its is a threat..chicago style thug politics

Eric -- It was Democrats in the Senate that would not let Harry Reid put the bill on the floor. There wasn't going to be a filibuster. He didn't have the Democrat votes so instead of outing them he protected them and opted not to protect the children. Let's see a list of the Democrats that would have voted against the bill so you can call them out for 2014.

Ben, exactly. He did them a favor by not bringing it up for a vote. When the lefties would have seen the roll call of the vote, they would have been pissed and there would be some dems who may be in jeopardy of not getting their ticket punched for their continuing ride on the "Train to Ruination" (Obama administration) after 2014.

It's the majority decision. But we also learn from history that the majority opinion is not always right, though.

Oh you mean the gun thing. Thought for a minute there you were referring to the 2012 Presidential election.

Go ahead and present it on it's own to the Senate and let them vote.

I already know how my Senators are going to vote on it. If the people of my state do not like the way they vote then the option to vote them out when their term expires is there. Let's see how much popular support is behind this. I can tell you that in some states a vote for the assault weapons ban could very well be the straw that breaks the camels back to send them on their way. In other states voting against it could be the same thing.

Has it ever occurred to anyone that perhaps the reason it doesn't have the popular support of the Senate is that the Senators may be representing their state and their states wishes? Let the Republic we have created work.

Bloomberg urged members of the public to tell congressional opponents of the gun control measure that they will “support whoever runs against you, no matter who they are.”

I am probably in the minority amongst the Progressives, but arent those the same blind political tactics that got us into our current gridlocked mess?

This is the new "Litmus Test"? If the candidate is not Pro-Choice but they support Gun Control then I should blindly vote for them?

I am NOT a single-issue voter, I will vote for the best candidate no matter which political party they represent.

Ben,

But they allowed an amendment to the bill for an up or down vote on the assault weapons ban and limiting high capacity magazine as a separate vote … so you will get the names of those for and against.

Well, what if the Senate votes to ban assault weapons, and the House overwhelmingly does not. Dems will be toast come 2014 elections, IMHO.

Americans don't back this ban. Why?

.

.

Because Americans know that this ban will not do one damn thing to stop gun violence! They ARE NOT STUPID!

.

Then again, they did vote for Obeyme

He did them a favor by not bringing it up for a vote.

too bad too..i wanted to see which treacherous fvck was a commie and which ones were patriots upholding the Constitution.

It is not sensible - to have weapons of war on the street.

Yeah Fvck John Jay, Sam Adams, Alex Hamiliton, Paul Revere. What a bunch of Religious Nazi's

TNSEVOL

I am probably in the minority amongst the Progressives, but arent those the same blind political tactics that got us into our current gridlocked mess?

This is the new "Litmus Test"? If the candidate is not Pro-Choice but they support Gun Control then I should blindly vote for them?

I am NOT a single-issue voter, I will vote for the best candidate no matter which political party they represent.

It sounds like that's the position they're presenting. It seems very short sighted to me for Bloomberg to suggest that he will grant money to whoever is running against you if they are for gun control and you are against it, regardless of other beliefs.

I am honestly hoping this was quick talking bluster. I would think that we would expect our representatives to be far more pragmatic and representative of their State than this.

Sorry lib, if a gang wants to break into my house after our currency collapses and STEAL all my possessions while threatening my family ... I would still prefer a clip of 14 or 15 ! Besides, all you are trying to do is infringe upon our Constitutional rights !

The criminals will continue to ignore the laws and have clips of 14 or more so why should I be denied ?

KC_NC

You obviously haven't been paying attention in NC... first, Oblunder didn't win here (see, people only get to vote once, and then only if they're actually citizens, and anyone trying to intimidate voters into not voting would be shot here)... Conservatives kicked tail and have taken back both houses of the legislature... McCrory won Gov (but only after Bev Purdue and the Libtards ran us $5+ Billion into debt).. lots of conservative wins in local races... first conservative register of Deeds in 100 yrs... and Kay "Obamacare/Cap and Tax" Hagan is going down in '14... bet big on it...

Dennis -- It should have been done in one bill -- like the committee and Feinstein wanted. One man should not have the power to not let it come to a vote. Reid has failed his country and his party but you all don't seem to care.

Backhouse -- Oh only if you were as passionate in protecting the lives of the unborn then you wouldn't be so morally corrupt and hypocritical. I just saw a picture of my 4 month unborn grandson and no one can tell me that aborting that would not be murder. He is a human being with all the parts and beautiful facial features. The so-called right of doing what I want with my body should not trump the right to life of the innocent. If I don't have the right to dictate about abortions, you don't have the right to tell me what I can own guaranteed by the Constitution.

Biden and Bloomberg will even BULLY their OWN party? Whatever happened to the liberal position of "choice" and the opportunity to express "your opinion"? I guess that only works if you agree with THEM!!

If my child or your child's life is protected, if we can live in greater peace - we have done well

Sorry Backhouse but if you rely soley on Gov for your protection i feel sorry for you. I listed numerous Gov agencies for our 'safety and security'. How many of those have protected us? How about local law enforcement? Remember when seconds count, the police are minutes away.

If you rely this much on the Gov, which is big enough to give it to you, it will take it away. May you never have freedom or security or that EBT card.

Hey Ruken glad to see youre one of the Far left Che Loving Loons... UMAD cuz you GOT OWNED\

Morgs, it's Ruken aka Xabre aka Boy Blunder currently...Did you expect more from someone who can only suck the cyber dlck of OBama...and its even funnier he called me a Pinko..dumazz doesnt even know what one is...

Paranoia will destroy ya.

In terms of Democrats, we too hope there will never be abortions. However, forcing a woman to carry a child conceived as the result of rape or incest is clearly just as outrageous.

Holy @!$%#...I must be in bizzaro world. No voter fraud, Bush won legitimately says Layton, Johntho and TNVSOL. Gun control isn't about getting guns out of the hands of criminals per Chic Binder. Democrats hope no abortions happen per Eric-#'s.

Biden and Bloomberg are threatening their own.

This day just keeps getting better and better.

Gun control isn't about getting guns out of the hands of criminals per Chic Binder.

he's just butthurt because he cant legally own one since he became a 'registered offender'... Interesting, Ive seen many a people ask Binder to explain himself.. He wont do it..but has no problems coming in and making an ass of himself..

Paranoia will destroy ya.

so will your arrogance and false sense of security.

"And everyone’s going to have to stand up and say yea or nay, and then the rest of us have to decide just how we feel about people and their stands,"

Tell us why its ok to use the death of 20 children to push the far left gun control agenda claiming its to protect children, to protect life, "If it saves just one life its worth it"-Joe Biden, "Children are our most valuable asset."-Barrack Obama, while the same left supports and defends the privilage of aborting 106,020 children a month?

"Abortion on demand and without Appololgy"

Pigotry - It's the majority decision. But we also learn from history that the majority opinion is not always right, though.

So are you referring to Roe v. Wade?

Backhouse

Steps to improve public life don't happen like fast food.

But it has to start with change.

If my child or your child's life is protected, if we can live in greater peace - we have done well.

Banning handguns would be far more in line with giving our children (and everyone else) a higher rate of survival since most of the gun crimes are committed with handguns over "semi automatic assault rifles".

I wonder why that isn't the measure they are supporting?

Bloomberg urged members of the public to tell congressional opponents of the gun control measure that they will “support whoever runs against you, no matter who they are what an idiotic statement almost as idiotic as passing a law telling people that they cannot have a large Soda. Bloomberg thinks he is some kind fascist dictator

Than you have Crazy Joe Biden the same guy who said, “Buy a Shotgun, Buy a Shotgun Fire both blasts Fire through the door if you’re scared.” An illegal act and I hope your neighbor is not on the other side of the door THE MAN IS CLEARLY CLULESS

These two Buffoons are unfit for public office

And you want to play this game I think everyone should call their representatives and tell them the opposite if you FOR THE GUN BAN I will “support whoever runs against you, no matter who they are

the greatest threats to our freedom are coming from within. the very reason the Bill of Rights and the 2nd Ammendment must be left completely intact. The ultra rich and powerful, especially in politics need to be kept on an equal footing with us all. For the nanny mayor,governor, politicians there should be 'votes of confidence' where they can be tossed when they become irrelevant, or traitorous.

"Der Derka Der!!!!!!!!!"

Just buy a shotgun...a big friggin shotgun!!!

A Browning semi-automatic shotgun!!!!

Frick and Frack...together again......

Backhouse said:

It is not sensible - to have weapons of war on the street.

They aren't weapons of war - they are SEMI-automatics.

It is not sensible - to have 10+ magazine clips.

Says who? Who are you to dictate how many rounds I have available to stop an intruder, mugger, or rapist?

It is not sensible - not to have background checks.

We already have background checks - they aren't being enforced.

Here's an idea for all of you that think the U.S. will be so much safer after a gun ban (no matter how all-encompassing or limited) in enacted. Move into those once gun-infested neighbourhoods and go out for a moonlight stroll.

In McDonald V. City of Chicago (2010)

The NRA sued the City of Chicago and WON.

They had to PAY THE NRA $1.6 Million!

In fact:

The result of the McDonald, & NRA v City of Chicago court case resolved in 2010 with the victory for the plaintiffs against the City, ended up with the now Mayor Rahm Emanuel and the city trying to squirm out of paying the legal fees of the plaintiffs are is required by law.

You may recall the draconian 30 year ban under the then Mayor Daley's watch was overturned.

Back to the present, Mayor Emanuel and his advisers fought the court ruling claiming the NRA were not a "prevailing party", however this is not how the 7th U.S. Appeals court judge saw it. In his ruling, Justice Frank Easterbrook ruled in favor of the NRA, pointing that the NRA who did not get a favorable judgement in the handgun original court case received a favorable decision in the Supreme court, and that trumped any technicality that the City was trying to use to avoid payment. This decision legally entitling the NRA to recover attorney costs from the municipalities of the City of Chicago and the Village of Oak Park.

For a final touch of poetic justice the one time Chief of Staff for President Barack Obama now mayor of the City of Chicago is one of the people that had to sign the checks made out to the NRA to pay for legal fees. Had his arrogance and that of his advisers not been so great, and the accepted the initial decision of the court and not taken it to appeals court, they would have had far less to pay. As it was, the amount came to 1.4 Million dollars.

http://www.examiner.com/article/city-of-chicago-paid-nra-legal-fees-1-4-million

Just get a shotgun...a big friggin shotgun!!!

A Browning semi-automatic shotgun!!!!

Frick and Frack...together again......

Yep, just ask Kurt Myers from upstate NY. Well, he's dead but...

In McDonald V. City of Chicago (2010)

Next up is Colorado and NY...

Why don't we enforce the 2nd Amendment's call for a well regulated militia by requiring membership in the National Guard (militia) to keep and bear arms

when was the National Guard created? how about the other part of the second amendment 'The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed" .... I may not be a Constitutional Scholar (in fact its not necessary to know the laws of the land) but im pretty sure that second part stands on its own...How about you Greentimer?

Of course, while NBC beats the drum for gun control, in order to save the children, it ignores stories of children being killed in cold blood at the hands of abortion doctors killing children after they are born. How many children have died at the hands of such criminals and in illegal late term abortions? from breitbart:

Of course this story is all but ignored. It goes against The Narrative that says abortion is a sacrament and the only abortion doctors worthy of a news frenzy are those murdered by pro-life fanatics.

Not worthy of even a hundredth of that news coverage is the story of seven grisly murders allegedly committed by a doctor who made millions in a rundown facility in Philadelphia where he performed late-term abortions. According to the District Attorney, Dr. Kermit Gosnell murdered seven born-alive babies by “plunging scissors into their necks and snipping their spinal cords.”

ABC, CBS, and NBC’s morning and evening newscasts have yet to cover the trial of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, which began on Monday. Gosnell is charged with murdering seven babies who were born after viability in his rundown abortion facility. The Big Three also gave the story minimal coverage back in January 2011, after the Philadelphia physician was arrested. ABC completely ignored it, CBS Evening News aired one full story, and NBC gave just 50 words on Today.

Even the New York Times covered the trial in a Tuesday article, though it appeared on page A-17. Writer Jon Hurdle documented how Gosnell is charged with killing the babies by “plunging scissors into their necks and ‘snipping’ their spinal cords.”

You also won't see much coverage of this story on the cable nets, newspapers, or online. The abortion-as-sacrament Narrative trumps all.

The alleged murder of seven babies for profit...?

Nah, no story there.

No other angles, either. You know, like government oversight and how these clinics might exploit the poor.

The majority of all Americans want sensible gun laws:

The majority of Americans support the Constitution.

It is not sensible - to have weapons of war on the street.

Yet criminals have them, and the law abiding citizens do not have them.

It is not sensible - to have 10+ magazine clips.

Only to people who are ignorant and poorly educated.

It is not sensible - not to have background checks.

We have background checks. What isn't SENSIBLE is the failure to prosecute the people who lie/falsify the form 4473

ANYONE WHO THINKS THAT BANNING GUNS WILL KEEP CRIMINALS FROM GETTING AND USING GUNS IS AN IGNORAMUS.

.

GreenTimer

Why don't we enforce the 2nd Amendment's call for a well regulated militia by requiring membership in the National Guard (militia) to keep and bear arms?

The 2nd amendment and the rhetoric behind it from our founding fathers suggested if we needed to overthrow the government via force that we would have the opportunity. As the National Guard takes marching orders from the government, this would be counterproductive.

GreenTimer

Why don't we enforce the 2nd Amendment's call for a well regulated militia by requiring membership in the National Guard (militia) to keep and bear arms?

The term "Well Regulated" in the Second Amendment meant "Well Manned and Equipped " in 1791 as was determined in the 1939 United States v. Miller case after referencing the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. The concept of Government Regulation, as we understand it today, did not exist at the time.

United States v. Miller also determined that the term "Arms" refers to "Ordinary Military Weapons" (not crew operated). American Citizens have the right to Keep and Bear, which means Own and Carry, any weapons that a soldier carries into battle. That includes past, present and future weapons. A Militia consisted of armed volunteers willing to fight with their personal arms and not under government control.

The 2008 Heller v. Washington DC decision reaffirmed that the Right to Bear Arms was an Individual right. The 2010 McDonald v. Chicago decision reaffirmed it yet again and made it clear that it applies to every state, every city and every town in the United States. - Ponoco

It's the majority decision. But we also learn from history that the majority opinion is not always right, though.

Well said pig-lady.

The Obamacare decision being the best example. Right up there with Dred Scott.

The two idiots need to retire. No shame at all. Standing in front of the world trying to strip our inalienable rights from us using dead babies as props. Disgusting low-life fools.

Excuse me, the mayor and vice president are clueless buffoons. I really feel for the families of the 20 victims of a deranged killer in Conn. and the families of Columbine and the theater in CO. I really do but I am absolute against gun and ammo controls. Trust me when I say that when my lease is up I am moving to a state where my guns and mags are legal. How dare public officials try to blackmail other officials. Where do they get the right? The only way to "save" children and other possible victims is to properly take care of the mental problems our citizens have. I have 7 grandchildren and I want them safe too. They are my priority and I still want my constitutional rights. We the people have lost so many of our rights and I am tired of it especially if the loss of a right does not keep us any safer. I too vote not just on one issue but the whole package of a candidate. I can tell you now that the people of Colorado were more on the pro gun side and a lot of the state legislatures people will go down in defeat come next election.

