory, how do they get in the hands of "outlaws". Liar.

You said yourself that they go to Indiana or straw men purchase them, but they can't because it's illegal for dealers to sell a handgun to an Illinois resident. Your not the brightest crayon in the box are you?

Happens all the time. Ask you the same question, how did all the guns get to Chicago then? Of course they flew in. Speaking of crayons, your pretty dim yourself. You've had your ass handed to you and are too dumb to know it.

If I did, it certainly wasn't by you.

Absolutely right, this is political theater, Washington Kabuki.

johntro.,

In # 17.2, nomoretax, said 'legally'. Straw-man purchases and out of state purchase of handguns are illegal. He was right, you were wrong.

However, criminal black market sales do happen every day, yes. But I have to admit, I could never find out which Walmart did a straw-man sale of a full-auto AK-47 that ended up in a drive shooting by gang bangers.

Its turning them off in states that would vote that way anyway...the rest of free America is unaffected.

A Black Democrat representative,who is anti-gun winning in a district that has been that way for about 50 years does not represent"sea change"'

A Black anti gun democrat winning in a White Republican district that is pro gun would constitute"sea change".

Bob you are right about what moves people to vote for whom. Those people are generally low information voters with a single pet ideology. I am also from MA and would vote for a candidate despite their stance on guns, assuming they were not a crazed anti gun nazi but a common sense decent person, assuming of course none of the other dozen or so important positions matched my thinking.

However one massive problem our system creates and actually encourages if Politicians playing the masses. You get a feel for what sells and what does not by the type of tripe the media gets away with pushing in a given market. The Politicians (whether they get cover from these media outlets or dodge them) know what the mindless mass will swallow and spew that over and over. Doesn't mean they believe it or even remotely care, it is what will sell. With so many of the mindless masses stuck on one often irrelevant issue the politicians know how to work them and, as is said Democracies get the government they deserve.

Chris: "However one massive problem our system creates and actually encourages if Politicians playing the masses."

Yep. Both sides. Make that all sides.

Deerhunter: "Prosecute the Criminals, leave gun owners alone."

Gladly, if you'll point out the phat phuk gun owners who sold 29 guns to FBI most wanted criminal James "Whitey" Bulger.

No?

How 'bout you point out the phat phuk gun owners who sold 18 guns to Richard Schmidt, the convicted felon, killer and right-wing neo-Nazi.

No?

How 'bout you point out the phat phuk gun owners/dealers who sell hundreds or thousands of guns to Chicago gang-bangers?

Gee, I wonder what it is that keeps the ATF from culling Phat Phucks from the ranks of responsible gun owners?

Prosecute the

phat phuk gun owners/dealers who sell hundreds or thousands of guns

like the ones who sold those assault rifles to the Mexican cartels,lost them,have no plan for recovering them,and would just like to forget about the fact it ever happened?

TheBATFE and Holder's justice dept,like them?

Gee, I wonder what it is that keeps the ATF from culling Phat Phucks from the ranks of responsible gun owners?

probably the fact that they should be prosecuted as criminals themselves,for violation of US law and the death of Brian Terry.

Other than that,nothing.

Bob in Boston, how about we point out the guns that arrived in Mexico through Fast and Furious by our own Eric Holder and company? You would rather not talk about that, would you? The criminals we should be prosecuting start right at the top of the command chain, with Obama the number one public enemy.

Bob, you can not play the d bag anti gun owner game without first addressing fast and furious the biggest 'phat phuk gun owners/dealers' as you put it are Our president and attorney general and until they come clean on that or solve the problem that it all there is to that.....

But that is a stupid solution.

why don't we put strict guidelines in place and regulations on Hollywood on what they are allowed to produce? ...If we are throwing the 2nd amendment out the window, we might as well do the same to the first!

I think they need to take this question off the reporter Job Application.

17. Are you a Democrat or one of those gun loving nut cases

sorry too long.

Sorry. It was easier making them just one post.