@ Simple: Yeah, good luck with that! That's funny.

HI! Mickey!

Hey Monkey, 'BUZZ', Mountyboy...cheer up.. Life is good... and Jesus Loves you....

What part of "SHALL NOT INFRINGE" dont you understand? Gun Control doesnt work, it wasnt meant to work. It was meant to be used as a graduating form of gun confiscation. Criminals dont obey gun laws. Gun Laws dont stop people from stealing guns. No gun law could prevent what happened in Conn.

Looking through the news post today i see several prominent professional commentators on here.You can tell by the way they always manage to be the first post.Their job is to make a post then attack any who disagree.Their mission to is to keep the population at odds with each other.I wonder how much they get paid to keep this country in such a state of disruption.Worse yet is what they expect to get out it in return.This isn't about Democrats or Republicans.This is about someone that for some reason doesn't want anyone to get along.I won't name the commentators here.Most of you already have a good idea of who they are.i am sure that a few of them will attack me on here shortly after this has been posted.God bless America.

Well, once again, Americans will keep the country free and our rights safe.

As much as they tried, the left could not whip up enough hysteria to pass more irrelevant gun laws.

What part of "SHALL NOT INFRINGE" dont you understand? Gun Control doesnt work, it wasnt meant to work. It was meant to be used as a graduating form of gun confiscation. Criminals dont obey gun laws. Gun Laws dont stop people from stealing guns. No gun law could prevent what happened in Conn.

Good question..wonder if one of the three wise dolts (Monkey, Drivel By or Mounty Boy) can answer this? probably not..one will be fixated on crabs, the other being a Canadian Pederast and lastly just a run of the mill idiot from NY....

Lets just see....

Layton,

The chamber of Congress in the discussion is the Senate, not the House. No wonder you have trouble getting anything right.

wolf ... everyone who posts here has an account into which pennies dribble ... I have not checked of late but after some 2000 odd posts, I believe I an up to a buck 37.

@ Simple: Yeah, good luck with that! That's funny

So...you want a master. Little bitty AG needing a leash and some kibble and not get kicked too much.

Now, that's funny.

So...you want a master. Little bitty AG needing a leash and some kibble and not get kicked too much.

pay no mind to the Moose Knuckle. just tell them to cheer up..they hate happiness.

Read the entire amendment and keep in mind the time it was written.

yep and then follow it up with S.C. rulings on it...

How about reading the definition of "WELL REGULATED" in 1789, vwterry. It means "well trained" not licensed and prohibited. Just once I want to see a prominent senator stand up and admit "We have no Constitutional basis for ANY gun laws, and they are all, therefore, unConstitutional and null and void. THAT guy would get my vote for president no matter which party he was in.

Alaska girl you do suprise me and that's a good thing.You can have my check after i retire on Friday.I actually thought about going to Alaska but i heard tales of terror about the mosquitos.Plus even though i am a moderate i still can't stomach Palin.P.S i don't recall seeing you screen name on the list of screen names that were researched by a security organization.Yes there are groups out there that keep tabs on all this.Not to worry,like i said i retire friday at 1pm est.

Oh, sweetie, the things I do with a leash and a collar would turn your ears red. I am the master.

I see they taught you to speak..you got that...whats next walking? lifting your leg to pee?

Many Democrats who think with the head , not with emotions, are against the madness of Diane "Festin", to impose non sense gun control like the liberal ,Major "Blumger" in New York who loves stupid regulations, without a serious investigation , those measures will not work to stop crimes, so far all measures are addressing law abiding citizens not criminals and prospect killers, additionally previous ban to the so called assault weapon, never works. The only way to stop crimes is taking away guns to all the American citizens , which is against the Constitution, even so, criminals will get guns in the black market like always,

support universal background checks

explain this

Try clinging to your BIBLE INSTEAD OF YOUR GUNS

I'll cling to both..how bout you try it...instead of your pitchfork and copy of the State and Revolution

Forward, the Communist and Nazi Slogans of the early 20th century.

Read the entire amendment and keep in mind the time it was written.

Read the Federalist papers. There is no need for speculation as to the Founder's intent

money.msn.com/personal-finance/c_galleryregular.aspx?cp-documentid=250650831

copy & paste the above for an interesting article about 5 common things that are HARDER to get then a gun...its pretty pitiful, actually...

Libertads love regulations.......New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg — who banned 16-ounce sodas, trans fats in restaurants and public smoking — has a new bug in his ear: young people who play their music too loud through their headphones

Bloomberg's an Independent. Just keepin it real, man.

I note the great Culus has been shopping at Thor Steinar. Nice suit Caesar ... looks made to measure. Wear it with pride now.

Thanks to Wayne LaPierre, the NRA is now out in the open. First we cut them off...and then we crush them

That's about as uninformed and idiotic as it gets...even amongst the left.

Oh, sweetie, the things I do with a leash and a collar would turn your ears red. I am the master

Yeah, you can choke yourself with it, or let your lord and savior do it. here's a site to explain yourself to you AG.

Anonymousconservative.com

Bloomberg's an Independent. Just keepin it real, man.

yeah lets see, soda's, magazines (clips as you idiot libs call them), and now headphones...Quite the crusader for righting the injustices. Tackling the tough issues. Maybe he can go play whiffleball with Crissy Mathews

MSNBC,

Ike was a brave man...and a Republican. Obama and Hipshot Joe are two clowns neither brave nor decisive.

Did you notice in the article that even this site knows that nothing will come of supposed gun control hysteria this round either. There are too many Americans ensuring that the panic from the left will cause no harm to American freedom.

Senate Democrats negotiating a bill to require all gun buyers to get a background check have abandoned discussions with GOP Sen. Tom Coburn, leaving the legislation -- at least for now -- without backing from a pro-gun Republican.

Yep, more legislation the Progressives have STOPPED dead in it's tacks in the SENATE. Just wait until Mr. "Pocket Veto" Reid gets ahold of it......it will vanish forever.

The Progressives are just doing what they are supposed to do......deny.....deflect.....deceive.....and BLAME Bush the Republicans for more legsilation failure.

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

FLYeisty must be at a PROGRESSIVE seminar to learn how to continue to blame Bush the Republicans. Or maybe she just went back home to Wisconsin or on a vacation to her villa in Florida with the rich and famous.

Neale,

What kind of training do the majority of people who own guns have. The ones I know have gone out, purchased guns and ammo, gone somewhere secluded and fired away. No training, no regulation. And if we don't know who they are, how does the nation call them up? At the time the 2nd amendment was written, this country had no state or local police force and a very small standing army. The advent of the National Guard created the "well regulated militia" that the writers of the amendment envisioned.The definition of the word militia has always included "part of an organized force of armed citizens liable for call to military service".

To pick out a single word and try to use that as your foundation misses the truth of the dialog.

KC_NC,

My guns have never killed anyone.

We will fight every gun control measure because once it starts, it will never stop until our guns are all gone.

Monkey...remember RTI late summer man... you can tell me all about how much of a coward I am to my face...dont worry, i aint risking jail time or a .40 cent bullet on your sorry ass...but we all know already I've thrown that guantlet down and the best you can do is insert that tampon....

Thats ok, we understand...and cheer up...life is good my friend

Get an education. Get a job. Do not have children (you would just abort them anyway).

I thought they all had jobs overseeing PHD's on big projects...eh NY? what do you say? thats ok Pawn...Zugzwang

vwterry, #1.24- What do you think "Well Regulated Militia" means? (not being facetious, just really curious to know)

Myself, personally, I think it refers to "Police" and "National Guard". Not meaning that there wouldn't be any way for an Individual's Gun ownership to be connected, by proxy as part of "well regulated", to either of those.

FearlessEducator

more dribble so tell me where are the facts to support your dribble?? let us be a bit wild here and say a truck load of guns is being delivered to a warehouse and some one highjacks it and sells the guns. Is this the selling and buying that you refer to?? Or person(s) breaking into a home and taking guns and selling them to other thugs, is this the person you refer to?? Or breaking into a police stockroom full of confiscated guns, and selling them this too. Yep you are a fearless educator alright. BS

- What do you think "Well Regulated Militia" means?

Monkey Ny...what do you think it means? EPA runs the militia right? i bet ....TOUCHE' loverboy

cheer up, Life be Irie

I only call the cops to do the paper work.

lol

gun control is hitting you attend target.

and I am for ten day back ground checks but that's about it.