Isn't it interesting, Morgs, when I go searching for a source that supports what you say about the militia, that I keep finding that same line "well manned and well equipped" in right wing blogs, but no supportive serious source?

Now, why oh why would that be?

"there's no such thing as gun control, there's only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small political elite and their minions. Gun control is a misnomer." Stefan Molyneux

Isn't it interesting, Morgs, when I go searching for a source that supports what you say about the militia, that I keep finding that same line "well manned and well equipped" in right wing blogs, but no supportive serious source?

Now, why oh why would that be?

Well, newday, he referenced the SC decision that said the same thing, but you conveniently ignored that part of his post.

Now, why oh why would that be?

newdayDAWNING...RETURNED - Sorry for your luck. I suggest going right to the source instead of counting on a news outlet or blog to get your info. I cannot make it any clearer for you.

newdayDAWNING...RETURNED

Isn't it interesting, Morgs, when I go searching for a source that supports what you say about the militia, that I keep finding that same line "well manned and well equipped" in right wing blogs, but no supportive serious source?

Now, why oh why would that be?

In regards to the United States Vs. Miller, Justice James Clark McReynolds wrote this for the unanimous opinion.

"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

Morgs, you refer to United States V Miller: You define it as well manned and equipped based on a Franklin biography. I don't find that referenced in the court action.

Please maintain: blocking, stalling, and obstructing legislation, war on women, war on science, and your pro gun stances. Democrats are bracing for wins in 2014.

Ahhh the stupid of the Idiocracy speaks.....

Can't say I care what you find NDDR but here is some reading for the rest of the folk.

of a well regulated militia, — These words are, of course, taken from the Second Amendment itself, and should be interpreted to accomplish the several purposes intended and written about by the Framers. They mean of a wellorganized, trained, and commanded, and equipped militia. Well regulated certainly does not imply a militia that is necessarily state-controlled; one of the first model militias was the voluntary association organized by Benjamin Franklin, after the governing proprietors in Pennsylvania declined to create one.

Tired of being wrong all the time? Bored with being schooled? All you have to do is put me on ignore.

Repojam: Perhaps you can get to the explanation I want, since I am pretty certain that Morgs can't

Morgs seems to be limiting decision of the US v. Miller, to a definition of outfitting the militia.

When I read that decision I don't find that: the intention was to limit the arms that could be carried, the specific case being about guns carried across state lines that had barrels that measured outside what was allowed.

I DO see what Morgs writes word for word on right wing blogs.

How do you interpret this?

You are SO funny Morgs, you are so bad at this.

Perhaps you could read Federalist 29 and learn something.

I DO see what Morgs writes word for word on right wing blogs.

No sense in recreating the wheel for you. I give my citations. So sad to see you squirm like this. Still not one ounce of evidence from you to refute any of my points. Do hear those people laughing? They aren't laughing with you.

sorry but the founding fathers writings and Federalist papers seem to support those of us FOR the Constitution. I cant find evidence to the contrary that support people like Newday, Jethro, Backhouse, Haggis, Ruken, Monkey, Fisty...you're support of communism will just have to come another day, just not today

"Steeler Fan-380417

This just breaks my heart that sensible gun control is not possible because of the cowardice of the legislators. What will it take to break the hold of the NRA? Why was Sandy Hook and all the other massacres not enough"

You want to see change..then vote out any politican that accepts a dime from lobbgyist or anyone or any corporation. Stop all lobbying....stop every political group that donates to any politican. no matter who or what thinks it up. It is time for all politicans to work for the voters instead of the lobbyist and the wealthy who have so far bought and paid for most all of them. Today..politicans pay much more attention to groups like the NRA than the majority of the voters in this country. The even sader part is that we are paying these politicans and for what ? So that they can suck up to their wealthy friends ? I sure hope that is not the case.

Can Biden's hypocrisy possibly grow any more outragous than it is now?

All we have to do is wait for the next statement he makes.

Biden admits new gun laws will have no effect on preventing the next mass murder.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/31/16794835-biden-new-gun-controls-likely-wont-end-shootings?lite

Vice President Joe Biden acknowledged that new gun laws would not "fundamentally alter" the likelihood of another mass shooting, though he insisted there has been a "sea change" in American views on guns in the wake of Newtown.

"Nothing we're going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down to 1,000 a year from what it is now," Biden told reporters Thursday afternoon after he spent over an hour lunching with Democratic senators at the Capitol.

Really Morgs?

Sources: Oyez IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

The United States v Miller, Cornell

The Federalist: Number 29, Alexander Hamilton.

...the "Train to Ruination" (Obama administration)...

... the numbers for Bush's last three months. Between October and November, 597,000 jobs were lost; between November and December, 681,000 were lost; and between December and January, 741,000 were lost.

Feb 1, 2013 - the economy has added private sector jobs for 35 straight months. During this span, 6.1 million private sector jobs have been created.

DJIA Dec 1, 2008 8149

DJIA Mar 21, 2013 14421

Dec. 29, 2008 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. corporate earnings fell for a sixth-straight quarter, the longest streak in at least 20 years, as consumer spending on automobiles, homes and retailers collapsed.

Jul 31, 2012 (Bloomberg) -- Profits for companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index have grown for 10 straight quarters, helping to power the index to a more than twofold increase since March 2009.

Ah, yep! That sure is horrible sh!t Obama is doing... especially in comparison to how well Bush was doing!

Hey Bloomberg, go crawl back into your bunker... and take your wife Eva with you!

Bloomburg- Stuff it already.

Stick to the 32 ounce drinks and what concerns New York....

Leave the rest of the World alone

newdayDAWNING...RETURNED

Repojam: Perhaps you can get to the explanation I want, since I am pretty certain that Morgs can't

Morgs seems to be limiting decision of the US v. Miller, to a definition of outfitting the militia.

When I read that decision I don't find that: the intention was to limit the arms that could be carried, the specific case being about guns carried across state lines that had barrels that measured outside what was allowed.

Hi NDDR,

The first part of the decision was in regards to the length of the shotgun barrel, where they felt under 18" wasn't used in any sort of militia organization along with other things that included taxing the weapon. That was the position of the plaintiff at the District Court, along with statements of registration, taxation and others.

The quotation I previously provided was in regards to the larger part of the decision where they set forth the definition as historically interpreted of a "militia". Key words were able bodied males and armed with weapons commonly used at the time and they were expected to provide their own.

In the United States Vs. Heller in 2008, it was later determined that the weapons can be kept and used for purposes unrelated to a militia. This was also the case that suggested trigger locks could not be made into a regulation.

Please let me know if that's what you were after in terms of my interpretation.

Have a pleasant day.

"Bloomberg urged members of the public to tell congressional opponents of the gun control measure that they will “support whoever runs against you, no matter who they are.”"

What Bloomberg doesn't realize (but many Senate Democrats including Harry Reid do), is most of the public will be telling most of the congressional proponents of the gun control measure they will “support whoever runs against you, no matter who they are".

Thanks, Repojam: that was pretty much how I saw it too.

You are rapidly becoming my go to person, hope you don't mind.

Have a good one!

Assault Weapons, Military Grade etc... Oh, that sounds so scary! I'm quaking in my boots.

I've never once heard of any military member running around in battle with a semi-automatic AR-15.

The military uses various semi-automatic handguns, the same ones civilians can buy. Are these handguns assault weapons too?

The military uses pump-action shotguns, the same ones civilians can buy. Are these pump-action shotguns assault weapons too?

If I hit you gun grabbers in the head with a shovel to try to knock some common sense in to you that shovel would be considered an assault weapon too.

The text book definition of 'assault weapon' = a firearm capable of fully automatic fire.

The black rifles civilians can buy are semi-automatic. These rifles function the same way & have the same rate of fire as any other semi-automatic firearm (rifle or handgun) that is available for sale. The rate of fire of all semi-auto firearms = 1 bullet fired with each trigger squeeze. No more, no less.

These rifles are not any more dangerous or deadlier just because they are painted black or because some gun grabber thinks they look scary.

The common definition of 'assault weapon' = a term used by uninformed gun grabbers with an agenda to try & scare other uninformed gun grabbers.

newdayDAWNING...RETURNED

Thanks, Repojam: that was pretty much how I saw it too.

You are rapidly becoming my go to person, hope you don't mind.

Have a good one!

Don't mind at all, just please don't accuse me of being a Liberal or a Conservative if you disagree with my often idiotic conclusions and observations. :)

these two communist fools do not know what they are talking about, and when they say sensible gun laws they really mean taking every gun away from law abiding citizens.

for all of you that do not like my guns or the nra i suggest that you put a sign in your front yard stating you dislike and that you would never have a gun in your house then when some crazy guys breaks into your house pours draino down your throat then starts raping your wife and little girls i will sit on my front porch with my gun and honor your beliefs by not helping you but i will take notes and give to the police when they finall arrive, if you had time to call 911

Considering what the public and NRA opinion polls are showing, the political, moral and ethical costs for voting against these bill will be very high. There is a very vocal, very hysterical, and very minor demographic in opposition. Loud doesn't count at the polls.

Yep.

I promise I won't Repojam. I find that most people run a gamut of opinion from conservative to liberal, depending on what the issue is. And I have always believed that is the way it should be.

Here you have one dummy that wants to control the size of the soda you are allowed to drink, and another dummy likely to say something stupid such as blast off a couple shotgun rounds from your back porch. What might be more amazing then the fact liberals support both Biden and Bloomberg, is that what they do or say is even published as news. Funny that neither of these two or their liberal supporters have yet to figure out that Democrats don't have the votes to pass a weapons ban, so are these two going to make them pay a political price? They made a movie about these two, it was called Dumb and Dumber.

Yes Joe and Bloomerberg, there ARE Consequences for your Actions, and you will be Paying and Paying Dearly at next election.

It's the majority decision. But we also learn from history that the majority opinion is not always right, though.

Exactly!!! Perfect example = president obama

also, such a waste trying to ban anything. Might look good on paper, but in the real world it means nothing.

Now I'm no "constitutional scholar"

Look at that!

The skid mark in America's shorts known as Mickey got something right. Not even smart enough to realize this dog and pony show the Modern Plantation Masters Party is putting on is going nowhere.

Rick

Biden also said Giffords was shot in the head and mortally wounded

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-gabby-giffords-was-shot-and-mortally-wounded_708770.html

Allow me to clear up the confusion about what the "Militia" as referenced in the 2nd Amendment is. U.S. Code 10, Title 32, sec. 313, "The Militia", defines the Civilian Militia, basically as all citizens who are NOT members of the regular Armed Forces or National Guard who may be called forth to protect life and property in times of emergency. Almost every state has a State Defense Force with a similar criteria: citizens who may be called to military duty who are NOT members of the state National Guard. In U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Supreme Court defined the Citizen Militia's function as being when called for service, to appear bearing arms SUPPLIED BY THEMSELVES and of the kind in common use at the time. They further defined Civilian Militia arms as those having "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia". In its landmark rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) & McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010). the Supreme Court defined the 2nd Amendment as protecting the right of private citizens to "keep and bear arms", NOT the government or its agents. As the Civilian Militia may be called upon to perform the same military missions as the regular Armed Forces, its entitled to possess the same state-of-the-art military small arms, the primary weapon being the rifle. Crew served weapons such as tanks and artillery are not considered militia weapons.

I hate to say this, but this was actually a smart move by the dems. If they took on all the new gun control they are trying to take on they knew it wouldn't pass. So by taking it one measure at a time they can at least maybe pass part of what they were trying for. All you left wingers are just plain dense if you can't see that. Maybe this is the first step to getting the parties to work together. Not just put all their eggs in one basket, start by passing something both sides want and going from there. What a concept. Do things in a rational manner for once in the last decade.

Backhouse, during the latest set of riots in LA the rioters targeted ethnic Koreans and murdered several of them, men, women and children. More were saved when ethnic Koreans fired warning shots from their semi-automatic rifles with the standard 30-round magazine. They still had a credible protection factor even after a round or two were used firing warning shots, which they would not have had if they had been limited to just 10 rounds.

And everyone else, universal background checks would not have prevented the latest massacres. Those who are mentally ill are not reported to any agency because of privacy laws. Unless a medical professional can certify to a court of law that the individual is a threat to him / herself or others all such medical records cannot be turned over to a third party. And before someone thinks to demand that the medical professionals be required to report the possibility of serious mental problems that might lead to violence, consider the legal consequences if the doctor is wrong.

To those of you that believe a gun ban will stop criminals from killing people; The previous ban did nothing to stop any violence.

Haggis, why don't we step on your 1st amendment rights? No? That would be wrong? Then why don't you and your uneducated pals leave us law-abiding gun owners alone. If you could come up with a plan to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally ill people, I would help you.

Fisty, I am ashamed to live in Hellinois, and I want people to know that there still are a few conservative Teaparty gun owners dug in here. If we could just get rid of Chitcago and Springfield, it'd be like heaven here on earth.

Mickey - Face it, your penis extensions will be history..

Why is it so many gun grabbers like you are so fascinated with penises? Penis extensions, really? So the millions of women gun owners in this country use penis extensions or are trying to compensate for their small penises? That is real fascinating news.

I suppose you penis fascinated gun grabbers must spend a lot of time on your knees up close & personal with male genitals since you're such experts about the topic. I'm sure all of you own stock in knee pad manufacturing companies too. LOL

No Jason, The potus doesn't want to cross the isle. He proved this by running his big mouth over seas yet again. Democrats like Mickey are such douche bags!! F all of you especially those of you posting your BS on here while hiding behind your pc. Walk up to a known Republican and spew your crap then go to your dentist and have your one tooth put back in!! Uneducated Chicken Shats!!

Damn Piglet!

For once I am forced to agree with you.

"It's the majority decision. But we also learn from history that the majority opinion is not always right, though."

Now I understand why we have Obama as a so called "president".

Well, that's it then. If Bloomberg and Biden tell me I'm wrong, I'm about 99.99% sure I'm right. That's a load off my mind....

I didn't say the potus. We all know where he falls. If you want the Republican party to turn around you wouldn't be a 'douche bag' and write the post you did. You would post something that doesn't make you look like an 'Uneducated Chicken Shat'.

Days after lawmakers sidelined a proposed assault weapons ban, Vice President Joe Biden and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Thursday offered a stern warning to Congress: there are still political consequences for opposing voting for the measure.

Yep, you got that right:

ANY Congressional representative who VOTES FOR BANNING GUNS will feel the pain at the polls and WILL BE VOTED OUT OF OFFICE.

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

Progressives and Unions ARE dinosaurs.

The real dinosaurs are the Republicans, due mostly to their policies.

American's won't vote for them, and your base is shrinking.

You're right almighty Jason. You tell us how and what to write just like the left does for it's sheeple. Try to be original you fool. Now go get your talking points from Rush. Both sides are playing us, get a clue dumdum!

Someone needs a time out.

Poor Morgs; he really had a rough day on First Read:

For those of you interested in the actual history of Benjamin Franklin and the militia he organized, simply search for this: The Pennsylvania Militia Constitution Society. Fascinating history of Franklin's struggle to protect Pennsylvania, since it was largely controlled by Quakers, who were against war.

You will find as a part of that history that Franklin suggested through his printing that the militia had the authority or at least the endorsement of the state.

The basic trouble was religion, as it often is.

Too funny. That comment reminds me of my highschool buddies...good times.

Orchestrated attacks on innocent civilians didn't sway America to accept more gun grabbing laws. Bloomberg, Feinstein, Boxer, Schumer, Levin, Lautenberg, Franken, Blumenthal and other jews in government need to understand that this isn't Russia and we aren't going to live under Communism or a police state. We aren't giving up our guns even if it comes to a civil war.

I keep seeing posts where people claim that most of the public supports a weapons ban or something of that sort.

Please post your sources and accurate numbers. The polls I have seen have it at about 50 / 50 when you take the margin of error into consideration.

Also - since this is a primarily urban versus rural discussion, you can skew the polling with virtually no effort. People who live in rural areas don't see the point for a weapons ban. People who live in urban areas predominantly want gun control.

No one wants to have this kind of discussion, but a little logic will tell you that there is a very big difference, culturally, between rural and urban areas. I grew up in a rural area and was shooting a gun before I was ten. To see someone walking around with an AK-47 wouldn't have bothered me a bit. I'd just figure they were going out to shoot at bottles or maybe hunt. I've also lived in cities and if I saw someone with an AK-47 (cops include), I'd run for my life.

So - isn't it possible that while gun control is necessary in some area, it is completely UNNECESSARY in others? Isn't that why we have a local, state and federal governments?

Personally, I am against any kind of action on the part of the federal government because they have already exceeded any reasonable amount of power through things like the patriot act, NDAA, etc. However, local and state levels should be able to enact whatever laws the localities need.

Now, the next thing people say is - what if someone crosses state lines and buys this thing here or there?

Well - that's what people do. That's why legislation is always limited in its impact. Part of freedom is accepting that you can't, nor can anyone, control everything. In a population of 300 million people, there will be deaths and shootings and crime. We have to take the most responsible and reasonable approach to create the best possible outcome and granting more power to a Federal government that is already drunk with power (and completely unaccountable at this time) isn't the answer.

Haggisbingo, the moment you called everyday human beings "gun whacks". you lost any credibility you ever thought you had. And as for your ego maniacal bold type, it has the distinct aroma of BS agenda pushing. It's one thing to have an opinion, but thinking it's so special that it needs to be all in bold type, doesn't make your opinion the right one.

The people for whom guns are the major (or only) voting issue always vote Republican anyway. They will not vote for Democrats no matter what the status of gun control legislation. The Republican Party has become more and more the party for the selfish, the uncooperative and the uncompromising.

The Democratic Party is for those of us who actually care about the rights of others, the feelings of others and the values of others. We do care about the right of citizens to bear arms even if we ourselves are not gun owners. I believe that gun owners should understand that feel less safe when in the presence of people with lots of firepower but little or no training and many of whom lack the good judgement to know when to shoot and when lethal force is unnecessary or dangerous.

Even the very conservative Supreme Court Justice Scalia understands that the 2nd Amendment is not an unlimited right.

Scalia told Fox News that the Second Amendment "undoubtedly" permits some restrictions on firearms.

Look at the syllabus of the Court's brief that he wrote:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[United States v.] Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

I know how my Senators will vote they will vote the will of the people they are representing and that's against any gun and magazine ban. Don't buy into the media hype or polls that there is over whelming support for the bans as the many people I've talked to including County Sheriffs, City Police and State Troopers are all against it. Heck it's even went so far as some Sheriffs saying if a ban just so happens to pass they will not enforce it and another Sheriff banning any purchases from a company that supplies equipment including guns because they stopped selling the semiautomatics to the public.

I had told myself not to write in these columns anymore. This is just like the old saying,you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.But you know i think most of you anti-gun people,and i know all the anti-gun politicians only rank as Jackasses. Not none of you pay any attention to the fact you are trying to violate the Constitution. If you people don't really believe in what our forfathers,and many soldiers died protecting our rights as US citizens,then maybe you people would be happier in some other country.Thanks

Here are some polls results:

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

Repojam, you have some serious talent. Jesus like really. I have spent all afternoon trying to communicate with the deaf, dumb and blind and you make it look so easy. Kudos.

newdayDAWNING...RETURNED - Very sad that the only factual information you have posted today was seeded by the ass whooping you just received today. I will be here tomorrow, I hope to have you back. BTW, did your mom drop you on your head a lot? ALS is a real bitch but it would explain a lot.

Does the little runt with the giant ego really think anyone in Congress really gives a shlt about a threat from...oooooh, the Mayor of New York City???? I'll say this, the people of NYC are lucky to have such a clown to amuse them on a regular business!

"Vice President Joe Biden and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Thursday offered a stern warning to Congress: there are still political consequences for opposing the measure."

Nothing even slightly veiled about that threat ............disgraceful - grrrrr :(

Everyday in almost every way our goverment gets more and more pathetic. Washington D.C., various State capitals, and big cities could use a nice FLEET enigma..............and maybe a Super Carrier suppository.

@Satanick,

""there's no such thing as gun control, there's only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small political elite and their minions. Gun control is a misnomer." Stefan Molyneux"

While totally true I'm pretty sure that your comment went right over the heads of many of the various parties here.

Regards,

Brandon The Progressive Liberal

bill

No unconstitutional law will survive a Supreme Court challenge. You do not understand the Constitution or the Second Amendment if you believe there is any currently proposed gun control legislation in Congress that is not completely within the limits and authority of the Constitution.

I love gun control....

Proper stance

Sight Picture.

Sight Alignment

Breathe

and squeeze

anything else is pure bull.

The politicians spew this and that rhetoric, but it is all hot air. The government only pays attention to the corporations and the wealthy, the NRA is not concerned with gun owners they listen to arms manufacturers and NONE of them care about your or my well being. ALL they care about is money, the government has consistently ignored the harmful products and practices of corporations. The government which is supposed to be about "we, the people" but it is all about the green. They don't ask what they can do for our country, they ask what's in it for me.....

@ Ben, StephenB, KingK, Repojam, Morgs74, Oneslackr, plus a few others.

WELL SAID all of you and Bless You.

To the DINOs (Democrats In Name Only) I offer a Midwestern Insult: "Well bless your hearts"

Regards,

Brandon The Progressive Liberal

@AL-1735815,

Let me simplify it for you.

Proper Gun Control is when I only use 1 round and have 14 left (or if it's a Barrett 50BMG - 9 rounds)

Regards,

Brandon The Progressive Liberal

AND THIS JUST IN FOLKS

Looks like little Mussolini Como's gun law is in trouble

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - The New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association, joined by sportsmen's groups, firearms businesses and individual gun owners, has filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking an injunction to stop the state's new gun control law.

The suit claims the law violates New Yorkers' Second Amendment rights.

The suit, filed Thursday in Buffalo, says the statute enacted Jan. 15 infringes on the right of law-abiding citizens to keep "commonly possessed" guns in the home for family defense and other legal purposes.

The law, pushed through by Gov. Andrew Cuomo, was the first in the nation and came a month after the Dec. 14. Connecticut school massacre.

It tightens the definition of illegal "assault weapons" to include some popular and formerly legal semi-automatic rifles and requires registration of older guns.

GreenTimer

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.

... Amendment II to the U S Constitution.

Why don't we enforce the 2nd Amendment's call for a well regulated militia by requiring membership in the National Guard (militia) to keep and bear arms?

Because the constitution spells out the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and granted most of the soldiers in the NG are people, but they arent "the people" look past the first four words. There are a lot of great resources on the internet that can help to understand the period that the Constitution was written, or you can follow politicians and just shoot buckshot through the door and wipe out girl scouts, or a hot neighbor looking for a cup of sugar.

Are we supposed to be surprised by this? The NRA are thugs. They will do what they have to do to thwart right thinking people.

Not even smart enough to realize this dog and pony show the Modern Plantation Masters Party is putting on is going nowhere.

That dumazz mickey was quoting me as I was Mocking him...apparently Mickey Little thinks only those with a J.D. can understand the Constitution..that is an achilles heal of Liberalism... The ill conceived thought that they are smarter than those around them.. Especially when you make comments like 'Democrats play chess and Republicans play checkers'. FVCKING STELLAR!

[Especially when you make comments like 'Democrats play chess and Republicans play checkers']

Cacafuego, it's obvious the analogy went over your pointy little head, but don't fret...keep calling on others to come to your aid, you coward.

Can't even fight your own battles...WHAH!

Remember, the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean what you think it means. And why is your avatar so blurry?

don97524

The people for whom guns are the major (or only) voting issue always vote Republican anyway. They will not vote for Democrats no matter what the status of gun control legislation. The Republican Party has become more and more the party for the selfish, the uncooperative and the uncompromising.

In some states, even Democrats are very curious about gun control. One issue regarding the suggested assault weapon ban that Feinstein proposed was that so much of it was urban based. Some of the weapons have a legitimate use in more rural communities which is where the assault weapon ban goes after weapons that people in the country are commonly using.

As a case in point, I have extended family that lives in Kansas. They have a Bushmaster .223 that they take with them when they ride their horses around the property. They farm and have an area where they keep sheep. They will use the bushmaster if they catch a coyote while they are roaming near where the sheep are. It's not ideal to shoot a coyote with an AR-15, but it is lightweight, small and easy enough to handle that any of them can shoot it.

This is a Kansas family of Yellow Dog Democrats.

The Democratic Party is for those of us who actually care about the rights of others, the feelings of others and the values of others. We do care about the right of citizens to bear arms even if we ourselves are not gun owners. I believe that gun owners should understand that feel less safe when in the presence of people with lots of firepower but little or no training and many of whom lack the good judgement to know when to shoot and when lethal force is unnecessary or dangerous.

I can understand this sentiment and it is where a lot of many of my liberal tendencies come from. I am very big on rights all the way across the board. I live in a large city and don't think that my neighbors really legitimately need a .223 for home defense or for protecting livestock. They can take it to to the range and shoot it and where I live it is an accepted practice. I prefer shotgun shooting myself and own no weapons associated with the ban. That said, as long as my neighbors with the guns are responsible I don't care what they do with them.

This may not be true in your neighborhood but it is commonly accepted in mine. I live in North Texas and it's less than uncommon for people to have several guns at home and many of which are targeted by the ban. These are law abiding individuals and some are in law enforcement. Since they use their guns in a lawful manner and already own this property the assault rifle ban bothers them quite a bit.

Even the very conservative Supreme Court Justice Scalia understands that the 2nd Amendment is not an unlimited right.

Scalia told Fox News that the Second Amendment "undoubtedly" permits some restrictions on firearms.

In most cases the current weapons regulations revolve around an FFL(Federal Firearms License). For more extravagant guns they are costly to obtain and maintain. The cost prohibition is one reason I don't own a particular shotgun I'd like to get even if it was just to fire on the range a few times.

The ban wouldn't like have any consequences to FFL owners I believe. If that was the case, it would add for families like mine in Kansas an extra possible fee of anywhere from $90 to $3000 or more a year just to keep the rifle they already have. It would depend on how the device is classified.

Thank you for your time in reading this wall of text.

"Ol' Stupid" Joe Biden must be pissed that Harry Reid made him look like more of an idiot by pulling the assualt weapons ban proposal from the Democrat-backed gun control package.

Joe it sucks when your lap dog @!$%#s on you doesn't it?

NH_Shellback

"Ol' Stupid" Joe Biden must be pissed that Harry Reid made him look like more of an idiot by pulling the assualt weapons ban proposal from the Democrat-backed gun control package.

Joe it sucks when your lap dog @!$%#s on you doesn't it?

What's the over-under that Reid votes obama present on the assualt weapons ban amendment

Hey Mickey you willing to put money on my 'penis' extension being history? Also you have any pictures of your wife naked? No? Want one? LMAO ill be here all week...

Face it dude, this is an uphill battle for you.

I'm sure all of you own stock in knee pad manufacturing companies too. LOL

thats because Super Smart Mickey believes that if he sucks the cyber c*ck of Obama somehow he'll be granted the Order of Lenin.. IM sure Chick BInder (boy Blunder) will be joining in to give the old reach around..BANK ON IT

Mickey we are LAUGHING @ YOU!!!

newdayDAWNING, though I don't always go for the tactics the NRA uses, I do not, and will not go for any of the tactics this government uses to try and do away with any Constitutional rights we have been given. You can cry, scream and blubber all you want, but what you are wanting, is the Federal government to stick their noses in peoples private business. And when they take your right of having a personal opinion away, will that make you anymore happier? That is the power you are giving this government, when you jump on their agenda bandwagon.

Mickey - Seriously - ignore Caesar. I realize his stupidity and absolute certainty that he is correct and the rest of us are Communists is maddeningly mind numbing. I am trying to break the habit of commenting. If we could all do that, his fun will be over and he will have to yell at his reflection in the mirror.

NRA Overdosed on Nuts for new members, ("how do you join the NRA"), you hand cuff them together, this works better than straightjacket's !!!

This is so funny, The Dem's can't get their own party to balls up

for a vote and the vine's Ji$$ drinkers want to blame the republicans?

Have Harry put it to a recorded vote so the dem's that want to do

what's right will proudly vote and the hell with their careers...........

The problem is they know what would happen,LOL

There doesn't need to be a single republican to cross the line.

The girly men with D's by their name lack the courage.

Where is fiesty? Only the pig was stupid enough to post!

Eric and the R.I. HO can post but they are just trolling to meet men....

Bloomberg, Biden warn of political price for opposing weapons ban

Ha, ha, here are two real jokers nobody takes serious. Don't waste your time reading this @!$%#.

All that Biden, Bloomberg and the merry band of liberal clowns want to do is take away our constitutional rights and freedoms by controlling all aspects of our lives

Dear Morgs: Do you know how it is clear when someone has been owned on FR? It's when the other person makes a post that is purely a personal attack. Just like you did at 1.108. The problem is that people judge YOU by what you say. Says nothing about me, and I enjoy watching you try to pull victory from the schooling you received today. Poor guy.

Only in America: Respectfully, I don't quite know what you are referring to. No one is talking about banning guns, or coming to take your guns away. We are talking about what we as a nation have to do to try to make people safe.

[Mickey - Seriously - ignore Caesar.]

Cacafuego already has me on ignore, right Caca?!?

Sure you do...oh wait, thats right...you couldn't do it, could you.

Isn't that precious. Just like the coward you are, you go and bring the wives into it. An all time low for even you, kleine schwantz. You have truly lost the "debate", although you do have you some "killa debatin' skillz".

Maybe you can call in Mixed Bag, you know...the BIG GUNS, to fight your battles. That was priceless!

. I realize his stupidity and absolute certainty that he is correct and the rest of us are Communists is maddeningly mind numbing

Well Kim if by Stoopid you mean not slurping on the old knob of you Obama cult...Guilty...sorry plenty of examples to show the parallels of supporting Communistic style of Governing.. Mickey never refutes what i say...he tip toes through the tulips..Every single person that this moron has encountered he's done the same..Spanky, mixed bag, simple theory, CacaFuego, etc. Mickey is what Mickey is..So while SHE worries about my prick and ass, take this to thought...look at some of the above posters like Oneslackr and Simple Theory..His simpleness is no more the extension of his childish mentality of 'I know you are but what am I'. It's the Kobiashi Maru of the playground..I ignore Mickey knowing she'll tail me slinging insults while i laugh..Just like you do...I can see why like the NY penis lover...