MSNBC,

Sure they were liberals. Let's see:

-white businessmen who were

-against more taxes,

-believed in God,

-knew that weapons were necessary

-were not cowards

-and wanted to maintain the status quo free of government intervention.

Hardly sounds like any liberals today, eh?

They would accept my "distinctions" because I am well educated and have been around long enough to know that people of your kind are the dead weight that kills free societies.

FearlessEducator

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

Two things stand out.

1. The dependence of a well-regulated milita. It seems as though without that element, the whole statement becomes void.

Well tough guy the US Supreme Court COMPLETELY disagrees with you. Read Heller vs. the District of Columbia. They have REPEATEDLY stated that the Amendment provides for invdividuals to have the right to own and possess weapons in common use meaning the AR15.

2. Of course, criminals don't obey gun laws. They buy guys from people who obey gun laws. That is why people need to be accountable for background checks before gun sales. Most of the arms in criminal hands were purchased legally through straw purchases. Be accountable for your guns and hold others accountable as well.

Again youre full of it. Straw buyers are ALREADY criminals and have been in bed with the Mexican Cartels. Consequently the number of weapons coming north across the border from Mexico vs. headed south are disproportionate. Cartels funnel automatics like Uzis and Tech9s because gang members pay top dollar for weapons that spray bullets. Consequently they are illegal weapons from the start often available on any city street for the right price with no serial numbers, not bought buy some law abiding citizen who already went through a background check numbnuts.

Maybe if they focused on the current laws on the books and determine WHY they aren't getting enforced to begin with YA-KNOW...

"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important."

"The supremacy of the civil over the military authority I deem [one of] the essential principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration."

"Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a people’s] freedom and subversive of their quiet."

"Bonaparte… transferred the destinies of the republic from the civil to the military arm. Some will use this as a lesson against the practicability of republican government. I read it as a lesson against the danger of standing armies."

"The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so."

"Our duty is… to act upon things as they are and to make a reasonable provision for whatever they may be. Were armies to be raised whenever a speck of war is visible in our horizon, we never should have been without them. Our resources would have been exhausted on dangers which have never happened instead of being reserved for what is really to take place."

All these quotes are from Thomas Jefferson. Seems he favored a militia of the common man to protect our nation, not a standing army to terrorize the world.

He also told us to fear when bankers got control of our currency (Federal Reserve), and that the Judicial Branch should be governed by Jury (Us).

The laws we have on the books today are just fine. Only the liberal left speaks of gun show loopholes, straw buyers for cartels- should be Eric Holder was the largest ever Straw Buyer..... but let's blame the NRA anyways...

Kind of like blaming the Surgeon General for abortions.

To the US GOVERNMENT:

-FIX THE BUDGET- or at least submit one!!!! We little people have to live on a budget or we go bankrupt.

-CLOSE THE BORDERS TO MEXICO

-NO MORE LOBBYING

-TAKE OIL SPECULATION OFF WALLSTREET- Can't wait for the $5.00 gallon of gas this summer.....

-PRODUCE OIL FOR ONLY THE USA FIRST THEN EXPORT FOR PROFIT GOING TO THE US COFFERS

-FOCUS ON JOBS LIKE A LASER BEAM.. where have i heard that before?????

-GET TROOPS BACK FROM OVERSEAS

-NO MORE GIVING OTHER COUNTRIES "FREE MONEY" from the taxpayers.

Then the USA might stand a chance to survive. DONE

Gabrielle Giffords IS NOTHING BUT A TOOL OF THE OBOZO administrations attempt to destroy the 2 nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

Caesar Augustus-

... he's on my jock constantly.

I just threw up in my mouth

The phrase molon labe; Modern Greek pronunciation means "Come and take". It is a classical expression of defiance reportedly spoken by King Leonidas in response to the Persian army's demand that the Spartans surrender their weapons at the Battle of Thermopylae.

Let's see th Liberal Cowards Come and take It

So who could do a background check on a buyer or seller for that matter at a sale of a gun in a driveway or yard of a house somewhere between two ordinary people? Do you eyeball the guy for tattoos?

For what, anyway? What will a background check law do to curb violence?

Mrs. Lanza's background was checked. The check did not curb violence at Sandy Hook.

Rhee,

See post #1.49. I'm ok with that definition.

The NRA is the tool of the gun lobby and sells fear and ignorance. Only fools are buying it. Beware folks selling fear and ignorance.

Every one has a responsiblity to the our society. There are no rights without responsiblity.

The part that is a mystery to me for John McCain for example, indignant about the tragic death of 4 US citizens in Lybia and completely indifferent to the death of six people in his own state at the hands of a home grown assasin.

What is it that makes the lives in Lybia so valuable and lives of the citizens of Arizona killed by an American citzen with a gun, so cheap ? And what about is colleague Rep Giffords? Where is the indignation about the assualt on her ? Where is his out rage ?

The myth of the law abidingcitizen - In the USA we have assumption of innocence. The killer in Netwon was a 'law abiding citizen' right until he killed his mother. The aurora killer was a law abidding citizen right until he walked into the theater and opened up on the people there. The Giffords Killer was a law abidding citizen until he walked up behind Rep Giffords, put the gun to her head and pulled the trigger blowing away part of her head. Law 'law abidding citizen tag line is meaningless.'

I heard recently, that VP Biden wanted legislation to outlaw the letter "L" from the alphabet because it looked like a gun, but alas, Nancy Pelosi came out and point out if he did that, there would be no more LiberaLs.

I would have supported that legislation.

Just another defeat for Obozo and his goal to destroy the United State Constitution

Gee could have told you this would go no where, oh thats right i did, Obama's loosing Ground fast!! Yet he thinks taking the GOP out to dinner and a couple of hookers will get his destructive agenda forward, LOL what a joke, but whats worse is there are still Obama Slaves believing the lies , just so many traitors wow amazing

"Well Regulated" in 1781 meant "keep your powder dry and your cock oiled". There were no police or national guard. Preparedness was for defense against tyrants and in particular to tyrants that might come walking down your street.

Recently the Supreme Court decided the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms. Don't be confused by popular notions about word meanings about words like "regulated" and "militia".

KC_NC

start with "though shalt not kill,"

The correct word used in the commandment was "murder". As in "thou shalt not murder." Be difference isn't it. One is the taking of a life and the other is the taking of an innocent life. So, when the guy busting into your house to rape your wife is shot by you, you are not a murderer.

WE got more problems in this country then gun control..stick with our problems..not our protection!

When congress can agree about a budget..then worry about gun control..until then..STFU!

I love the "well regulated militia" bit that anti-gun advocates always cite. Of course, the 2nd amendment, when this bit isn't pulled out of context, says:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

It doesn't say that the people are the militia. It says that because of the country's need for a well regulated militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Now, I can get into the nitty-gritty about what well regulated means (the supreme court's definition) and also what shall not be infringed means, but really, if you have to look them up... you really shouldn't be in this argument in the first place. Of course, if you knew anything about firearms in the first place, you'd recognize the silliness of almost all of the legislation they are trying to pass right now.

Starman, they would probably have to be male hookers before the GOP got interested. Yeah, starman, more then half. Matter of fact he got 53% of the vote compared to the best you guys had to offer. Well not actually, had you put Jon Huntsman up against Obama you might have had a chance, at least he is no liar and he is well qualified, especially in foreign affairs. Before that it was Bush, remember him, the worst president in my lifetime and I go back to Truman.

AlaskaGirl-759554 wants her victims defenseless.

[quote]Ed McT-2404427

The GOP wants more money from the NRA. They want more children murdered. All Republicans are traitors. End the GOP![/quote]

Not a brain cell to your name.

Actually Jontha; He got 51% of the vote but, lets look at how that actually works out. Less than 60% of the legal aged people in this country are registered to vote and of those registered only 68% voted so what that means is that obama actually only got roughly 25% of the legal aged voters to vote for him...

Just because he got the majority of the votes in that election does not mean that the majority of the people agree with him!!!!!!

The majority do not agree with him or libs and since only about 15-20% of the population is lib they are not the majority either...

If it would not have been for odumbass buying votes in the last 6 months before the election he would not have won but he made sure to give out billions of taxpayers money to those who are to lazy to go out and work and support themselves, and free rides to criminal border crossers so they could vote for him, and took over $150 million dollar in bribes to push the homo agenda to get his votes from them. That is nothing to be proud of!!!!!! That you won an election by buying votes and selling out the country and letting criminals get a free ride on the backs of the hard working taxpayers, is not something to brag about it is something to hang your head in shame about!!!!

So since I have now proved to you that the majority do not agree with his destroying our country I will now explain why gun laws do not work, it is really easy for anyone with any brains at all, even just a little bit of brains, as a matter of fact a five year old can figure it out. CRIMINALS DO NOT ABIDE BY THE LAWS!!!!!!!!

Do you have a brain or are you smarter than a five year old???????

Matt-343495

The GOP wants more money from the NRA. They want more children murdered. All Republicans are traitors. End the GOP![/quote]

Yea , Yea, Yea, and DNC wants take away guns from woman so Democrats gangs can rape them, Democrat want to take away guns from grandma so she can be killed , take their money and give to a Democrat politician. Is is stupid, at least I recognize my statement is stupid , it means I'm not stupid. Do you recognize your statement is also stupid.

Really Oskar, we don't need to take away your guns. We have drone mosquitoes and a new incurable malaria to deal with those we really want to take out. Ain't gotta take no guns away from anyone to do that.

KC_NC Comment collapsed by the community

Constitutional rights are NEVER UNLIMITED, and are always "infringed upon" to some degree, because others have their rights, too . . .

So stop pretending your 2nd A right to maintain a militia means you can own any kind of weapon you want, & do with it what you please. YOU CAN'T. This very conservative SCOTUS has said so.

The only time someones rights are, as you say, "infringed" is to directly protect the rights of another. Please do explain how my owning a gun of any type directly infringes upon your, or anyone else's, rights in any way. So much for that bit of BS.

Snag! It should hit a full stop! Background checks by the government DO NOT WORK! Illinois for instance promises, states by law they will respond to your FOID card renewal within 30 days and they are running 6 months to approve one now. By their very own laws they are turning law abiding citizens into felons by owning a gun without a valid FOID due to their own mismanagement of this system. The federal government will not do any better, once they have this mandate all they need to do is drag their feet and you become a criminal gun owner. Silly libs you think you can just shove @!$%# down our throats and make us like it or we will just go passively? Go back to your hemp bowls....

Instead of worrying about law abiding citizens owning guns you should be worried about Holder and Obama shipping them to the drug lords and letting them kill our citizens... oh no that's right that is OK because their politicians, they don't torture anyone with drops of water they just drop a bomb on their own citizens with a Drone! What a tragedy your ill informed vote has gotten us for another four years.... very stupid and uneducated votes. What have you done?

Simply upgrade existing laws to make even jay walking a felony and there ya go. Speeding more than 5 mph over the speed limit, make it driving to endanger and there's another felony. It just goes on and on.

This "new gun regulation" PutOn Circus would be funny if It were not tragic. Now adam lanza was the catastrophy waiting to happen taking "brain meds", AntiDepressants, as his delutional mom introduced him to guns and gave him carte blanche access to them. He was criminally insane, whacked his mother and killed those kids. If our "law makers" had any B@LL$ At All there would Be An American National HealthCare System with Psychiatric Outreach Teams who would spot that little sack of $H!T and Commit him. This whole gun legislation thing is a coverup for what is really going down: Out of Control EVIL Rich and their Corporations Ruining America Socio/Economically and a President who seems very intent on becoming the next Caligula. "Ignore the man behind the curtain"..But let the $H!T Hit The Fan and blame it on Guns or the next convenient Patsy. THAT IS what Parading State and Federal Politicians do while they "ROLLOVER and Spread" for the Evil rich and their Corporate Police State.

Senate Democrats negotiating a bill to require all gun buyers to get a background check have abandoned discussions with GOP Sen. Tom Coburn, leaving the legislation -- at least for now -- without backing from a pro-gun Republican.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!

Oh yeah, that's the reason.

You can see the Liberals knees buckling as their constitutents have been bombarding their offices with calls to keep their hands off our guns.

The all important "background check" has so many flaws it will never work.

In 1993, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act required the establishment of a national database known as the National Instant Background Check System (NICS), where the names of people ineligible to possess firearms are to be entered.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence reported last year, the day before the Tucson shootings, that between Jan. 1, 2008, and Aug. 31, 2010, the number of disqualifying mental illness records submitted to NICS by states and territories had more than doubled – from 402,047 records to 929,254. Adding federal records brings the total to nearly 1.1 million.

But the Brady campaign argues that “millions of relevant records” are still missing from the system. The National Center for State Courts and SEARCH, the National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, estimate that the NICS Index should contain more than 2 million disqualifying mental illness records, according to the Brady campaign.

This problem is magnified by this statistic from the National Institute of Mental Health.

Mental Disorders in America

Mental disorders are common in the United States and internationally. An estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older — about one in four adults — suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year. When applied to the 2004 U.S. Census residential population estimate for ages 18 and older, this figure translates to 57.7 million people. Even though mental disorders are widespread in the population, the main burden of illness is concentrated in a much smaller proportion — about 6 percent, or 1 in 17 — who suffer from a serious mental illness. In addition, mental disorders are the leading cause of disability in the U.S. and Canada. Many people suffer from more than one mental disorder at a given time. Nearly half (45 percent) of those with any mental disorder meet criteria for 2 or more disorders, with severity strongly related to comorbidity.

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-numbers-count-mental-disorders-in-america/index.shtml#Intro

Here’s the problem.

The National Center for State Courts and SEARCH, the National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, estimate that the NICS Index should contain more than 2 million disqualifying mental illness records.

But the NIMH states we have about 57.7 million Americans that suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder.

So, do we just ignore the other 55.7 million Americans that suffer from mental illness? Or do we require all those 55.7 million other Americans are included.

And if that’s the case, do all 313 million Americans have to undergo mental health testing? If so, who is going to be responsible for testing this massive amount of people?

What if someone is tested and found to be mentally competent and then goes out and still kills a group of people? Who is responsible? The shooter? The Psychiatrist/psychologist? The gun dealer?

I don’t think many people understand the enormity of the statement, “keeping mentally unfit people from buying guns".

Rhee & vwterry {et al}: This is for you. The ACTUAL definitions used by the courts, judges and congress...

Regulate. v.a. [regula, Lat.] 1. To adjust by rule or method. - Locke, 2. To direct. - Wiseman
-- Dictionary of the English language by Samuel Johnson, 1768, 3rd edition

militia (mə-lish'-ə). 1. A body of citizens armed and trained, esp. by a state, for military service apart from the regular armed forces. • The Constitution recognizes a state's right to form a "well-regulated militia" but also grants Congress the power to activate, organize, and govern a federal militia. U.S. Const. amend. II; U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 15-16. See NATIONAL GUARD. [Cases: Militia 1-3; Weapons 1. C.J.S. Armed Services §§ 288-289; Weapons §§ 1-8, 61-62.]

reserve militia. All persons who are not exempt from military service and not actively serving in the armed forces OR national guard.

2. Roman law. Military service.

-- Black's Law Dictionary, 8th Edition [page 1014]

In other words: "A well trained and ordered body of ARMED CITIZENS IS NECESSARY for the security of a free state, the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

Sorry Rhee, it ain't the National Guard. It IS the balance of the citizens who can be called by their respective governors, to be trained to aid the military/National Guard. Take a look at your State Constitution and you'll see that to be true. For Ohio, It's under Article IX.

Ohio Constitution Article IX: Militia

WHO SHALL PERFORM MILITARY DUTY
§1. All citizens, residents of this state, being seventeen years of age,and under the age of sixty-seven years, shall be subject to enrollment in the militia and the performance of military duty, in such manner, not incompatible with the Constitution and laws of the United States, as may be prescribed by law. (1851, am. 1953, 1961) Constitution of the State of Ohio (with amendments to 2006, page 55)

It isn't about "being a cowboy". It isn't about hunting. It isn't about recreational target shooting. It IS about being vigilant against invaders, both foreign AND domestic, AND the potential tyranny of our own government. It is both a right coupled with a frightful responsibility, and an understanding that We the People are willing to live with the inherent dangers associated with small arms. And of entrusting the People to be the ones in charge of the armed forces.