Touche' ladies..

Ha, ha, here are two real jokers nobody takes serious. Don't waste your time reading this @!$%#.

Its more of the 'Crisis going to Waste'.. and they're MAD...

Sorry caesar, you were out of line bringing my wife into the fray. If you can't stand and fight your own battles, and take the hits, well, you lose. Typical of a canker sore such as yourself.

And what's the greatest thing about what you said? Just like Newday said:

Do you know how it is clear when someone has been owned on FR? It's when the other person makes a post that is purely a personal attack.

Yes, caesar, you have been owned. You truly lost the argument. I OWN you, just like I OWNED Mixed Bag and Spanky.

[Mickey never refutes what i say...]

Aww...did I hut you fee-fees? Here's a twist on an old quote that fits you perfectly, ceasar:

“Debating a conservative on the topic of anything is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.”

You are the pigeon caesar. A rat with wings. You truly don't know what day it is, or which side your so-called bread is buttered on...sad, really. And that's why you are the most surprised when legislation doesn't go "your way".

Now run along to your flock and tell them all about how the "eeeeevil librul" OWNED you.

Mickey,NY(mouse) I agree, They didnt need to bring your wife into the fray, but that aside you're still a little prik.

Numbers DO NOT LIE, but bad politicians and propagandist main stream media do. There is not a single crime statistic that supports any of their efforts, and those of you who believe their lies are just retarded. That's right,,, I SAID RETARDED! And I mean that with all the sincerity my heart can muster. No PC crap here anymore. You must be brain damaged retarded goods to be able to ignore the numbers and get sucked into the Gun control freak mentality. How in the H-LL can any of you gun control advocates sit with a straight face and say that we need to ban assault weapons when rifles of any kind only account for less than 400 of the over 9,000 gun murders EVERY year? Where is all of the overblown hysteria regarding the over 7,500 handgun murders? Where is all of the hyped indignation regarding the fact that gangs account for over 48% of our nations crime with the violent numbers even higher? How can ANY of you even BEGIN to spout off about assault weapons when your children are being killed EVERY SINGLE DAY by gang members with hand guns? You are FREAKS!!!!! You are as astoundingly stupid as they come. How of any of you get by in your daily lives without somebody to hold your hand and walk you through all of the tragic pitfalls is beyond intelligent comprehansion. Fists kill more people than rifles! Hammers kill more people than rifles! Baseball bats kill more people than rifles! EVERY YEAR! How in the h-ll can any of you have the audacity to stand and claim that we need to ban assault rifles yet pay no heed to the real problems of our cities and neighborhoods?

This is not for our safety, but rather for our subjugation, and you are all so willing to just follow the great lying pied pipers right to ruin.

Sandy Hook is a LIE being used to promote the agenda! LIE! LIE! LIE! LIE!

There was NOT a rifle OF ANY KIND found inside Sandy Hook elementary! The sick b-st-rd use dfour handguns! Look up the report from pete williams in the beginning.

Ask yourself,,,,,,, WHY THE LIES?

Why the push to ban something that is not the problem?

Go ahead, believe the lies retards.

Eric-913730

Show us where in The Constitution of the United States that there is any limit placed on the second amendment. You can't because there is none.

The membership of the NRA is 2% or less of the total population of the U.S. but the libs scream that small percentage is controlling the other 98%. I'm guessing a number of non-NRA members aren't in favor of additional gun control measures either.

Being from the South, we are seeing an increase with the Mexico gangs and hearing that they are more and more armed I can say this with complete confidence. A gun ban would not fly down here.

Biden and Douchberg can threaten all they want while they punka$$ are hiding up north. But that shyt will not be accepted down here and they will not be safe down here.

And all you coward a$$ Liberals who are screaming for our guns. YOU CAN ALL SUCK MY GLOCK!!!

Backhouse

"The majority of all Americans want sensible gun laws:"

Sure, but the majority speaking on the topic such as yourself know nothing about guns. The points you proposed basically do nothing.

"It is not sensible - to have weapons of war on the street."

Considering every weapon type has been used in a war at some point, all I can assume is you're one of the nuts who wants to ban all guns.

"It is not sensible - to have 10+ magazine clips."

First off, magazine and clip are two different things. Secondly, it only takes two seconds to reload. Unless the weapon does not support magazines, the magazine size won't matter much.

"It is not sensible - not to have background checks."

Background checks won't do anything. I could give my friend or whomever money to go purchase the gun for me if I weren't allowed to buy one myself.

"ANYONE THAT TELLS YOU DIFFERENT IS PLAYING YOU FOR A FOOL."

Considering I countered all your points, you're the fool.

Apparently guns are only bad in the hands of citizens....

DHS buys 7000 full-auto assault rifles, calls them ‘personal defense weapons’

Mike Adams
Natural News
Jan 28, 2013
In yet another huge blow to the rhetoric and narrative of the Obama administration and its desire to disarm the American public, a DHS bid has been uncovered (see documents below) showing that the Department of Homeland Security recently put out an offer to purchase 7,000 full-auto “assault weapons” to be used domestically, inside the USA.
Keep in mind that President Obama is on the record saying, “AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals; that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities.”
But it seems he really means they don’t belong on the streets of our cities unless they are in the hands of homeland security enforcers, in which case they can be FULL-AUTO assault weapons.
The DHS bid for 7,000 full-auto assault weapons is found by clicking here. The original credit for discovering this goes, to my best knowledge, to Awr Hawkins at Breitbart.com.
In the hands of the government, they’re called “Personal Defense Weapons”
The juiciest part of this bid is the use of the phrase “Personal Defense Weapons” to describe the full-auto AR-15s being purchased by DHS.
Apparently, when YOU hold an AR-15, it’s an “assault rifle.” But magically, if you hand that same rifle to an armed government homeland security enforcer, it instantly transforms itself into a “personal defense weapon.”

The request for bid actually says:

DHS and its components have a requirement for a 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and / or when maximum concealment is required.
So there it is, right in black and white: DHS enforcers need full-auto AR-15s which are “suitable for personal defense in close quarters” and for “maximum concealment.”
But if you or I make the same claim, suddenly we are branded lunatics by the fringe left and all the gun grabbers across America who apparently have no clue that their own government is arming up like never before.
Senator Feinstein, the gun-grabbing Senator from California, says she wants to take all the guns from all Americans. “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,” she says on the record. But while Mr. and Mrs. America are turning in their guns, ‘roid-head DHS goons are arming to the teeth with full-auto assault rifles.
This is all on top of the 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition the U.S. government has already stockpiled, as was discovered last year. What kind of government wants to domestically stockpile ammo and full-auto weapons, putting them in the hands of domestic agents who have nothing whatsoever to do with overseas wars? Well, the kind of government that plans to NEED 1.6 billion rounds of ammo and full-auto assault weapons, of course.
Read some language from the contract bid: Pistol grips, full-auto and more
Click here to see the bid.
Here’s some selected text from the bid:
ICE/Mission Support-DC
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Office of Acquisition Management
801 I Street NW, Suite 980
Washington DC 20536
Troy Teachey, troy.teachey@dhs.gov
Delivery Location Code: ICE/AS/NFTTU
ICE Natl Firearm Tactical Trng Unit
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
500 12th ST SW, Washington DC 20536
5.56X45mm NATO Personal Defense Weapon
During the base period and four option periods of this contract the maximum ceiling is $9,800,000.
Click here for the PDF document containing the following text:
The scope of this contract is to provide a total of up to 7,000 5.56x45mm North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) personal defense weapons (PDW) throughout the life of this contract to numerous Department of Homeland Security components.
The action shall be select-fire (capable of semi-automatic and automatic fire).
The action shall be capable of accepting all standard NATO STANAG 20 and 30 round M16 magazines (NSN 1005-00-921-5004) and Magpul 30 round PMAG (NSN 1005-01-576-5159). The magazine shall have a capacity to hold thirty (30) 5.56x45mm NATO rounds.
The receiver top shall be equipped with an integral MIL-STD-1913 Picatinny rail for mounting sights and other accessories.
The fire control selector shall have three positions; safe, semi-automatic, and automatic.
The pistol grip shall be a fixed, vertical pistol grip constructed of a durable material.
DHS admits AR-15 with 30-round magazine is “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters”
This government document openly admits that AR-15s with 30-round magazines and capable of fully automatic fire are “suitable for personal defense” in close quarters (i.e. your home).
CNN, of course, doesn’t want you to ever hear that. Nor does Feinstein, Cuomo, Schumer, Obama, Eric Holder or any other gun grabbers. Even while their own government is arming up with 1.6 billion rounds of ammo and 7,000 full-auto “assault rifles” (plus lots more in other bids), they are trying to completely disarm the American citizenry through new gun registration and confiscation legislation.
The whole point of all this, of course, is to create firepower disparity between the government and the citizenry… To disarm the People while arming up the government agents who operate domestically. That way, the people can be forced at gunpoint into doing almost anything the oppressive government demands! (Taking vaccine shots, giving up private property, turning over farms and businesses, etc.)
What’s really hard-hitting about this is that the radical left keeps claiming things like “no one needs an assault rifle for personal defense.” Okay, if that true, then the Department of Homeland Security should abandon all such rifles first! Let’s see DHS turn in all its rifles and ammo, thereby setting an example of the “fact” that “nobody needs an assault rifle” for self defense.
In truth, a full-auto AR-15 is an outstanding weapon for self defense, which is exactly why DHS is buying thousands of them. Nothing stops bad guys faster than a barrage of high-velocity lead aimed in their direction. Again, that’s why DHS wants these rifles in the first place. One of these rifles in the hands of a citizen could have stopped the Sandy Hook shooting in seconds.
Pay attention to the word games (which are really mind games)
As you observe the highly manipulated gun control argument, pay special attention to the word games you’re being subjected to:
An AR-15 in the hands of a citizen is an “assault rifle.”
But an AR-15 in the hands of a DHS agent is a “Personal Defense Weapon.”
A full-auto-capable rifle in the hands of a citizen is called a “machine gun.”
A full-auto-capable rifle in the hands of a DHS agent is called a “select-fire rifle.”
According to the media, all government agents with assault rifles are presumed innocent and assumed to be stopping crime.
But all private citizens with assault rifles are presumed guilty and assumed to be causing crime.
When one citizen goes crazy and murders a bunch of people, the call goes out for ALL citizens to be stripped of their firearms.
But when one government agent goes crazy and murders a bunch of people, the calls goes out for MORE guns to be placed in the hands of MORE government agents!
Thank you, DHS, for admitting the truth
In summary, it looks like we actually need to thank the DHS for admitting the truth that Obama won’t: AR-15s are personal defense weapons, suitable for use in close quarters, especially when equipped with 30-round magazines.
That’s why I own one, and it’s why DHS wants thousands more (but theirs are full-auto, while mine is only semi-auto).
As a general rule, all freedom-loving Americans should want the same firepower their domestic government possesses. That’s the whole point behind the Second Amendment, and it represents the distribution of power in a free society.
But instead of firepower being equal in America today, DHS is using our taxpayer dollars to purchase thousands of full-auto weapons for their own agents. This is apparently being done under ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement).
This brings up the question for another entire article, and here’s the question: Why does immigration need 7,000 full-auto assault rifles? Is there a friggin’ Mexican invasion planned that nobody told me about? Is ICE going to invade Mexico and start a shooting war with the Mexican drug cartels?
Seriously: Why does ICE need 7,000 full-auto assault rifles? And why does DHS need 1.6 billion rounds of ammo?

To all the Commie Pinkos in America

"....the Right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms,

Shall not be Infringed."

No Limits see it's clear and simple and no matter how hard that Piece of dog @!$%# Bloomberg and Douchebag Feinstupid try it will never happen..

Both parties have plenty of Douchebags but clearly Americans have spoken 8)

We win

Commie Pinkos

You Losers will always lose 8) I know it hurts but your used to it

[I agree, They didnt need to bring your wife into the fray, but that aside you're still a little prik.]

Uh no freeloader, you are wrong. I'm a BIG prick...

So cool, politicians still think that a ban on assualt weapons will stop the crazies.

Both chicago and NYC have pretty strict gun laws. In 2012 chicago saw a record number of deaths by guns while NYC had far less than years past. If the crazies are gonna do it what makes politicians think they can be stopped by more regulations. Like hackers and identity thieves their will always be workarounds for the crazies.

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

partyliners-wreckthe country...

Background checks do control who gets a gun and can be a first line of defense, however like you and I know there are work arounds.

Big al...

While pink may be your favorite color, private ownership of working fully automatic weapons was banned in the 1930's. Couldn't have the criminals outgunning law enforcement now could we? Personally I don't see the point of assault weapons or large capacity mags. However, I also have no problem with law abiding citizens owning them.

@american

Never said anything about Fully Auto and Assault Weapons are Semi Auto pull trigger one bullet one pull 8)

Couldn't have the criminals outgunning law enforcement now could we?

Yah ok how's that working out for Chicago or LA really @!$%#ty 8(

We have over 450 street gangs with 45000 active gangsters this is just LA about 45 minutes from my doorstep.

The cops only have roughly 10k to keep the peace and try and protect us best they can....

3 of these gangsters armed to the teeth kick your damn door in and you have about 15 seconds to protect your wife and 2 and 4 year old from certain death......

High Cap Mags save your ASSS

Assault Weapon while not the best in my opinion for home defense, I would rather have a blast bat 12gauge humming.

.000001% of gun owners use assault rifles in mass murders, and when banned, the killing didn't slow down at all, they just used non banned weapons....

in our country, in theory, a group cannot restrict anothers rights without showing good cause

it's retarded to ban a product in wide use simply because some people think it will make a difference.... it clearly will not and it's been proven historically.

OMG!!! Would you anti-choicers stop comparing a woman's legal medical choice to the mass murder of 20 schoolchildren? So, you can tell me what to do WITH MY BODY but you don't want anyone treading on your 2nd amendment rights? Or your right to protect yourselves and your right to bear arms?

You will find no bigger gun rights supporter than me. I am a gun owner and I carry concealed. But I am also pro-choice. And you can leave my body, my womb and those of other strange women you will never meet, out of this gun-rights debate. It's hypocritical, me thinks, that you don't want anyone "TREADING" on you and your gun rights but you think it's okay to TREAD on women and our reproductive rights. This IS exactly why I'm an Independent. Loons on both sides.

I agree with Olivia on this issue totally 8) who are we to judge it's not up to us.

But when it comes to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights

It's a different story all together.

[quote]GreenTimer

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.

... Amendment II to the U S Constitution.

Why don't we enforce the 2nd Amendment's call for a well regulated militia by requiring membership in the National Guard (militia) to keep and bear arms?[/quote]

The Second Amendment is two part.

The first part: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

The second part: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Draw a little short dark mustache on on the New York Mayor and tell me who he looks like. Zeig Heil! Remember- This is the same person that tried to tell New Yorkers what they could eat and drink (BIG SODA BAN!) "I am GOD MAYOR-YOU WILL LISTEN TO ME! I COMMAND YOU TO LAY DOWN YOUR FRENCH FRIES! I KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR YOU!!! DRINK THE KOOL AID INSTEAD!! IT WILL MAKE YOU WELL!!!" I'm sure there were liberals lined up singing the praises of this Constitution burning look alike.

Layton,

Exactly! The majority of this country are in favor of doing something to show that we care about gun control, we care about children, we care about our neighbors!

If you cared about the children and your neighbors, you wouldn't be attacking the 2nd amendment. You should be urging your politicians to address the cause of violence. The gun is not the cause. The cause is poverty, lack of education, hopelessness, generations of families living on public assistance, lack of family structure, poor to no supervision, lack of discipline, gross government supported economic disparity, etc..

Creating new gun laws and placing restrictions on law abiding citizens is not the answer. A law will not keep you, your children or your neighbors safe from criminals. A criminal by definition ignores laws. Hundreds of millions of law abiding gun owners did not commit murder today, yesterday, last week, last year, last decade, etc.

Put your money where your mouth is Bloomberg. Go ahead, spend it all you rich bastard.

I thought the Laural and Harding show was cancelled?

Bloomberg, Biden warn of political price for opposing weapons ban

When you say both their names in one sentence, it is like trying to make a bad joke sound funny !!!

@Matt

Read the Heller Victory for all Americans

Heller represents a very good decision establishing a strong right to keep and bear arms

It's simple It's an Individual Right and that's that.

The Right to Bear Arms The Right to be Free

Private citizens are cut off from having Firearms say in China 8( Communists have to control the populace.

Mickey, NY,

I have reviewed your previous posts and I fail to see where you owned anybody. I have seen no coherent arguments for gun control. I saw nothing except snide remarks and hyperbole. If you are the best voice of the gun grabbers then I feel comfortable that the 2nd amendment will remain unchanged and our rights will remain intact.

Look up the Battle of Athens, TN in 1946, to see why we must retain our uninfringed right to keep and bear arms. That was an incident on the county level. Imagine if it were to happen on a national level. With severely limited rights to arms, we would have no means to resist or take back control.

Finally, this is Bloomberg speaking. He doesn't just want to control magazine sizes, increase background checks or keep scary looking weapons from being sold. His ultimate goal, and the goal of many Democrats, is to have a ban on ALL guns, just as there is a ban in NYC and other Democrat controlled metropolitan areas. To push through this legislation would just be a first step in that direction.

So here's a question. Since nobody else seems to want to ask it.

Why don't you liberals and progressives bitch and moan when a progressive openly tries to buy a vote? You whine about the Koch brothers and the NRA incessantly but Gore, Nannyburg, and Soros always get a pass. Are you born that hypocritical or does it come as a webinar when joining the Democrat party?

Bloomberg urged members of the public to tell congressional opponents of the gun control measure that they will “support whoever runs against you, no matter who they are.”

I guess he doesn't realize that works both ways.

Written by a USMC Vet

( I can't argue with any of it. Passing it along as it was received.)

He wrote:
The American Dream ended (on November 6th, 2012) in Ohio. The second term of Barack Obama will be the final nail in the coffin for the legacy of the white Christian males who discovered, explored, pioneered, settled and developed the greatest Republic in the history of mankind.
A coalition of Blacks, Latinos, Feminists, Gays, Government Workers, Union Members, Environmental Extremists, The Media, Hollywood, uninformed young people, the "forever needy," the chronically unemployed, illegal aliens and other "fellow travelers" have ended Norman Rockwell's America.
The Cocker Spaniel is off the front porch...the Pit Bull is in the back yard.
The American Constitution has been replaced with Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" and Chicago shyster, David Axelrod, along with international Socialist George Soros will be pulling the strings on their beige puppet to bring us Act 2 of the New World Order.
Our side ran two candidates who couldn't even win their own home states, and the circus fattster Chris Christie helped Obama over the top with a glowing "post Sandy" tribute that elevated the "Commander-in-Chief" to Mother Teresa status.
People like me are completely politically irrelevant, and I will never again comment on or concern myself with the aforementioned coalition which has surrendered our culture, our heritage and our traditions without a shot being fired.
You will never again out vote these people. It will take individual acts of defiance and massive displays of civil disobedience to get back the rights we have allowed them to take away. It will take Zealots, not moderates--not reach-across-the-aisle RINOs to right this ship and restore our beloved country to its former status.
Those who come after us will have to risk their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to bring back the Republic that this generation has timidly frittered away due to "white guilt" and political correctness.....
I'm done.

"Biden, Bloomberg and Newtown Parents Press for Strict Gun Control" -- Yahoo headline {This is no different.}

Biden, Bloomberg and Newtown Parents, MOVE to China. They already have strict gun control! And we sure as hell do NOT want to end up like them!!!

Wait, Newtown parents move to China? You're a complete moron.

OBAMA, BIDEN BLOOMBERG apparently you and the DEMOCRATS don't understand the "WE THE PEOPLE" part. "WE THE PEOPLE" do not want anything on the gun ban and the desecration of our 2nd Amendment rights. If you go ahead with it ALL OF YOU AND THE DEMOCRATS will be responsible for a WAR with the people and it will be bloody and it will be seriously a big WAR. So it is up to you DO YOU DEMOCRATS AND ALL OF YOU want a WAR with the "PEOPLE" go ahead because it will be caused by ALL OF YOU AND DEMOCRATS.

Ok, I wasn't going to comment on this. Just the same old same old from the right.

Here's the thing. First, the 2nd Amendment is way past its time. It was written at a time when citizens were expected to rise up and fight off an Indian attack, or to repel an invasion by a foreign power. That's what the miilitia mention was all about. Never going to happen now.

Second, no one, and I mean no one, is trying to ban guns completely. I would vote for them if they did, but no one is even whispering about that. So, cool your jets.

Third, the assault weapons ban did have a positive effect. The effects were just becoming evident when the law expired. Why do we have laws that expire? Who knows.

Fourth, while it's true that no law will prevent every tragedy, and criminals will be the last to give up their guns, if we don't ever do anything, and don't start some time, we'll never get anywhere. So let's start now. After reading the rhetoric of kooks like Cesar Augustus and Pro-Freedom et al, the sooner we start taking guns away, the better.

BTW- to all of you who have felt compelled to drag the abortion issue into this. First, we on the left are not in favor of abortions. It is a tragic circumstance when a woman feels that she needs to do this, but it is her right to do so. Second, a fetus is not a child. Stop saying that doctors are murdering children. As Roe v. Wade explained, a fetus is biologically a parasite until viability, at which point it can live independently of the mother. You don't believe in it, good for you. Don't have an abortion. Just don't try to foist your medieval religious beliefs off on me or mine.

And for all you righties crowing about Bloomberg and Biden "threatening" dems who don't vote the way they want: how many republicans were "primaried" by the TP for not being extreme enough, or not voting a certain way, or for gasp saying something positive about the POTUS? Can you say "hypocrites" boys and girls?

Olivia Dunham

In regard to just your abortion comment...there is a living human in your body, why should he/she have to die because you don't want him/her? Also, why do you people always say it's the woman's choice. The baby is 50% the fathers, why does the father not get a voice?

Saying that the women has to give birth isn't a good answer.

Both parents should get a say and if the father wants the child, the child gets to live.

Mike from AZ

Do you really think that it is the US gun violence that they want to cause a gun ban???? It is because the US made a deal with the United Nations to ban guns. Yet they are willing to give guns to other nations. This is so much more than just the US, it has to do with control and removing guns from law abiding citizens. Canada is facing the same things but, they are able to put the squeeze on their citizens but, the United States citizens are more stubborn and have more pride and so they United States government is pushing the gun ban down our throats so that they can get them removed. This has nothing to do with Sandy Hook, Aurora shootings it has alot to do with controlling the population with government agenda and new world order. The US agreed to disarm its citizens and that is what they are doing.

tdj1-

Wow. Your tinfoil hat is a little tight there. You sure it's not the illuminati? Or the vast worldwide Jewish conspiracy?

Have you seen the document in which the US agreed to disarm its citizens? Or are you taking somebody's word for it?

Mike from AZ

Read the United Nations report on Gun bans you will find it there... If you are smart enough you will read it. If not then your a low information person without the galls to discern the truth. Your just a follower and not smart enough to know the truth or find it. I guess your one of the people that have not got a clue whats going on in life and sad to say this but, your blind to the truth.

Mike from AZ:

Say what?!

1. ...Or domestic invasions.

2. That's not what the grabbers are saying. They're just planning to do it in stages.

Diane Feinstein:

Discussing why the 1994 act only prohibited the manufacture or import of assault weapons, instead of the possession and sale of them, Feinstein said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

In July 2006, Feinstein voted against the Vitter Amendment to prohibit Federal funds being used for the confiscation of lawfully owned firearms during a disaster.

3. LOL! "The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994, are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991, AND since it expired."

4. Disarming LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS DOES NOT PROTECT LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS. Never has. Never will! It is 100% about disarming the citizenry and citizen militia of the several States of the Republic.

The PEOPLE have been telling their representative how they better vote if they want to get re-elected. Obama, Biden and Bloomberg are warning their colleague that they better "tow the line, or else". Not the way it's supposed to work.

OF the PEOPLE. BY the PEOPLE. And FOR the PEOPLE. NOT the reigning, ruling "Temp workers" who were ELECTED to SERVE the PEOPLE.

Partyliners, just like no one has the right to take away your 2nd amendment rights, NO ONE has the right to tell a woman what to do with HER BODY. Abortion has been legal for 40 years. You have the right to your opinions but if abortions were made illegal again, they would still happen, but the woman would die. Women would go to desperate measures to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy. Women matter. What about our life? If you're so pro-life, why don't you think of the women who would die if abortion were outlawed again?

No woman should be forced to gestate and give birth. It is up to the woman and her doctor what she chooses. None of your business. Don't tread on my reproductive rights. Not the church. Not the state. Women must decide our fate.

And pregnancy and childbirth have a higher mortality rate than abortion. We are not walking, breathing, living incubators. And contraception DOES fail as does sterilization. I could get preggo on my IUD. I'm doing all I can to prevent pregnancy. BUT, if my IUD failed, I would not hesitate to get an abortion. And my reasons are mine and my husband's alone. Stay out of other peoples' bedrooms and medical choices.

Bloomberg should focus on NYC and the level of corruption and Hurricane sandy and keep his pecker off of my guns.Biden is an idiot. When you give up your rights to secure safety you will be neither safer nor more secure. keep the federlais out of our lives. we saw how much thay can manage things through the Fast and Furious

Bureaucrats from 150 nations are ramping up efforts to impose gun control through international pact. Here in the United States, the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty has become the vehicle to drive an agenda that is deeply controversial because once a treaty is ratified by the Senate, it becomes the supreme law of the land.

Last week, Secretary of State John F. Kerry — no friend of the Second Amendment — announced support for the treaty, which calls for international regulations on firearms, including personal firearms as well as military weapons. During the presidential campaign, President Obama was evasive about his position on the treaty. Now that he has fully “evolved” on the Second Amendment, he has the “flexibility” of not having to face voters again, and is pushing for the treaty.

There are plenty of reasons to be concerned about what’s being cooked up in Turtle Bay. Proponents say the treaty is only meant to crack down on illegal gun-smuggling, and the only people who ought to be concerned are military strongmen looking for a good deal on black-market rocket launchers. Of course, there’s more to the story. The exact wording of the agreement, and more importantly, how vague passages can be interpreted and twisted by the courts, will determine what the treaty actually means. It could, for example, force America to implement a national gun-registration scheme, ban importation of weapons and impose burdensome regulations on transfers.

The “Review Conference on Illicit Small Arms Trade” adopted a “consensus outcome document” that states in Article 2, Paragraph 4 that signatories to the treaty would “establish or update, as appropriate, and maintain a national control list that shall include the items that fall within paragraph A1 .” Paragraph A1 includes small personal firearms.

Under Article 6, Paragraph 3, signatories (including the United States) would be required to set up an “effective, transparent and predictable national control system regulating the transfer of conventional arms .” Once again, “conventional arms” would include civilian firearms protected by the Second Amendment.

Article 8, Paragraph 2 requires countries to “put in place adequate measures that will allow them, where necessary, to monitor and control imports of items covered by the scope of this Treaty.” This could prevent U.S. gun owners from buying foreign guns and parts. Other provisions of the document “underscored efforts in marking, record-keeping and cooperation in tracing small arms .” Tracing weapons is legalese for the creation of a gun registry.

The administration pretends that ratification of this deal would do nothing to undermine constitutional rights. “We will not support any treaty that would be inconsistent with U.S. law and the rights of American citizens under our Constitution,” says Mr. Kerry. The secretary forgets that we can read, too. The written provisions of the treaty and the administration’s domestic agenda on these issues make such reassurance hollow, indeed.

In the wake of the Newtown, Conn., school massacre, Mr. Obama unleashed his all-out effort to ban “assault weapons” — the most popular type of rifle sold in America today. The White House proposals, however, should be doomed in the Republican-dominated House of Representatives. Use of the treaty process is a way to bypass that uncooperative body and accomplish many of the same gun-control goals with only 67 Senate votes.

If proponents of the arms-trade treaty are honest about their intentions, they should have no problem amending the draft treaty to explicitly limit the agreement to large, military weapons and exclude all civilian firearms that fall under the protection of the Second Amendment. The National Rifle Association has offered language that would amend the treaty to eliminate any exploitable ambiguity. Unless such corrections are made, the Senate should stand strong against international deals to trash the constitutional rights of Americans.

The Washington Times

Read more: #ixzz2OFC8T98o
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

tdj1- we haven't signed anything in regards to any UN gun treaties. Don't believe everything anything you hear on Faux News.

spiddas- gun violence has started rising since the expiration of the Brady bill and assault weapons ban. And as for the "people" telling their representatives how to vote, 57% of Americans are in favor of the assault weapons ban. As much as you don't want to admit it, you're in the minority.

Mike from AZ we have too they have implemented the process from the United Nations meeting regarding gun bans. Its started this March that is why they are pushing this agenda

I seem to hear about some democrats stating that they will go after handguns next. My problem is that politician's, criminals & anyone in law enforcement are exempt whether on duty, off duty or even retired yet military on duty or retired as well as law abiding citizens are not. I'm in my 70's, have never been in trouble with the law & have owned guns all my life will not be able to possess a AR-15 but if my neighbor also in his seventies is a retired policeman or park ranger then he can! Same applies to magazines too. You will find that your swat teams & even riot police carry them all the time.The 2nd amendment makes law abiding citizens equal to law enforcement as it should be.If you persist in banning any of them then make it for all no exceptions period.

Olivia Dunham

Please....I care more about the poor babies fate then you having a big belly for x months.

And my reasons are mine and my husband's alone.

Where exactly is there a law saying the father gets a voice? If you wanted the abortion, it wouldn't matter

what he had to say.

Also, women dying from pregnancy issues (which BTW, I have no stance on. That's a difficult choice the family will have to make whichever direction they decide to go) is a whole other issue than women who purposely want to have an abortion just so they don't have to deal with the baby.