Anyone can "disagree" with the above all they like, but those are the facts.

Most of the points made in this vine so far have been running between ridiculous and outrageous. Oh, well, it's to be expected, I suppose.

What I don't understand is . . . why wouldn't people want to keep guns out of the hands of those who are mentally disabled? Did any of you watch the video that accompanied this article with SC's Graham about the woman who had been declared insane by the courts, and then, after some time passed, she was able to go out and buy a weapon! Doesn't that mean anything to you?

I don't want people with that type of illness to be walking around with guns.

@ vwterry

Read the entire amendment and keep in mind the time it was written.

Sounds great in theory Terry. However, that's how the government bypasses The Constitution. Using the newer definition of redefined words. IMHO The Constitution should not be rewritten, but it should have each and every word defined as what they meant at the time The Constitution was written as well as the specifics of things that existed at that time and have been improved since (such as firearms). At the time "arms" meant ALL FIREARMS. It never excluded ANY type or make of a firearm that existed at the time.

But, times have changed. We no longer have a government that is for the people anymore. We have politicians in our government that are for their party and/or against the other party, regardless. And they work for the highest paying lobbyists or their own special interests.

I say let everyone keep their guns. They're next to being obsolete anyways. Drones and computers are changing the playing field now. Just make laws that will make the owner of a weapon used to commit a crime just as responsible for the crime as the person that simply sat in the car while their buddy robbed the bank. They can't prove it was stolen, then charge them with the same crimes committed by the person that used their weapon. It gets proven they illegally sold the weapon to the criminal, then double the sentence.

I recently joined the NRA becuaswe you libs want to take away our guns and our bibles. No thank you we will keep our guns and bibles claose at hand just in case we are in need of either one.

Hey MSNBCMFE what do you know about military hsitory or do you know nothing about nothing. If you want to lock and load dude it is time to rock and roll.

It's like this socialists;

You can keep your fork and spoon or whatever it is you shove your guts full of food with and have all the Obesity your unhealthy oversized hearts disire. You can have all the cok in whatever orifice you choose.

We'll keep our guns and our freedom.

And you keep your grease sloth'd sociological manipulative grimy paws out of our pockets and our libertys' ya lazy worthless pieces of blubber and we'll see who dies the horrible death first o.k.

Leave us, our Constitution and our unfettered rights out of your slobbering cok sukk'n mouths ya butt pounding cowards..

How's that....

Leave us, our Constitution and our unfettered rights out of your slobbering cok sukk'n mouths.

How's that....

So that's what a gay republican in the closet sounds like. Thank you for the clarification.

Constitutional rights are NEVER UNLIMITED, and are always "infringed upon" to some degree, because others have their rights, too . . .

The 2nd Amendment is the only amendment which clearly states "shall not be infringed".

How many votes determined presidential election? Hmm. 80 million gun owners? Hmm. Obamma is going to do mortal damage to the democratic party with his assault on assault weapons.

No Mike,

That's what someone you'll never take the rights away from sounds like and it's someone that will put those grease tainted teeth down your throat to defend those rights for his families sake will say.

Really Chosen, are you even old enough to own a firearm? Or are you as mentally unsound as you come off? I have a feeling these laws are going to nail you square in the holster should they get passed.

I'll stand my ground on what I said about whats for my families sake and anything else that may come from your socialist mouth about me is none of your business.

WOW, I am just absolutely disgusted with the comments on here. I can't believe the childish immature crap that so many of you have posted here. You are an embarrassment to the People of this great nation.

As for my right to bear arms? IT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Not for the scared pussies to feel safe. Not for the Idealogical peaceniks to experience their utopian dream. Not for the would be dictator who would steal our freedoms. Our forefathers were far more intelligent than 98% of all who comment here combined, therefore I will abide by their dictate and defend my right to bear to maintain my freedom with my life.

Go ahead, call me a pussy, deride my character, make the unfounded assertion that i will roll over and lick my nuts when the sh-t goes down. You don't know me, and I challenge any of you gun control trolls to say that sh-t to my face. You just might end up sucking soup through a straw.

Stay away from my rights or go f-ck yourselves in hell.

If violent crime is to be curbed, it is only the intended victim who can do it. The felon does not fear the police, and he fears neither judge nor jury. Therefore what he must be taught to fear is his victim."

Try this fools ... Remove ALL guns from criminals and I will contemplate giving up my AR-15 and SKS . Do not try to make a law abiding person such as myself into an instant criminal . You may get MORE than you bargain for with some . Until I feel I need NO protection I will not give up my ability to ...

Then there's Biden: I told my wife if she hears someone outside too just grab that LOADED shotgun in the corner ( UNSECURED ), hold it over the balconey and fire off two shots!! At what, only Joe knows ? The Joe Bidens of the U.S. are the irresponsible gun owners that get children killed.

AlaskaGirl-759554

Sounds like the NRA may have put a gun to Coburn's head. Too bad, I thought that finally a Republican would stand up and do the right thing regardless of the NRA.

#1 - Wed Mar 6, 2013 6:26 PM EST

Ensuring that laws protect the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens IS the right thing, regardless of the emotional, knee-jerk, "feel-good" measures that the anti-gun crowd would like to see imposed.

The 40+ laws that Adam Lanza broke in the process of killing those people in Newton didn't stop him, and the proposed laws wouldn't have stopped it either--even VP Biden has publicly admitted that fact. The only thing the proposed laws do is further infringe on everyone's 2nd Amendment and other rights.

Backhouse

GOP/Koch may start out smiling -

But then will water down, block or destroy whatever -- every time.

And they want:

You/us/every day people to get used to it.

I suppose if you believe in Koch Brother/NRA magic, then it is inconceivable to you that Americans really aren't all that behind gun control once they realize what the gun control authors have actually written down and are actually trying to pass.

Just look at the NY SAFE act... what a mess that thing is. Just look to states where it takes a year and a half for law-abiding people to legally obtain a weapon while criminals stream them across borders.

Then you realize that it's not the Koch Bros. or NRA.... it is the failings of gun control advocates and leaders themselves.

HYPOCRITES:

The politicians who give free assault weapons, uniforms and training to Americans who will kill people thousands of miles away from the US and really no threat to America

BUT

Will demand to take these same assault weapons away from the families of those Americans inside the United States who want to defend "their America" from Mexicans who invade the US, steal US resources, push Mexico's drugs, launder American money, traffic in humans, and distort American laws and values.

Get a gun your going to need it when Obama lets the U.N. take over in U.S. territory

Based on reading each poster's comments, I'd say the defenders of the 2nd Amendment far outnumber those who want more control over guns. Just a thought for you anti-gun advocates to ponder; Most elections are decided by a polarizing issue. Remember 2006 with the Democrats swept into both the House and Senate with a super majority in the Senate. What was the polarizing issue? The Iraq War. Then in 2010, the Republicans took control of the House with a large majority and reduced the Democratic Senate to a simple majority. What was the polarizing issue? The Affordable Care Act better known as Obamacare. Now the next election will be 2014. Do you really want the people polarized over guns? Democrats could lose the Senate and even more seats in the House. It's a real possibility.

Like another poster stated, I too, joined the NRA last month. Why? Not because I'm an avid gun owner, heck, the only guns I own were left to me by my father, who hunted. I do not hunt and haven't fired a weapon in over twenty years. I joined the NRA BECAUSE I am concerned the Government wants to take away another freedom which the Constitution guarantees me. That scares me and it should scare everyone. Look a little deeper into this issue and....THINK ABOUT IT!

Some nutty poster earlier wrote: "...Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you, Mr. Vice-President for Ike's brand of leadership.."

Ike never voted present or recommended shooting through your front door, we have two buffoons in the white house, neither one leading.

Republicans are afraid of drones; but not assault weapons killing citizens daily? How asinine.

Bev, the Boston Globe came out with a study today that said in areas of strict gun control there is not as much violent crime. Seems you are right, Republicans today are asinine.

vwterry, #1.74- Thank you so much for your reply. I posed the question right before I had to leave for dinner and a movie with my Son and am just now able to get back to this thread. Also, I'm very sorry that I had missed your post, #1.49 before posing the question to you. What a GREAT! post, #1.49. Great to read. So clear, concise and logical. Thank you, again.