People would have no need to talk about abortion if you people quit your murdering.

You got pregnant, now you have to live with it.

The Arms Trade Treaty is the name of a potential multilateral treaty that would regulate the international trade in conventional weapons. The treaty was negotiated at a global conference under the auspices of the United Nations from July 2–27, 2012 in New York.^[1] As it was not possible to reach an agreement on a final text, a new meeting for the conference is scheduled for 18–28 March 2013.^[2]

Wikipedia

Paul, law abiding citizens are just that. They are not equal to law enforcement. If they were, why would we need law enforcement. Law enforcement are the organized, well-regulated militia. We pay them to do what they do as their job.

Citizens are neither organized, well-regulated, uniformed or paid.

You may be entitled by the Second Amendment to bear arms, but you are not law enforcement.

I really wish that when people feel the need to start into the whole conspiracy about the 1.6 billion bullets thing, that they do it at the beginning of their comment. Sort of like a disclaimer letting us know the rest of their comment will most likely just as @!$%#ing stupid.

Herrs Biden and Bloomberg have spoken. March in lock step with the Democratic Socialist Party or pay the price!! You are an enemy of the state. You may have a face to face meeting with an unmanned drone in the near future!! Heil, Obama Bin Laden! Heil, Nancy Pelosi! Heil, Harry Reid!

tdj1- your source is the Washington Times. 'nuff said.

I wonder if all the anti-gun Nazis have figured out one simple truth yet:

No matter what laws you pass, no matter what noise you make or what insults you hurl towards those of us legally armed Americans...you will NEVER take away the weapons we already have. It really is that simple children.

The government will not take them away because they know what you clowns don't. The police and the military will not enforce draconian anti-gun measures against their fellow Americans. Why not? Because most of THEM own guns too and don't really feel like giving them up.

But feel free to keep bleating like the ignorant sheep you are. It just makes you look stupid.

By the way...as long as you have people like Dianne Feinstein and Charles Rangel as your spokespeople...you're really no real threat. After all, people dumb enough to say "But it's legal to hunt humans" and "millions of children killed with automatic weapons"...both comments being irrational enough to have their speakers declared insane by any intelligent human being...well, let's just say that you folks are NOT remotely intelligent enough to take seriously.

Of course, anyone dumb enough to think that banning a weapon because of how it looks is already beneath contempt.

And by the way Fielden,

Law enforcement are NOT the "well regulated militia". Please keep your mouth shut about things you obviously know NOTHING about. The closest thing to the Founders' version of a "well regulated militia" is the National Guard. Law enforcement personnel are trained in law enforcement...not combat genius.

Good grief.

According to the constitution the second amendment has limits as well.

Really? According to which section of the Constitution? You'll have to quote the non-existent text, or you lose the right to speak. Why do ignorant twits, who've never even read the Constitution comment? Not only is it not in there, but the correspondence between Madison and Jefferson remove any doubt whatsoever about what is meant and covered by the 2nd Amendment. George Washington's own words express its exact meaning. Next time, you may want to read the Second Amendment, before you claim to be a Constitutional scholar. Pathetic.

Party-liners,

why should he/she have to die because you don't want him/her?

Just say "it". I know you can't because that would de-humanize the embryo/fetus and detract from your attempts to tug at heart strings. An embryo or early term fetus has no gender. I wouldn't define a fetus as a human until it reached a stage where it is a fully developed baby. Something that looks like a tadpole or something out of Alien is not human, in my opinion. Is a chicken's egg a chick? Is a tadpole a frog? Is a caterpillar a butterfly? There is a point where a fetus becomes a human and it is not at conception.

Ron B-2757074

Actually, I did use "it" in the next post.

If something has mass, is it not something? A tadpole is a creature, a caterpillar is a creature, a fetus is a creature.

I'm beginning to understand the hysteria and concern of many of the posters . If I were one of them I would also be concerned at the prospect of having to pass a sanity test before buying my next gun. Now I see why they are so freaked out !!!

they said it all we the goverment know what is best for americans we rule.forgetting that they work for us.

BanFacebook

I agree that there are a lot of insane people, the only issue is how do you know if someone is sane or not? Do you go by how they talk, act, look, if they have marital problems, medical history, if they ever committed a crime, etc. The issue will be that some people who are actually sane will be deemed insane. Then their is always the work around of having someone else buy the gun or just steal one. Sanity tests will help sometimes, but it is definitely not going to solve the issue.

BanFacebook,

Yeah, you're right. A person must be crazy if they're concerned about uneducated, hysterical individuals who want to infringe upon their rights simply because they are scared. I can't imagine why anyone would be hysterical about an agenda that wants to limit the Constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens and make them criminals simply because they own something that the agenda says is now "illegal".

Can't imagine why anyone would be worried when politicians are lining up to lie their butts off about "assault weapons" and spewing totally irrational and factually incorrect garbage.

Yeah, nothing to be worried about here. Right.

"Really? According to which section of the Constitution? You'll have to quote the non-existent text, or you lose the right to speak. Why do ignorant twits, who've never even read the Constitution comment?....."

Speaking of twits, why don't you try reading a few cases on the 2nd Amendment. The SC has held that the rights under the 2nd Amendment are not absolute. In other words, there can be restrictions on the rights found under 2nd Amendment.

Under Heller, the SC recognized that this right is not absolute. "Like most rights," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority, "the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." Justice Scalia is the most far right judge on the SC, and even this joke of a justice admits your rights can be restricted under the 2nd Amendment.

Are you kidding me Mr. Vice President, shoot through a door?

Taking note of the recommendations of the Group of Governmental Experts on developing technical guidelines for the stockpile management of conventional ammunition, which would be available for States on a voluntary basis, and on improving knowledge resource management on technical ammunition issues within the United Nations system,4 and taking note also of the subsequent establishment, within the Secretariat, of the “SaferGuard” knowledge resource management programme,

1. Encourages all interested States to assess, on a voluntary basis, whether, in conformity with their legitimate security needs, parts of their stockpiles of conventional ammunition should be considered to be in surplus, and recognizes that the security of such stockpiles must be taken into consideration and that appropriate controls with regard to the security and safety of stockpiles of conventional ammunition are indispensable at the national level in order to eliminate the risk of explosion, pollution or diversion;

2. Appeals to all interested States to determine the size and nature of their surplus stockpiles of conventional ammunition, whether they represent a security risk, their means of destruction, if appropriate, and whether external assistance is needed to eliminate this risk;

3. Encourages States in a position to do so to assist interested States within a bilateral framework or through international or regional organizations, on a voluntary and transparent basis, in elaborating and implementing programmes to eliminate surplus stockpiles or to improve their management;

United Nations Office of Disarmament Affairs

wizard:

"I can't imagine why anyone would be hysterical about an agenda that wants to limit the Constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens and make them criminals simply because they own something that the agenda says is now "illegal".

Huh?

So few people are thinking about this in a realistic manner - ANY registering of ANY gun puts YOU on a list that can be used against you, either by the government, or any media (remember the maps published, showing all the gun owners?), and CRIMINALS. If you are NOT on the list, you are a (non) gun owner, like me, and you are a target for criminals to rob your home, etc. The government can "collect" guns any time they want to, once they've determined you shouldn't have one, or feel you are a threat to the government. They're already doing that in California. The ATF has quite a large force, and could come at you any time they want. It's not about being paranoid, it's common sense. There's always the chance another country could take over our country, and if they get the "list", it'll be easy pickin's to collect all the opposition.

I say, once it is known to the public who voted "yes" on the bans, VOTE EVERY ONE OF THEM OUT OF OFFICE! Watch your politicians in your state - we still have something to say.

This headline makes me chuckle.... Is there no one in Washington with more than 2 brain cells ? The majority of people obviously do not support major gun control measures REGARDLESS of what Bloomberg and Biden want to think or want to attempt too make people believe. These idiots are also jumping on the gay marriage bandwagon even though the majority oppose that as well as evidenced by the vote against it in the most liberal state in the country (California).

these ninrods seem to ignore the truth before them and try to use mind control to convince us all what is best for us.....lol.... Actually many are being brainwashed but common sense will prevail hopefully, If not it's another nail in our coffin of a free society.

Partyliners-Your line, "You got pregnant, now you have to live with it." No I don't. The law says I can have an abortion, up to 25 weeks here in Texas. But I would never get past the first trimester. My concerns have nothing to do with getting "a belly" as you call it. You really are clueless. You have no idea what women go through during the 9 months they are pregnant. Maybe you've seen it through you wife's eyes. (I assume you are male. Most anti-choicers are.) But you'll never experience it.

I work for an OB/Gyn, so I deal with pregnant women daily and I see the toll it takes. We've had to have women hospitalized due to severe eclampsia who could have died. Women who were hospitalized because they had such severe morning sickness. Get over yourself. You don't know me. You'll never know me nor the 4,000 women who choose abortion every day. So what makes you think you have the authority to tell us what to do about an unwanted pregnancy? Oh, that's right. You have no authority.

I had an abortion in college and have never regretted it. If it weren't legal here at the time, my parents had the means to take me elsewhere to get it done safely. But many women don't have this choice due to financial burdens. So quit talking about things you know nothing about. How would you like it if I told you what to do with your body?

Party-liners,

If something has mass, is it not something? A tadpole is a creature, a caterpillar is a creature, a fetus is a creature

And you dodge the points I made because they nullify your position of a fetus being a human being. Yes, a tadpole is a creature but it is not a frog, a chicken egg is not a chick and a caterpillar is not a butterfly. I did not state that a fetus is not something. A fetus is a mass of living tissue and developing cells but it is not a baby.

If you eat an egg for breakfast would you state that you had chicken for breakfast? No. Even though, if it hadn't been gathered and put in a carton, it may have continued to grow and a chicken may have eventually formed and emerged. The same logic applies to an embryo or an underdeveloped fetus. Logic, unfortunately, is rarely recognized by people with deep emotional opinions on particular subjects.

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• There is OVERWHELMING support for an ASSAULT WEAPONS ban (and a ban of high capacity magazines for that matter). Just what don't you understand about that?? It will eventually pass just because of the amount of support it has.

Mike from AZ: That's not what the data according to the FBI says. Their data says it has been steadily going down, IIRC, since the mid-70s. Polls, polls, polls. The only time I use polls is to show that, as per an report in the early 90s, they can be EASILY manipulated to give the data the organization requesting the poll desires. Look no farther than the MSN homepage for that. But, then again, if you like polls:

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)

Haggis,

BWAHAhahahaa!!! You are so lame. It only has support from big government loving liberal gun grabbers. That is not "overwhelming" support.

There is OVERWHELMING support for an ASSAULT WEAPONS ban

Except from Harry Reid, Obama's & Biden's Senate lapdog and the Majority Leader of the D-Bags

Ceasar Augustus # 1.46 asks

how about the other part of the second amendment 'The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed" .... I may not be a Constitutional Scholar (in fact its not necessary to know the laws of the land) but im pretty sure that second part stands on its own...How about you Greentimer?

Matt #1.150 also sees the amendment as two distinct items.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" could be a complete thought by itself. But what are we to do with the opening phrase?

The syntax of a coma does not turn the 2nd amendment into two equal statements. A semicolon may separate two complete statements, but comas are generally used to separate items of a list or to designate a qualification or just for clarity. The phrase "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is a phrase that does not stand on its own; it is an incomplete thought without being attached to something else. The amendment is not written "A well regulated militia [IS] necessary ... "

No, the only way that the "militia" phrase has any meaning is by attachment to the "keep and bear" portion of the amendment, and therefore, the "keep and bear" portion does not stand on its own in the context of the Second Amendment, because the "militia" phrase cannot stand on its own.

Some folks may be "pretty sure" the second part of the second amendment "stands on its own", but I'm pretty sure that the Constitutional conventioneers did not throw in that qualifying first phrase just for @!$%#s and grins.

The First Amendment clearly itemizes the unqualified rights of the people. The framers would have included the "right to keep and bear arms" in the First Amendment rights if it were to be an unqualified right.

So, what's the problem with attaching military membership to keeping and bearing arms?

Green, the problem with attaching military membership to keeping and bearing arms is:

1. The phrase used in the Constitution is "the people," not "the military."

2. The Supreme Court, a body that is made up of Constitutional scholars, says, and has said numerous times in the past, that military membership is not required to keep and bear arms, as that is not what the framers of the Constitution intended.

Liberals love to site polling data when it supports their cause. Lets see, a majority of people are against abortion on demand. A majority of people want spending cuts BEFORE any new taxes. A majority of people want the federal government to live within its budget as dictated by the revenue they collect. A majority of people want our leaders to uphold the constitution. A majority of Americans want our CURRENT IMMIGRATION LAWS ENFORCED. Don't want to go there do you.

As for political consequences, nearly every remaining republican senate and house member will pay a far higher price if they support new gun laws. The districts they represent are safe and very pro 2nd amendment.

Ron B-2757074

What does it matter if you say the fetus is not "human." The fetus is still a creature. Why does it not have the right to life?

Party-liner,

Do all live creatures have a right to life?

Sheep, poison ivy, brown rats, asparagus and the lilies of the field are also creatures. Or what about those pre-mature creatures like walnuts or caviar?

Then there are brain tumors and sebaceous cysts, alive with reproducing cells that cannot survive outside of their host human bodies.

Executions by state governments prove there is no moral or legal right to life.

Agreed....however, moderates sometimes look like a little of both don't they?

Bloomberg is simply an elitist RINO ! He is foolish enough to think you can legislate Utopia !! I can't wait for him to create laws restricting Cheetos .... oh wait. Bloomberg LIKES Cheetos !!

You go Bloomberg! It's time to point guns at gun owners and give them a piece of the action that they have created.

So in what way does limiting the individual ownership of assualt weapons violate personal responsibility that the Republican party alleges to hold so near and dear to its heart?

Does limiting the individual ownership of bazookas, tanks, anti-aircraft missles or drones also make one inelibible for Republican party membership?

Or what about that infamous yellow cake that brought down Scooter Libby? I mean if the intent is to protect us from a tyrannical government, then we need to at least have parity with government means of coersion.

Maybe the Republican party should consider full employment as a better solution to the nation's ills than the armed takeover of a government elected by the free will of a free population.

Maybe the Republican party should consider full employment as a better solution to the nation's ills than the armed takeover of a government elected by the free will of a free population.

We do, unfortunately the POSUS does not agree....maybe in the next 4 years he'll get around to it.

green:

I agree. A few of us have decided our representation should be selected at the point of a gun, fortunately the vast majority of us disagree.

If you become sufficiently hysterical about the imaginary impending socialist dictatorship, you tend to forget that those you hate were elected by Americans exercising their freedom to vote. They may not be your fellow Americans, or your candidates, but they were freely elected nonetheless. Time to grow up, lose the tantrums, and become a real American.

SDN, you are a fool. It sounds like Bloombut and knothead Biden are threatening people if they don't vote their way. Maybe it is their turn to be advised that they can be removed from office just as well.

That sounds like a threat to me. Keep up the good work Republicans in Congress. Don't let the left continue to ruin this country!! We've got your back....locked n loaded!!

The left isn't ruining the country. Republicans and their "starve the beast" policies are.

You mean unlike the Democrats and their "all you can eat slops in the trough." policies?

don't mess with texas...........don't you mean...just look at Bush...that was definitely the wrong decision

With the People starting to learn more & more of the evils of Obamacare & It's preferential bias towards big labor unions it's becoming evident to those who forced this hideous bill down throats that they need to take a hard look at our 2nd amendment, before 2014.

"You mean unlike the Democrats and their "all you can eat slops in the trough." policies?"

Gotta love Republicans that cut taxes, go to war twice, shouting "deficits don't matter" and then pass an unpaid for medicare part D law through reconciliation blaming Democrats for spending.

LOL, but it's the Democrats that come up with a new "service" to bribe their constituents with when we have no money for those debts we've already got.

More slops for the people, we'll pretend it's all free.

[quote]jim-1455434

Bloomberg is simply an elitist RINO ! He is foolish enough to think you can legislate Utopia !! I can't wait for him to create laws restricting Cheetos .... oh wait. Bloomberg LIKES Cheetos !![/quote]

They would only be banned for law abiding citizens. He would still be able to eat them. That's how it is in North Korea, except it's with Coca Cola.

People that threaten the people that uphold the laws and values of the constitution should be Charged with Conspiracy to Commit Treason, then dealt with according to the same constititution that they stand against, with extreme predjudice PERIOD.

There is no end to these guys wanton lust for control...glad I don't live in NYC. You think getting a ban passed is bad...just wait until they start talking confiscation - I know plenty who own and will not give them up. The reason why we have the 2nd amendment in the first place is to protect the people from tyrannical government... I don't own a rifle but, as a law abiding citizen i'll be damned if I would let some over-paid, gov't bureaucrat tell me what I can and can't own...end of story. Bans do not work and are ineffective as proven by prior experience yet they continue to attempt to exert their will on the people...

...on the plus side, gun manufacturers are very happy folks right now...they are selling faster than they can make 'em. Guys like these are their best salesmen.

unoitall - Side note: Interesting choice for your avatar. ~_o

Gotta love Republicans that cut taxes, go to war twice, shouting "deficits don't matter" and then pass an unpaid for medicare part D law through reconciliation blaming Democrats for spending.

Let's test the honesty of your post since the 20th Century. Dumbocrats also voted for those tax cuts. Warmongering Presidents: Wilson D, Roosevelt D, Truman D, Eisenhower R, Kennedy D, Johnson D, Nixon R, Bush R, Bush R, Obama D. Democrats have been responsible for 100% more death and destruction than Repukelicans. Deficits don't matter. Didn't Obummer just use that very phrase? What's his party again? Medicare Part D is the problem? Really? I thought it was SS, Care, Caid and the bloated military. Part D isn't the problem in this country. Those 4 garbage programs are. I can't find a single mention of Health Care and Retirement in Article I, Section 8.

Eric, How about a little history on political parties and war?

WW1- Democrat in office.

WW2- Democrat in office.

Korean War- Democrat in office.

Vietnam- Democrat in office.

Iranian Hostage Crisis- Democrat in office.

Bin Laden & his cronies gaining strength and power- Democrat in office.

Hellava track record.

Vice President Joe Biden and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Thursday offered a stern warning to Congress: there are still political consequences for opposing the measure.

Threatening members of congress to vote their way or suffer the consequences in the form of political retribution. Here is no greater exhibition of desperation than threats and attempts at intimidation as they see their unconstitutional anti gun push crumbling before their eyes.

Despite what they and some other anti gunners would like to believe, it is actually they that are in the minority in this country. However, being the socialistic fanatics they are, look for them to keep trying.

It's nice to live in a free country where you can have an opinion.

That said, most Americans believe Obama was the right choice over Romney, and that is my opinion as well.

You got that right!!! Worst decision this country ever made!!!

Electing Obama is like a certian military term with 3 syllables ... "clu$terf_ck" !

most Americans believe Obama was the right choice over Romney

Wrong, a small number of voters decided who would be President. Over one third of Americans didn't vote. Get your story straight. Sorry to say they didn't vote but it was not the majority of AMERICANS.

What, like Republicans have anything that is electable? LOL

Ladies! Ladies!! Any idiot knows the difference between American people and 'Merkin pipple... The first group re-elected President Obama to a second term in an electoral college trouncing and the second group are just cry-baby jack-wads that thankfully won't ever matter anymore. BTW... Another important distinction is that the first group has enough intelligence to understand the second amendment where the second group thinks it was written by people as stupid as them...

When you think the majority is wrong, you are a minority... Now go git yer free stuff!!

Democrats=1

Americans=0

most Americans believe Obama was the right choice over Romney

Wrong! A majority of the voters - vastly different than "most Americans"

So now Biden is pulling a "Chicago" on the people that WORK FOR US.......

If they follow what their constituents demand & what the Constitution allows... the Joe sees them as traitors and are to be dealt with in a most severe manner....

Well, Joe.... as YOUR BOSS.... I say you need to GO HOME.... Shoot your shotgun & shut the HELL UP.......

@thethinker,

Wrong....Did the polls have Obama over Romney? Yes

Did the popular show Obama as the winner? Yes

So much for your logic.

Eric, your missing the point.

ONLY Registered Voters, vote. (Debatable)

NOT ALL AMERICANS ARE REGISTERED VOTERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Got It?

So your two year old is pissed that Romney didn't win Govt? Is that your point?

"Bloomberg urged members of the public to tell congressional opponents of the gun control measure that they will “support whoever runs against you, no matter who they are.”

And the hypocrisy keeps marching on! Poor little Bloomy, trying to spread his East Coast, uber liberal mindset to the rest of the country. Sorry Blooms, not everyone in America subscribes to your elitist nonsense. I just keep picturing a certain character off of "Inglorious Basterds", pounding on his desk, while screaming, "Nine, Nine, NINE!!!"

Am I to understand that the election results should be based on registered and unregistered voters ballots? Or registered only, or unregistered only?

These comments are a graphic example of the ignorance and stupidity of those disappointed in the last election, and how they (fail to) deal with even the slightest disappointments in their own little bubbles. They're pissed about the outcome, and the rest of the nation 'is going to pay'. This is America, validated election results aren't negotiable. Live with it or establish your own nation, elsewhere.

govtslave....that dude Erica-913730 always misses the point. We've all been laughing at his post for months. Do not waste your time on him. He's been marinated in the kewl-aids, very typical uneducated lib.

@govtslave and unoitall,

You missed my point. All those unregistered voters or non-voters wouldn't have all voted for Romney would they?

I'm very educated thanks. Ph.D. University of Wyoming.

In term of "kewl-aids" it sounds like you've had too much tea.

dont mess with texsas

The point of the constitution and bill of rights is to protect the minority from the majority. Some rights -specifically the right to protect one's life with force if necessary - are not up for legislation.

chick., #3.7,

'trouncing'....wow are you a low bar

BHO, 2008..52.9%..EV 365 V.176

BHO, 2012..51.0%..EV 332 V. 206 .......BOTH LOWER from 2008

..

#1..LBJ, 1964..61.0%..EV 486 V. 52.............HIGHEST POPULAR VOTE PERCENTAGE

#2..RMN, 1972..60.2%..EV 520 V. 17............took 49 states out of 50 (not 57)

#3..RR, 1984..58.5%..EV 525 V. 13.............HIGHEST NUMBER OF E.V. EVER

Those were TROUNCINGs & SHELLACKINGs.

Don't be foolish, look what you got with low expectations.

..

You might want to stop using the word 'stupid', unless you are looking in the mirror.

Eric, been reading all of your posts. You are a very educated idiot indeed!

I'll consider that a compliment.

Democrats don seem to learn from their mistakes. They seem to have forgotten the ass kicking they got in the 2010 election when they started their Gun Control law rant. Voters voted their ass out so fast their heads were spinning. I'm glad to see their up to their old tricks again, cant wait till midterm elections. BLOOMBERG IS RIGHT , THE PEOPLE WILL SPEAK AT THE POLLS BUT I DONT THINK HE WILL LIKE WHAT THEIR GOING TO SAY AND HIS billion's WONT HELP.

Eric-913730

I doubt your claim of a Ph. D. Your logic doesn't follow. You don't seem to understand the argument the others make. I don't care if you agree or not but you can't follow their logic.

Obama got 50.4 percent of the popular vote. Approximately 129 million people voted. The population of the US was 312.8 million. Less than 21 percent of Americans voted for president Obama.

No one made the claim that the rest voted or would have voted for Romney, only that they did not vote for Obama.

I can speak only for myself but I did not vote for president Obama because many of his beliefs and actions (and inactions) proved to me he was unfit to be POTUS. I did not vote for Romney for exactly the same reason, I believed him unfit for the office also. I assume that reason the vast majority ( can we all agree 80% is a vast majority?) didn't vote for Obama or didn't vote at all, is that they were not convinced he would be worth taking their time and effort to vote for.

If you vote for the lesser of two evils you are still voting for evil. A vote for any incumbent is a stamp of approval. Do you approve?

Tyranny under the guise of good intentions. Look at the rest of the Anglo world. Gun control big time and crime is still getting worse. Assault rifle ban looks good, but these MS 13 gangs and other assorted mob type baddies will just get them off the black market. You know the black market right? Even the USSR couldn't shut down the black market in western goods, among other things, so why do you think an assault gun ban would do anything? Criminals are criminals because they simply don't give a hoot about a dumb law. This is a way to disarm the populace, when the @!$%# hits the fan in 2015, when half the US debt comes due and they are going to do to us what they are trying to do with the people of Cyprus and automatically take a chunk of their savings out of the banks to pay off the debt. Oh @!$%#! Want to take your money out of the bank beforehand? Oops can't do it, as Mr. Homeland Security trooper covered in Kevlar, holding an AR-15 with a nasty German shepherd is going to make sure you can't. What are you going to do? The more probable thing they will do is inflate our currency to the point that it is virtually worthless paper akin to Weimar Germany. You know, where it took a million deutche marks to buy a newspaper or loaf of bread. All political power is derived from the barrel of a gun, as our elections have been rendered meaningless, with the monopoly of the two major political parties that are ruled by the same New England bluebloods and their minions. We get weak candidates that are bought off well before they take the oath of office. Conservatives and liberals are equally delusional as the candidates of both parties are really the same when it comes to economic/monetary policy. Why is that? Because the same Ivy League technocrats are the ones actually making the policy, and it doesn't matter what party is in control. Has anything fundamentally changed sine Nixon in terms of our economic/monetary policy? Not much to be honest. Reagan started to ship our good paying blue collar jobs overseas, with HW Bush continuing that trend. Did Bill Clinton stop that? Did he stop with the Federal Reserve creating bubbles? Bubba didn't and now Obama is not doing a damn thing different either. Wake the hell up, we are getting fleeced, and if they do disarm us, we are at their mercy.

I think of the movie V for Vendetta where Bill Hurt as the Chancellor is on the huge screen telling his lieutenants to get the populace as fearful as possible in order to make them feel they need "big Brother" to save them from the "terrorist". Scare the people into voluntary submission.

@Eric-913730

"Obama got over 50% of the vote (twice). You could never make the case that all those that didn't vote would have voted for Romney."

perhaps, but you make it sound as if he won in a landslide...he got 50.4% of the vote to Romney's 48.1%, voter turnout lower than 2008 and 2004...but this is all ancient history right...

Republican talking point = 1

Liberal's ignorence = priceless

When Florida becomes insignificant during a presidential election, it's an ass kicking. When the election can be called at 9:00 pacific standard time, it an ass kicking. Watching Robme supporters cry while Karl Rove screams at Fox Noise that their projections are wrong, priceless.

If you vote for the "lesser of two evils", you are everything that's wrong with this craphole. You admit you don't like the candidate, then validate them with your vote. Then you ask why nothing changes? I'll give you a hint. Look into the closest mirror...

I would say the twice-elected GW Bush is a far better example, except he didn't get a majority of votes the first time.

Remember that when Obamacare is thrown out. No fussing then!

Obamacare won't be thrown out, it's the law of the land.

The reality is that there will be another shooter like Adam Lanza, with another parent who thinks handing a child who has yet to reach the age of reason, isn't teaching them to be violence magnets.

When you read the pro-gunnies pathetic, desperate paranoia for protection, you have to wonder where the hell they live. No one heard of Newtown CT until Adam Lanza and his gun nutty mother put it on the map. No one heard of Charles Starkweather until he gunned down 17 people in Kansas back in 1958 or Charles Whitman the sniper who killed innocent pedestrians on a South Texas city street. No one heard of the VA Tech shooter, the Aurora shooter or Timothy McVey who once belonged to a militia.

Parents who put guns in their kids hands should be locked up for child abuse. All it teaches a young child is how powerful they can be if only they have a gun in their hands. Adam Lanza's mother straw bought her son his weapons. The very weapons she claimed her 2nd Amendment rights to. And let's get something straight...The right to BEAR arms isn't the right to OWN arms.

If we give the pro-gunnies an inch, their paranoia for protection won't stop with assault weapons. They be riding around the public places we pay taxes for in military tanks next.

And like any other nonsense law, it can be thrown out.

NPC Dan...those who deliberately look for loopholes in law do it to jack their already jacked egos. These are the same people who believe laws are intended for the "little people" not them. You see this attitude among men who can't seem to face the fact that laws include them and loopholes are causing the government to keep inventing new laws to keep the loopholers from circumventing existing laws.

How about obey laws as written without looking for cheap shot loopholes to get out of laws the rest of know we must obey in order to keep a civil society. Pro-gunnies are violence magnets. They love to dare others to challenge their authoritarian mentalities...any excuse to haul out the assault weapons to "protect" themselves. BS.

Obama Care is here to stay, and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

Yep, and a lot of us don't even want to work anymore because we can't have access to it and we're getting raped by employer-provided plans. It's much more fashionable these days to be a bum on Obamacare.

gone

Obama Care is not free. You criticize what you do not understand because you are a low information conservative voter.

Don,

What if your wrong and he is white? Sambo got the black vote

because of race and race only.

Desoto

You are a moron. Bill Clinton got almost exactly the same percentage of the African American vote as did Obama. I did not vote for President Obama because he is Black. I voted for him because he shares my values and Romney did not.

The Sambo comment proves that you are an insulting @!$%# and unworthy to participate in adult conversation.

Eric., #4.3, job1,#4.7,

The ACA will suffer a 'death of a thousand cuts'. Executive Order waivers, repeal of various taxes that no sane desperate to keep their seat politician would vote to keep. The 3.8% tax on home sales, the 10% tax on medical devices, the tax on vet supplies (really stupid move), and of course all those new forms you have to fill out. All to be replaced by the five or six items people actually like. The ACA will die from lack of money and those forced to endure it, screaming for something that works.

Actually, feel sorry for BHO, to have his name equated to Edsel.

ewent., #4.4,

It's 'keep and bear'...the 'keep' means 'to own'.. as in 'I keep my car & m/c in the garage'.

Also, SCOTUS made the Heller decision last year, establishing gun ownership as an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.

You want to ignore the decision, fine. How about we ignore your favorite decision.