GrimReffer24601, #1.68- GREAT! post. I think the one thing that jumped out at me in your post was the reference to "Civil" and the realization that People have forgotten (or been brainwashed away from knowing and believing) that "Police" are Civil Servants. They are part of "Civil" Society of "The People", not divisionally part of the Executive Branch designed to be automatically above and in opposition to The People, instead of "nuetral", like a Jury of Peers would be to the Judicial. Peer simply meaning "Ally, as in not of the Judicial). Police should be Allies and allied with The People, (call it the Civil Branch, if you want), not the Executive Branch. Basically, The People's Well Regulated Militia have been wrongly captured and trained, even in mentality, as a Militia to be used "against" The People. National Guard was obviously wrongly "bait and switch" captured and wrongly sent to Iraq and Afghanistan, instead of remaining Stateside where they belonged. (And it really burns me that in all this talk about and naming mass shootings it seems like it's been purposely omitting to leave out the mass shooting that took place out West in a Diner that killed "unarmed" National Guard amongst its other victims while a Republican Presidential Candidate was "campaigning" not too far away). Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) also said "Ignorance of the law is no excuse in any country. If it were, the laws would lose their effect, because ignorance can always be pretended." I think it's just inane, bordering on detrimentally ludicrous, to try and "spin" Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers into being "Rebels" seeking to create "unorderly" rebellious, anything goes free-for-alls. There's nothing wrong with rebellion, but it has to be and show to be "meaningful".

DaveM-877764, #1.69- EXCELLENT!!!....ditto....EXCELLENT!!!!....ditto.....EXCELLENT!!!!!

This is as far as I could get this morning but will try and get back later today to respond to some other comments where I just quickly saw "Rhee" referenced, if you'd like to further reply, vwterry.

Johntho wrote

"...Bev, the Boston Globe came out with a study today that said in areas of strict gun control there is not as much violent crime...."

Tell that to the people of Chicago, a leader in our nation for murders. And gun control in Newton is pretty rigid too, how did that make a difference?

Spiddas: I always just ask this: If the word regulated in the 2nd Amendment meant government control of the weapons, then why wasn't the government doing it then? There were no backgroud checks, no limits on the number of guns one could own, no limits on the types of firearms one could purchase, no waiting periods, no limits on ammunition. None of that was in place, yet the liberals will try and convince you that regulated meant just that. The only problem they have with their argument is that there is absolutely no historical evidence to support their position. NONE!

In most cases, very simple logical questions, in regard to the arguments of the left, are all that is needed to expose their agenda.

And so I ask, if regulated was meant to apply to the weapons, why weren't they doing it then? It's always fun to watch the head of liberal explode when they are faced with logic, reason, and a question they can't answer with ANY type of sensible response.

StoAmerica, you go tell that to JAMA, who did the study, a four year study involving 50 states, with actual figures and truths, not something you make up.

By the way, you bring up Chicago, lets talk about Toronto. Strict gun laws with the surrounded area with strict gun laws. Low instance of gun crimes, or gun violence. That isn't the whole thing, you need to do some research, you and other gun nuts are really wrong about this one.

So connotrep, are you saying tanks, rocket launchers and grenades are not regulated? How about fully automatic weapons? You are wrong, and always will be.

Under current law, Americans only have to get a background check if they're buying a gun from a licensed dealer.

hey senators....I realize that you cant see the world simply, you need to make drama by complicating everything...but here's a suggestion...

MAKE IT ILLEGAL TO PURCHASE GUNS FROM ANYONE NOT A LICENSED DEALER!!!!! wow how hard is that?

amendment still in tact...wow and to think im doing all this from my desktop. That will be $$$(senator pay) for my work, ty and I will take that via wire.

What a shame.

Still...I think we should keep trying to pass knee jerk laws under emotional duress.

Funny thing about studies, they can say most anything you want. Remember, most of the people who do the studies have an agenda and the results can verify their agenda. I wonder what the Boston Globe's agenda was? Boston, a bastion of liberal views, I'm sure it wasn't biased.

KC_NC

Constitutional rights are NEVER UNLIMITED, and are always "infringed upon" to some degree, because others have their rights, too . . .

...
#1.34 - Wed Mar 6, 2013 7:39 PM EST

By all means, please enlighten us as to how someone exercising their 2nd Amendment rights has any bearing upon the rights of anyone else. No doubt we'll all be fascinated by your answer, if you can provide one.

"...shall not be infringed."

Johntho

So connotrep, are you saying tanks, rocket launchers and grenades are not regulated? How about fully automatic weapons? You are wrong, and always will be.

#1.124 - Thu Mar 7, 2013 8:55 AM EST

You realize that this post did nothing to refute or otherwise take away from the point that ConservativeNotRepublican was making, right? Tanks and fully automatic weapons did not exist at the time, although versions of rocket launchers and grenades certainly did. Please identify the historical laws that show the regulation of rocket launchers and grenades. THEN you would be addressing the point he was making.

Mystery Rhee:

People have forgotten (or been brainwashed away from knowing and believing) that "Police" are Civil Servants.

The reason law enforcement has forgotten who they work for is because the government is the one who actually cuts their paycheck. They won't bite (or fail to protect) the hand that feeds them.

MAKE IT ILLEGAL TO PURCHASE GUNS FROM ANYONE NOT A LICENSED DEALER!!!!! wow how hard is that?

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you still not understand? Those four words means no regulations, no laws and no limitation to our right to be armed.

Maybe the only problem with our Constitution is the people's inability to comprehend what they read.

ConservativeNotRepublican:

It's always fun to watch the head of liberal explode when they are faced with logic, reason, and a question they can't answer with ANY type of sensible response.

As I teach my children, "Facts will ALWAYS trump feelings." Libercommies despise untainted statistics, facts, logic and reason. They defend MOST rights guaranteed under the First Amendment, and apply those same standards to most of the others in the BoR. But then want to throw everything out the window when it comes to the Second, Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

As I stated in the final paragraph of my first post:

It isn't about "being a cowboy". It isn't about hunting. It isn't about recreational target shooting. It IS about being vigilant against invaders, both foreign AND domestic, AND the potential tyranny of our own government. It is both a right coupled with a frightful responsibility, and an understanding that We the People are willing to live with the inherent dangers associated with small arms. And of entrusting the People to be the ones in charge of the armed forces.

And we've even been warned by many of the leaders of the past which they virtually worshiped...

"By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' 'the security of the nation,' and The RIGHT OF EACH CITIZEN 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy... The Second Amendment STILL remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which EVERY CITIZEN MUST BE READY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DEFENSE OF HIS COUNTRY. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will ALWAYS be important." -- John F. Kennedy

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ... THE RIGHT OF THE CITIZENS TO BEAR ARMS IS JUST ONE GUARANTEE AGAINST ARBITRARY GOVERNMENT, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America BUT WHICH HISTORICALLY HAS PROVEN TO BE ALWAYS POSSIBLE." -- Hubert H. Humphrey

And those they do not...

"There are those in America today who have come to depend absolutely on government for their security. And when government fails they seek to rectify that failure in the form of granting government more power. So, as government has failed to control crime and violence with the means given it by the Constitution, they seek to give it more power at the expense of the Constitution. But in doing so, in their willingness to give up their arms in the name of safety, they are really giving up their protection from what has always been the chief source of despotism -- government." -- Ronald Reagan

All we need to do is remember our history and the fact that this country was founded IN rebellion of repressive government control.

History of the British gun control program that precipitated the American Revolution:

• 1774: Import ban on firearms and gunpowder.
• 1774-75: Confiscations of firearms and gunpowder; and the use of violence to effectuate the confiscations.
• 1776: American Revolution Starts.

I can not understand the problem with back ground checks for those bying guns../ What are they hiding if they are afraid of that item ? And assualt weapons..just what does the general public need with those weapons unless they mean to kill many with them ? I have to assume that the NRA fells we do not have enough crazies with weapons today..we need more so no to any kind of checks to keep crazies from their guns. Granted..nothing stops criminals from getting guns..plenty are bought and sold person to person not caring one way or the other. In protecting my home I do not need an assualt weapon....a rifle or pistol will do just fine....not afraid of a background check either..hiding nothing here..however it seems much is being hid elsewhere.