I pay 1250 a month for 3+ family plan with Blue Shield of California

Obamacare someone has to pay for it

Nothing is free

You are a moron. Bill Clinton got almost exactly the same percentage of the African American vote.

Actually, you're the moron. Clinton got 83% in 92 and 84% in 96. Obama got 95% in 08 and 93% in 12. Not only did he wipe the floor with Clinton to the tune of 10% both times, he also got 10% of more, because blacks had record turnout in the last 2 elections. Close to a million extra votes in his pocket compared to Clinton, simply because he claimed to be black. They accounted for 20% of his victory margin, which is greater than their overall representation by almost 8 percentage points.

Aren't we considered Raciest, if we vote for someone just because of the color of their skin? I guess that only works if your white. Also if the blacks voted for Obama because he is black, does that mean they didn't vote for Romney because he is white? So many questions un answered ,hell there even ,un asked.

Please define "gun nut" for me.

sure it has passed..is that why it was dropped in the senate??

Gun Nut .... those who think the purpose of legislation to control what types of guns are sold in this country actually means the right to take them away. An apples to oranges analogy, but that would be the definition.

Chuck..A gun nut is anyone who believes in the 2nd amendment and doesn't agree with littledawning

NewDay -- Are you so intellectually dishonest and without integrity not to call out the DEMOCRATS and HARRY REID for not allowing the vote. Don't you want to see who would have voted against the bill??? If not, why not???

Eric-913730 Wrote:

"... yes banning assault weapons. Nobody is talking about taking away guns or rights. ... "

Just what does banning mean to you then?!?!

An apples to oranges analogy, but that would be the definition

pretty much like Liberal thinking... 'Its not true but if i lie often enough it will be'

pretty much like Liberal thinking... 'Its not true but if i lie often enough it will be'

Caesar, Sounds like the Teabag and Rushbo philosophy....

I'm still trying to find someone that knows the answer to which came first... Rush or the fanny boils?

Sneezer projects like he's dancing around in nothing but a Fruedian slip!... The only things he shares freely are his own negative attributes.

So, if nobody is proposing to take away our guns, why did Dianne Feinstein say this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQeq6ZzEQGA

Come on, people! Stop with the outright lies!! This is the bit*h that is writing these bills and you have the audacity to spout your bald-faced lies and claim that they don't want to take them??? I'm sick of the damned lies, so if you can't speak the truth, STFU!!!

Caesar, Sounds like the Teabag and Rushbo philosophy....

Cept its Lenin's philosophy adopted by the left and Layton apparently. How ya been GT

Sneezer projects like he's dancing around in nothing but a Fruedian slip!...

you gonna answer any questions or are you going to continue to finger bang yourself in this public display of 'retribution'..yeah, you'll show US sigma cum laude...

So when the government decides that you do not have the "right" to post in a public forum....... How will you reply?

It will not change your freedom of speech, you can still talk all you want.... it just changes the way your speech is "broadcast".... and "broadcast" speech is governed under the FCC...

What part of the Constitution will you run to when that happens?

Caesar . . .

'Its not true but if i lie often enough it will be'

Talking about yourself while tapping your heels together won't make you rational or relevant .... EVER.

Guns like everything else in this life have a purpose...to extinguish life..be it human or animal. How the hell did the Neanderthals ever manage to live in a T-Rex infested society without guns? Now, ever hoochie coo with a drawl and a swagger thinks a gun is their personal penile implant.

No one disputes that ranchers in Mt, WY, ID and other rural states need guns to protect their livestock. A hotcha in a big city with a huge population doesn't need an assault weapon unless he plans to use it for the express purpose for which it is manufactured...to kill the largest number of humans in the shortest amount of time. So whenever you see the big baby pro-gunnies all massing around a table at a gun show all drooling over a Bushmaster, you know they are there to get their jollies and a gun is their orgasmic fetish. Like I said....their personal penile implant.

It's rather disturbing the number of progressives who read "gun" - and then immediately begin to type about the penus. Does this mental condition have a name? (Hoplopenuphelia?)

Bloomberg has already put millions behind his efforts to elect lawmakers who support gun control -- and his aides say he plans to use millions more on ads to sway those who might vote against it.

Where's the outrage from the left? Filthy rich 1%er buying government positions, isn't that everything the left hates, or is it one of those selective issues, and only bad if the right tries it?

Er, ewent? Neanderthals and T-Rex didn't live in the same time period. T-Rex were from the Jurassic Epoch, Neanderthals were from the Pleistocene Epoch. As Dr. Grant pointed out in the movie Jurassic Park, they were separated by millions of years... Neanderthals lived around Wooly Mammoths and Sabre Tooth Tigers. They still didn't have guns, though.

Ripley- Its more fun to just watch the ignorant broadcast proof of same.

You are right Ewent, guns are to extinguish human life if one feels harmed or one wants to harm or exert power over others. Do you really trust some govt thug with a gun to protect you? Do you trust a govt that has a monopoly of violence, which is total power over you? The Second Amendment was put in the Constitution to make damn sure a tyrannical govt could not come about and to let every citizen be able to protect themselves or there loved ones. You are truly naïve to think by banning guns, that you will rid the world of gun violence. The rest of the Anglo world has gun control, and in terms of gun violence, it has failed miserably. Socio and psychopaths do not care about laws, and so they will not care about following such laws. Power is force, and force is the threat of violence to get ones way. A disarmed citizenry will only encourage a true tyranny to come about. An armed to the teeth govt won't give a damn about honoring any elections that it doesn't like, and the people won't be able to do anything about it.

It is not sensible - to have weapons of war on the street.

All weapons are of war, it started with the sling shot and the spear.

Historically all weapons were initally created for this purpose or protection.

But this is not what they must be used for.

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity" -Sigmund Freud

Joseph Stalin loved gun control 8( as did Adolf Hitler

Obama and Biden both love gun control

hmmm......

Weapon ban crushed in the Senate. I guess times aren't changing, after all. Good move for all those Democrats who wanted to keep their seats in 2014. Well played.

Or democrats in 1994

Which is the real reason Feinstiens AWB got the boot, Reid is not a complete moron. He remembers that the last time Democrats passed a national bill banning cosmetic features of guns his party lost the majority, and only just got it back and don't want to lose it again so soon.

Actually, a ban right now wouldn't be all that bad. 1994 was a good example. ObamaCare ended several Democrats' careers. I can accept a gun ban to reap the same results as 2010. Bans can always be lifted later.

Obama kept his mouth shut about gun control until he was elected President for the second term. If we had a Republican president he or she would probably have done the same thing. Don't control the criminals who will always have guns but control the law abiding citizen who likes firearms.

The 6 Dems who didn't vote for the bill were from the red states. All were red state Democrats. What does that tell you? It tells me that those living in red states are ramming down their violent natures on the people in other states. All so the Confederacy Can Rise Again? Not when my tax dollars are supporting their states.

JobSeeker

Your comment is the first smart one I read on here.

The 6 Dems who didn't vote for the bill were from the red states. All were red state Democrats. What does that tell you?

Ewent....That tells me you are making numbers up to make a point. First off, there hasn't been a vote. There wasn't a vote because Reid knew he didn't have the numbers he needed. The senate has 53 Democrats. According to the link below, the Dems would get less than 40 votes. That meant more than 13 Dems would have voted against the ban.

The ban on semi-automatic firearms modeled after military assault weapons is proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, and fiercely opposed by the National Rifle Association, Republicans and some Democrats. The ban would get fewer than 40 votes, Reid said, far below the threshold needed to defeat a filibuster or pass the Senate.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/21/politics/assault-weapon-ban-politics/?hpt=po_t1

ewent, #6.5,

you should boycott red states, no more food for you.

Robert, I agree that police should not be able to have access to more weapons than law abiding citizens, but I do not agree with what you're saying about AR-15s. I'm glad you're not referring to it as an "Assault Rifle", you've obviously done some research, but you still have more to do. One, AR-15s are NOT military weapons. The militar uses M4s and other fully automatic weapons that can fire at a much faster rate than a semi-automatic rifle. Second, handguns don't always cut it, especially when you have multiple attackers. If there's a riot or looting as in the LA riots or Katrina, he range of a rifle can protect you far more effectively than a shotgun or handgun will. Also, have you listen to Joe Biden's shotgun advice from Parents Magazine on YouTube? His remarks were the most dangerous and irresponsible ones I've ever heard on the topic coming from an elected official. He should resign over it (they are that bad). When the president asks someone to spearhead an important 2nd Amendment issue like this, I expect much, much more from the vice president of the United States. If he was that reckless handling firearms, what would we be facing if he had to step up to the presidency during a nuclear threat? Anyway, I do applaud you for at least doing some more research than the typical person who knows nothing about guns (like Biden who's knowledge was outdated more than half a century ago).

Actually Brian, if you re-read what I said the military weapons part was in quotes, this was because I was quoting Biden when he said the administration would continue pushing for a ban on what they term "assault weapons".

The AR-15 you can buy in a store is not anything like the ones the military uses, and in fact for most applications(self defense, hunting, target shooting) they are superior because more care is taken in their construction, and because you can buy them in more than just the slightly anemic 5.56mm caliber. The one I own I have 3 upper receivers for it, one in .300AAC, which is a nice general round that with the loads I use roughly matches the ballistics of the .30-30 Winchester round, which is a favorite for deer hunting. Another in .50 Beowulf that approximates the .45-70 round that has long been used for bear, moose and other large animal hunting, and a .22lr for varmints.

This is, I think, why the AR is so popular, with the one lower receiver you can modify the gun to be whatever you need it to be, from self defense all the way to long range target shooting. And with all the aftermarket components it can be preciously fitted to any user, from women like my cousin who is 5 foot nothing and maybe 100 pounds soaking wet, to guys like me who are 6'3 and built like linebackers.

A .223 with a FMJ is actually a wounding round, not a killing round. It takes two to three other soldiers to evacuate a wounded soldier off the battle field. Use soft nosed bullets, hollow points or the .308 if you want to kill & do the optimum damage.

Myth. The FBI ballistics report determined that caliber, etc played no part in the deadliness of a bullet wound. The only factor that played a significant part in mortality was shot placement. A .22 to the heart will have the same result as a .45 to the heart... death. By the same token, a .223 HP through the arm will not kill a person. A .223 FMJ through the arm will not kill a person. .223 FMJ or HP through the heart will kill the target. There's no such thing as a wounding bullet. If you hit something vital, it will die. If you don't, it won't.

In general owners of these supposedly "stupendously lethal mass murder machines", are quite safe. There were 323 homicides(this is a raw number of people killed by another using a rifle and includes justified shootings and shootings by police officers) committed with rifles(all types, including "assault weapons). There were also 496 homicides committed with hammers and clubs.

Also require the ATF to get off their tails and approve Class III weapons in a reasonable amount of time. Not six months or more of waiting for the paperwork to be completed.

lol Pumbaa

The ATF is like any government entity it takes f'ing forever to get anything accomplished.

Just look at the DEA and Nixons War on Drugs EPIC FAILURE

It took me almost 1 month to get a child support lien from LA County and they have gotten better 8(

we will need the small arms to fight the chinese in the war on our own territory,so they should be happy to let the people be ready,for in house to house fighting you need firepower.

So. Larry, the Constitution is not a living document. You were for the slavery compromise, and think that people should own people?

And the Federal dollars that Minot got after the flood, and you personally got...was that spelled out in the Constitution?

Really?

So if YOU benefit, you have your hand out and it is Constitutional. When serious people are talking reasonable limits on guns and having background checks, why all of a sudden that Constitution is not "living".

Good, Larry.

That's the point Dawning, an amendment was passed to change slavery. If congress can get an amendment passed then you probably wouldn't hear as many complain about it. Although amending the constitution would take a lot more than trying to push a bill through congress.

First off I recieved a loan that I am paying back with interest. Secodly, you are d@mn right I borrowed the money. Better it go to someone like who me who actually works and contributes to society as opposed to some loser government leech (Democrat voters)\

Explain to me why its ok for losers who choose not to work to take my tax dollars but I go through a natural disaster not of my own doing and that is not ok?

Now.... On to your comment about "serious people are talking reasonable limits on guns and having background checks", we ALL know that is just code and / or a precursor to national registration which leads to confiscation of all weapons. And once that happens you and your ilk can impose Socialism and / or Communism. Which we ALL know is liberals ultimate wet dream.

So... what is "reasonable" in your mind?

Also please tell me how this does ANYTHING but hurt legal gun owners?

Also tell me how any of this is going to actually curb gun violence? Is the gang banger going to say "oh well my guns are illegal... I better not shoot up these kids in the playground"?

Or is the psycho going to say "Boy I better not go into this school and shoot up the little kids because my gun is illegal and I might get in trouble for having it"?

Seriously? You actually think people who want to harm other people are going to stop hurting others because Congress says that its illegal? Wake up.

One last question.... Since your stance is that it is the gun that is the reason for the death, does that mean that the fork manufacturers should be regulated because people are fat?

According to you they are.

Larry, sweetie: you said the Constitution is not a living document. I gave you examples of how you might want to re think that, including the help that Minot received.

Respond to the specific point.

gday: is amending the Constitution the only way it has EVER reflected changing society?

Think about it before you answer.

It is not a "living document". It does not change from decade to decade on a whim just because people change.

The rights that the Founders fought so hard to have back in the infancy of this country are the SAME rights that we have today.

Yes the Constitution can be AMENDED. The Founders had enough foresight to know that things would change, but they also had the foresight to know that there needed to be a process to allow for those changes. That way a tyrannical president (Barack Obama or Woodrow Wilson for example, even, to a point, George Bush) could not just change the laws on his own.

Ergo, if a senator feels strongly enough to ban weapons or require us to register them he or she should propose a Constitutional Amendment to enact those changes.

On to your question... No. The Constitution does not talk about FEMA. But since the Government has decided that it needs to be the one to come in and "save the day" what other choice does a person have? Americans are taxed so much (Iam taxed at approximately 25% when you factor in all the taxes that I pay) that there isnt much left to donate to different non profit relief organizations. So most people are in a situation that they have no other option then to borrow the money from the SBA and rebuild.

As far as the "grant" I was given from FEMA, yes, I did recieve help from FEMA to help rebuild my home. Im not ashamed of that, nor am I saying that no one should be allowed to. Please offer up any sort of proof to the contrary.

But why should I. someone who is productive and actually pays into the government coffers every two weeks, not supposed to be able to use government assistance (procured from monies that I ALREDAY have paid into the government by paying taxes) when the slob living at home eating jelly donuts that he bought with his food stamps, paying his bills with his welfare check, surfing the internet with his government paid for broadband, talking on his Obama phone (all things that I am paying for), allowed to recieve assistance?

Of course I dont expect you to actually debate me on anything other than "Larry you took money from FEMA" and "We need to ban guns".

Oh wow, Larry, you do make this TOO easy:

So. FEMA is not found in the Constitution, the Constitution was not amended, but both you and Minot received help? Would that be an EVOLVING Constitution, that living document that allowed for that?

"I'm not saying no one else is allowed to...."

But you DO say that everyone else but you is a jelly donut eating slob, not entitled to help.

Do you REALLY believe you are the only one who pays taxes? And if you are so against the Government handing out money, shouldn't you have said no?

Or are we all truly our brothers keeper?