@ KC_NC

What's the difference between a gun with wooden grips or black plastic? What's the difference between one firearm that shoots one bullet per pull of the trigger VS another gun that shoots one bullet per pull of the trigger?? What's the difference between one 20 round magazine that you can fire off in seconds, and two 10 round that you can fire off in seconds, with one second inbetween for loading?? And if you ban the black plastic gun that shoots just like every other gun, just how will the reduce violent crime??

Please answer those questions for me... OK??? Or any OTHER anti-gun person..

Ivan: Those of us who believe in the Second Amendment do so because we understand that the purpose is to give the people the right to defend themselves against government. It's not about hunting, sport shooting, going to the range or anything like that. It is about one thing and one thing only: Giving the people a means to protect themselves from a despotic government.

When Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he wasn't just talking other governments, he was also talking about our own government. That is a point liberals never acknowledge. However, just because liberals can not bring themselves to acknowledge it, does not mean it does not exist. The reason they will not acknowledge it is because they too know that point is the very heart of the Second Amendment. And to acknowledge it means they prove every other argument they make to be false. This is why modern day liberalism ...( and modern day, not to be confused with classic Jeffersonian liberalism which is almost the direct opposite of post Wilson / FDR modern day liberalism ) ...is constantly trying to circumvent the Second Amendment, by legislation. They know exactly what its true purpose really is.

So, those of us who are opposed to gun control, are opposed because we know the main purpose of the legislation is always designed to provide information to the government. It is none of the government's business how many weapons I might own, or of what type. It is because the Founders did not believe that government was entitled to that information that the infringement statement was written. They had seen first hand that one of the first things governments who wish to control their populations do is to attempt to disarm them. And what better way to make things easier for a government to do that if they know who you are, where you live and what kinds of weapons you have.

That's why those of us who understand what the Second Amendment is all about are opposed to that kind of legislation.

Now, there are many who would say that times change, weapons are more advanced, so on and so on. And for those people who say that, it might surprise you to know that I actually agree with you. And that is why the Founders put in place a mechanism to change the constitution if enough wanted it changed. But until it is changed, then "shall not be infringed" is the law of the land.

Change the constitution if you think you can make that argument stick, but I don't think you'll have much luck.

"Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."

^{-Alan Dershowitz}

I can not understand the problem with back ground checks for those bying guns../ What are they hiding if they are afraid of that item ?

It's not a matter of hiding anything or fear. Just as it's none of the government's business what I say on the telephone, it's none of the government's business, nor anyone's business for that matter, if I choose to purchase a firearm and exercise a right clearly granted to all citizens which "shall not be infringed".

It is nobody's business. Period.

1.136 and yet...your personal info is just a click away on the internet....info you have already provided

RI Mom: Not quite, but close. It's only true if one is dumb enough to use real names, identifiers and accurate information. This is why they, (Big Brudda), wants everyone to do just that. Fortunately, this violates, at minimum, the Fifth Amendment. If people knew half of what I have learned about our "government" and TPTB they would be spitting nails. Henry Ford was right...

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." -- Henry Ford

1.136 and yet...your personal info is just a click away on the internet....info you have already provided

Even if it was, it was my choice to provide it.

1.138

Your Government has given you a Military, the FDA, the FAA, public schools, social security, interstate highways, warnings on cigarettes, national parks, and toda...the Violence Against women Act.

So, it is unfortunate that you are so unhappy.

Explain:

Fishing License Permits

Boat trailers registered

Garage Sale Permits

Car Registrations

Snowmobiles Registered

Online tax info for your home

Social Security Registration

A license to run a junk shop

A bingo license in a church

LInkedin... your info

Facebook... huge social info

And yet, some gun owners insist that a gun registration will lead to "confiscation".

Good luck with that.....

California, Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland, Wisconsin, Michigan, New York, New Jersey have gun registration on their books....

This whining about Universal Gun Checks...puzzling

Spiddas,

"A well trained and ordered body of ARMED CITIZENS" not just a bunch or random people heavily armed walking around.

"A body of citizens armed and trained, esp. by a state" Again, not just some group of guys deciding for themselves what is right or wrong but under the leadership of the state.

"reserve militia. All persons who are not exempt from military service and not actively serving in the armed forces OR national guard." As is stated "all persons who are NOT EXEMPT from military service" who can then be called into duty by the state or federal government. If they were exempt they could not be called.

It IS the balance of the citizens who can be called by their respective governors, to be trained to aid the military/National Guard. Take a look at your State Constitution and you'll see that to be true. For Ohio, It's under Article IX.

Ohio Constitution Article IX: Militia

WHO SHALL PERFORM MILITARY DUTY
§1. All citizens, residents of this state, being seventeen years of age,and under the age of sixty-seven years, shall be subject to enrollment in the militia and the performance of military duty, in such manner, not incompatible with the Constitution and laws of the United States, as may be prescribed by law. (1851, am. 1953, 1961) Constitution of the State of Ohio (with amendments to 2006, page 55)"

Again, what you have offered supports the contention that there are written parameters that must be followed in order to constitute a militia by the definitions you have used. There is no way this can be understood to mean any random individual or band of people, independent the control of the state, can form a military or paramilitary group that will act without regard to the laws of the country.

Fishing License Permits

Boat trailers registered

Garage Sale Permits

Car Registrations

Snowmobiles Registered

Online tax info for your home

Social Security Registration

A license to run a junk shop

A bingo license in a church

LInkedin... your info

Facebook... huge social info

And yet, some gun owners insist that a gun registration will lead to "confiscation".

Good luck with that.....

California, Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland, Wisconsin, Michigan, New York, New Jersey have gun registration on their books....

This whining about Universal Gun Checks...puzzling

What is so utterly foolish and puzzling to me RI Mom are your examples, none of which are afforded the Constitutional right "shall not be infringed" as is the 2nd Amendment.

Debi is "infringed upon" if she registers her guns

Is she "infringed upon" when she registers her car?

Has that registration of her her dog's license challenged her constitutional rights?

Registering a gun hasn't limited her ability to pull the trigger...or depending on the State Law, carry it concealed.

So tell us Debi....in your attempt to "hide" from the government...are you filling out your taxes? Are you choosing NEVER to give out your address, your e-mail, your telephone number...as that "infringes" on your privacy?

This "infringement".... does it happen often?

vwterry: Two words - Idaho Militia.

Their governor actually supports what they are doing, and they are even going to other States to train their people as well. And they're just a group of guys, (and their families), who go out to routinely train.

The funny thing is that in Ohio there is no mention that they cannot call women as well as men.

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

RI Mom: Debi actually is correct. You are trying to compare rights and privileges. Apples and oranges. Anything that requires a license or permit is a privilege. This is why CCW is unconstitutional. I have been on LEO/PO websites where they discuss NEVER obtaining a CCW permit for that very reason. As such, registration would convert your RIGHT into a privilege to be lost at THEIR discretion. Ain't happening!

Fishing License Permits - NOT REQUIRED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY

Boat trailers registered - PRIVILEGE

Garage Sale Permits - NOT REQUIRED IN MANY LOCALITIES

Car Registrations - PRIVILEGE

Snowmobiles Registered - NOT REQUIRED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY

Online tax info for your home - COURT RECORDS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN PUBLIC THEREFORE IRRELEVANT

Social Security Registration - NOT REQUIRE BY LAW (SCOTUS RULED SSN NOT REQUIRED TO WORK IN USA)

A license to run a junk shop - ???

A bingo license in a church - DON'T GAMBLE

LInkedin... your info - NOT A MEMBER BY CHOICE

Facebook... huge social info - NOT A MEMBER BY CHOICE

And yet, some gun owners insist that a gun registration will lead to "confiscation". - HISTORICAL PRECEDENTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN SET.

California, Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland, Wisconsin, Michigan, New York, New Jersey have gun registration on their books.... - STATE'S OPTION (THE CHOICE OF THEIR RESIDENTS)

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

"The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED by the citizenship TO the agencies of government." -- City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944

"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government." -- The Supreme Court of the United States, in U.S. v. Cruikshank 1876

vwterry, #1.141- ANOTHER EXCELLENT POST!!! Thank you for providing such. I'm just now getting back to this thread and was going to reply to spiddas but you did it so well there that all I could possibly say is "ditto" that for me.

Debi-1314897, #1.130- EXACTLY! But additionally, what I meant by "People have forgotten or been brainwashed to not know" was intended to be generally referring to "People" being Society, as a whole, and not just the "Police" literally forgetting themselves!

Also, in "meaning conveyance" of sentence construction, you would say "It was he", not "him" so as to be able to turn the sentence construction around to properly also connote the same conveyed meaning "He was it". "The right of the people to keep and bear arms; a well regulated Militia necessary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed." (the two components of the sentence, linked ny a semi-colon are inseparble in meaning. One relies on the other for the sentence to exist, then, "comma".....shall not be infringed. (both, as one)

RI Mom:

When citizens of this country don't even know the differential significance between a Constitutional right and a car registration, we're in deep doo doo; while the government continues to decimate our rights by taking advantage of the uneducated.

Contrarian @ 1.108 You obviously have the exact same problem I do. You struggle when you're faced with telling someone how you "really" feel about them. I have the exact same problem. When I want to tell liberals that I think they're anti American, Constitution hating, delusional pieces of DOG SH!T, I just never can quite bring myself to tell them that I think they're anti American, Constitution hating, delusional pieces of DOG SH!T, even though that's really how I feel about the vast majority of liberals.

But, I vow to persevere, and maybe one of these days, I will be able to break myself of being so nice and tell the liberal anti American, Constitution hating, delusional pieces of DOG SH!T that I think they're anti American, constitution hating, delusional pieces of DOG SH!T.

But until I can bring myself to actually tell them that I think they're anti American, Constitution hating, delulsional pieces of DOG SH!T, I guess I'll just have to suffer with my inability to tell them that I think they're anti American, Constitution hating, delusional pieces of DOG SH!T.

Since you obviously have the same problem, I'm sure you can relate to my dilemma. Kindred spirits seemingly often suffer the same inabilities, as is clearly the case with yourself and myself. By your post at 1.108, I know you must understand how it is.

Rhee: It's late and I do not desire a long dialog on the subject. I would just like to know what you are meaning regarding a semi-colon, as I am not aware of one in either writing...

As passed by the Congress:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

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

ConservativeNotRepublican:

#1.147 - Indeed... {giggling}

Spiddas,

From KXLY News,

"Idaho Governor Butch Otter, in a letter regarding the Idaho Militia dated Sept, 2011, wrote-

"I do not in any way endorse any of these 'militia' groups. They have no affiliation with me, the State of Idaho, the Idaho National Guard, or the armed services of the United States."

Governor Otter then clarified his position regarding the militia even further by writing, "I do not recommend or advocate any level of involvement in militia activities."

The militia men and women say they need the governor's OK to be activated, so his position on their activities was a disappointment."

So unless there is more than 1 governor it seems you have your information confused with reality.

CONSTITUTION
OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
APPROVED JULY 3, 1890

ARTICLE XIV
MILITIA

SECTION 1.
PERSONS SUBJECT TO MILITARY DUTY. All able-bodied male persons, residents of this state, between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years, shall be enrolled in the militia, and perform such military duty as may be required by law; but no
person having conscientious scruples against bearing arms, shall be compelled to perform such duty in time of peace. Every person claiming such exemption from service, shall, in lieu thereof, pay into the school fund of the county of which
he may be a resident, an equivalent in money, the amount and manner of payment to be fixed by law.

SECTION 2.
LEGISLATURE TO PROVIDE FOR ENROLMENT OF MILITIA. The legislature shall provide by law for the enrolment, equipment and discipline of the militia, to conform as nearly as practicable to the regulations for the government of the armies of the
United States, and pass such laws to promote volunteer organizations as may afford them effectual encouragement.

SECTION 3.
SELECTION AND COMMISSION OF OFFICERS. All militia officers shall be commissioned by the governor, the manner of their selection to be provided by law, and may hold their commissions for such period of time as the legislature may provide.

SECTION 4.
PRESERVATION OF RECORDS, BANNERS, AND RELICS. All military records, banners, and relics of the state, except when in lawful use, shall be preserved in the office of the adjutant general as an enduring memorial of the patriotism and valor of
the soldiers of Idaho; and it shall be the duty of the legislature to provide by law for the safekeeping of the same.

SECTION 5.
NATIONAL AND STATE FLAGS ONLY TO BE CARRIED. All military organizations under the laws of this state shall carry no other device, banner or flag, than that of the United States or the state of Idaho.

SECTION 6.
IMPORTATION OF ARMED FORCES PROHIBITED. No armed police force, or detective agency, or armed body of men, shall ever be brought into this state for the suppression of domestic violence except upon the application of the legislature, or the executive, when the legislature can not be convened.

The militia men and women say they need the governor's OK to be activated, so his position on their activities was a disappointment."

Would forming a militia against a suppressive government require the government's permission/authorization? Lol

Btw, Spiddas may have been referring to Gubernatorial candidate Rex Rammell and his support of the militia.

INFRINGE, Debi, is not the same as PROHIBIT.

Sensible regulations, is NOT an INFRINGMENT.

Taking liberties with the the 2nd Amendment to appease your personal secretive life that has disregard for limits or regulations ....is wrong.

There are laws in this beautiful country that are intended to make us safe. Your insistence that you won't register a killing weapon is defiant, but not admirable.

You pass a TEST to get a driver license..you EARN that right to operate a vehicle. When you have an accident, they look at your license. Does that "infringe" upon you because DECADES ago there were no cars?

Your arguments will be confirmed when they come for your guns.... oh wait....unless you are a felon, a criminal or defy the law...that will be NEVER.

But...you go ahead and creep yourself out with imagined fears.

vwterry & debi: It was from a piece on MSN that was featured sometime last fall. Since my web history does not go back that far, I have been searching for it online to no avail. As such, debi may be correct regarding the actual 'who'. I just remember that they were going to other States to help set up and start the training process for these other lawful groups. They key word being lawful.

Would forming a militia against a suppressive government require the government's permission/authorization? Lol

Common sense is a dangerous tool, ain't it? ~_o

--------

RI Mom: WOW!!! I don't know where you get your information, but it's WA-A-AY off...

Infringe, in-fringe': v.i. 1. To break or violate a law. 2. To trespass or encroach; followed by 'on' or 'upon'; as, to infringe upon one's rights. syn. - Violate, transgress, encroach, infract, intrude, invade, trespass. -- Webster's Universal Dictionary of the English Language (Unabridged, 1937)

...the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
...the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED.
...the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE TRANSGRESSED.
...the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE ENCROACHED UPON.
...the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRACTED.
...the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INTRUDED ON.
...the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INVADED.
...the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE TRESPASSED UPON.

Prohibition and "regulation", (as you define it), are most certainly infringements. And "sensible" is just another one of those vague terms that anyone who is determined on being a tyrant can twist to their liking. (See the tale of "The Wolf and the Lamb'' - An Aesop's Fable)

You pass a TEST to get a driver license..you EARN that right to operate a vehicle. When you have an accident, they look at your license. Does that "infringe" upon you because DECADES ago there were no cars?

Once again you are pulling apples to oranges as driving is a privilege. Not a right. You may have the ''right to free travel'', but that mode is limited by the method used. (See post #1.144)

And if they do eventually make it a crime to own any guns, then it would automatically make criminals out of many people.

Only 22% of Americans believe gun control will reduce crime
58% of Americans believe violent crime would be reduced if more people had guns
65% of American gun owners say they would defy gun confiscation
52% of gun owning Democrats would defy gun confiscation
70% of gun owning Republicans would defy gun confiscation
73% of gun owning Independents would defy gun confiscation
77% of gun owning Men would defy gun confiscation
52% of gun owning Women would defy gun confiscation
68% of gun owning whites would defy gun confiscation
54% of gun owning non-whites would defy gun confiscation
58% of gun owners with a college degree would defy gun confiscation
69% of gun owners without a college degree would defy gun confiscation

Anderson Robbins Research (D) / Shaw & Company Research (R)

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

"By calling attention to ‘a well regulated militia,’ ‘the security of the nation,’ and The RIGHT OF EACH CITIZEN ‘to keep and bear arms,’ our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy... The Second Amendment STILL remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which EVERY CITIZEN MUST BE READY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DEFENSE OF HIS COUNTRY. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will ALWAYS be important." -- John F. Kennedy

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ... THE RIGHT OF THE CITIZENS TO BEAR ARMS IS JUST ONE GUARANTEE AGAINST ARBITRARY GOVERNMENT, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America BUT WHICH HISTORICALLY HAS PROVEN TO BE ALWAYS POSSIBLE." -- Hubert H. Humphrey

"There are those in America today who have come to depend absolutely on government for their security. And when government fails they seek to rectify that failure in the form of granting government more power. So, as government has failed to control crime and violence with the means given it by the Constitution, they seek to give it more power at the expense of the Constitution. But in doing so, in their willingness to give up their arms in the name of safety, they are really giving up their protection from what has always been the chief source of despotism -- government." -- Ronald Reagan

"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws." -- Edward Abbey father of environmental movement in"Abbey's Road", 1979

(Note: Please forgive and typos or errors in this post as I'm in a bit of a hurry. Thanks.)

1.153

When voting hours are cut back in highly populated areas... that is an INFRINGEMENT on our right to vote. It does not PROHIBIT our right to vote.

Tell me...why are you whining? Have you been prohibited from owning a gun...or are you "anticipating" that you will be PROHIBITED from ever owning a gun?

Because so far, gun ownership has EXPANDED.... with more allowances....and loopholes.

WHY does a UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND check infringe on our rights? Because so far, NOTHING in any of the hundreds of posts from the crying crowd supports their self-serving paranoia.

Want a credit card..... do a background check.

Does that annoy you?

It appears that your "facts" are somewhat fluid in their accuracy and you then go in another direction rather than clarify. Interesting tactic when faced with reality.

I wrote about "random people heavily armed walking around". This letter from the standing governor of Idaho confirms the opinion that they have no sanction from the state, and therefore are just random folks (who appear to enjoy dressing up and giving themselves self anointed titles).

"I just remember that they were going to other States to help set up and start the training process for these other lawful groups. They key word being lawful."

Who attached the term "lawful" to these groups? If it's just your word, say so. That would allow anyone to declare anything "lawful" as long as it complies with their own limited views and preferences. If a person is willing to do the research it is easy to find that the militias in Idaho that you refer to are in violation of sections 2,3,4 and 5 of the Idaho State Constitution. That puts in question your adding the word lawful to the description. The state has chosen not to pursue legal actions against them as their numbers are so small the cost of prosecution would not be justified.

There is a running theme in the pro gun postings with words like suppressive, tyrannical, despotic and on and on. What you seem to be ignoring is this country has a democratically elected form of representative government today as has been the case for the life of this country. Just because the current administration is one you don't agree with in no way makes it tyrannical. Someone said in an earlier post that if there are some who don't like the 2nd amendment then they should work to change the Constitution. In the same way, if you don't like the current administration then they should work hard to change it through the legal, constitutional mechanism of voting. Threatening to overthrow the government through violent means is equivalent to seditious speech and is, by law, illegal (18 U.S.C.A. § 2384 (2000)(18 U.S.C.A. § 2385 (2000) and punishable .

Sensible regulations, is NOT an INFRINGMENT.

Lol. According to whom? The dictionary and definition by RI Mom? Who are you to define what is sensible and what is not? Anyone who compares the rights granted in the Constitution to the privilege of driving is certainly not qualified to make that determination.

"infringe: To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing."

Now do I also need to provide you with the definition of "encroach" or can you handle that one yourself?

Regulating is encroaching.

You pass a TEST to get a driver license..you EARN that right to operate a vehicle.

As an American citizen, we are born into our rights. Testing is unnecessary, although for people who equate the "privilege" of driving with a Constitutional "right", testing should be a requirement.

But...you go ahead and creep yourself out with imagined fears.

Hmmm. Who really is the one filled with fear? It reminds me of the husband (or wife) who accuses the other spouse of cheating, when in reality, the one who is doing the accusing is the one doing the cheating.

Want a credit card..... do a background check.

Is this another one of your "Constitutionalisms"? Your civics ignorance is deafening and an embarrassment to the American people.

Ohhh the name calling from Debi

I'm "ignorant" for asking her what currrent INFRINGEMENT imposed on her has been unconstitutional.

Poor anonymous "don't tell me what to do, Debi keeps running to a dictionary to justify her displeasure against a universal gun background check.

And yet...once again...her explanation is hollow.

A sensibible regulation...DON'T DRINK & DRIVE.... got a problem with that too, Debi?

How about... PAY YOUR TAXES.... or DON'T MAKE KIDS WORK IN FACTORIES?

BTW: The "cheating" analogy....priceless for being a random, incoherent "reminder" of yours.

I'm not concerned by your rant... the majority of American folks, law makers, and police think you are wrong too.

Universal Gun Controls ARE sensible....and there isn't a dictionary that can help you defy that.

uhhhh... Driving a vehicle needs skill, insurance, a license and responsbility... I NEVER said it was a privilege. .... so what the heck are you talking about?

Debi: It looks like we got at least a couple here who are can only focus a couple pixels of the entire picture, rather than the whole picture. They do not see that privileges are not rights, nor rights, privileges. Legal is not lawful, however lawful is most certainly legal. They can quote references, but don't fully understand the interaction with other laws, constitutional or otherwise. When the Bill of Rights was written, even a felon had the lawful right to a gun. When the initial stages of gun control started, it was like letting the nose of the camel into the tent. Now they're trying to slip the rest of the camel in, bit by bit. And these people don't realize they are being used as tools to defend it. Boiling the damned frog... And they wonder why they're called sheeple and zombies...

uhhhh... Driving a vehicle needs skill, insurance, a license and responsbility... I NEVER said it was a privilege. .... so what the heck are you talking about?

It's completely hopeless Spiddas. When someone says they NEVER said driving was a privilege and considers it a "right", and who views the term "civic ignorance" as name calling, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

This is a prime example of the failures of our educational system, and unfortunately, there are many more just like her.

Hey Spiddas

Scroll to the TOP for the TOPIC....here's a hint:

a bill to require all gun buyers to get a background check

As you so SENSIBLY remarked

lawful is most certainlylegal...... When the Bill of Rights was written, even a felon had the lawful right to a gun.

True...but SENSIBLE regualtions ....and laws...make that illegal now. And that is a good thing.

This dictionary defense that you & Debi are clinging to has nothing to do with expanded universal background checks.

Deflecting the TOPIC.... and all that jibber-jabber about "rights" and "privileges" is what you 2 brought up...not me.

I NEVER entered those words as a debate issue...you did!

Essentially, you are arguing with and against yourselves.

If concealed weapons are allowed in some places, and if 21st C. technology puts more better targeted guns on the retail shelves.... HELL YES, I want all of you "law-abiding" citizens to demand universal background checks.

WHY the obstinate stubborness?

What are you "proving" ?

Saying it won't make a difference is not "proven"...it's your self-centered theory....that the MAJORITY does not agree with.

Sensible & Responsible gun ownership.... I'm ALL for it.

Calling me names.... that's your schtick.

Debi....I'll give you a HUGE thumbs up if you can find the quote where I actually say

driving was a privilege and considers it a "right

Post 1.136 ...you claim you have a "right" not to register a gun....and if Universal Background Checks do become the law in your State...you'll be breaking the law.....

WAIT... are you DRIVING without a license too?

All I have to say to you RI Mom, is to continue arguing with a fool, would only make two.

Poor Debi...could not find that crazy bit she made up about my making an issue out of Rights & Privileges.

So again... she twirls, pivots, deflects and and refers to me as the fool.... yet, she can't make herself credible

How frustrating!

1.130 What part of "shall not be infringed" do you still not understand? Those four words means no regulations, no laws and no limitation to our right to be armed.

There isn't a Supreme Court, or a Supreme Being, who will back up your statement on "infringement"....truthfully, I doubt if Spiddas shares the same arrogance against laws as you do.

You've blustered and pontificated, and hallucinated a dialogue that never happened... while claiming to be a expert on constitutional law..... but you just keep digging yourself into a bigger hole.

Your amusing stance on how NO ONE tells Debi what to do.....reads like a temper tantrum.

Maybe you should brush up on civic ignorance.

Spiddas: You know what the definition of a camel is? A horse built by a liberal government committee.

Spiddas: You know what the definition of a camel is? A horse built by a liberal government committee.

Get the hook.

Dang, tough crowd.