The Second Amendment Is Not Negotiable

Ron Resnick is an expert on the constitutional law of the Second Amendment. He is the author of "Private Arms as the Palladium of Liberty: The Meaning of the Second Amendment," U. Det. Mercy L. Rev. 77 (1999). The opinions expressed are his own. Contact the writer at ronres@hotmail.com.


Cries for more “gun control” have flooded opinion and editorial pages in the wake of the school shooting in Connecticut. The opinion that Americans do not have a right to own firearms, and the assertion that the Constitution does not protect the right of individuals to own firearms, is absolutely false — and also incorrect in the context of law.

In 2008, the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for private use within the home in federal enclaves.  In 2010, in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. __ (2010), the Supreme Court held that the right of an individual to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states.  That American citizens have a right to own firearms is conclusive and irrefutable.

People who have an emotional revulsion to firearms in general and who respond to shooting tragedies with well-intentioned proposals to prohibit or restrict law-abiding citizens from possessing firearms must remember that possessing a firearm is not like possessing a boat or a golf club.  The possession of boats and golf clubs are not enshrined in our Constitution as fundamental liberties.

The right to own a firearm was considered by both the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 and by the current Supreme Court to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion.  These liberties are guaranteed to each of us by the first two amendments to the Constitution in the Bill of Rights.

We may grit our teeth when watch the Ku Klux Klan use the rights guaranteed to Americans in the First Amendment to march and to make inflammatory statements with which we disagree.  But would we say that because a few kooks use these rights to upset us we should restrict freedom of speech and peaceable assembly for all of the rest of us?

Of course firearms can be used by criminals and by mentally ill nuts to commit crimes and to kill innocent people.  But so can knives, cars and hammers.  A speeding truck can cause the same mayhem as an illegally fired handgun.

Guns are the most effective way for individuals to protect themselves and their loved ones from attack.  So the right question to ask is not whether guns can be used to commit crimes; the right question to ask is:  “Are guns used more often to prevent crimes or to commit crimes, and do they save more lives than they take?”

The research of John R. Lott and numerous other academics has proven beyond question that crimes are stopped with guns about five times as frequently as crimes are committed with guns.  The irrefutable fact is that states with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes.  States which allow law-abiding citizens to carry guns experience the lowest rates of violent crimes.  Criminals are much less likely to attack people if they fear that their intended victims might be able to defend themselves.  Since criminals do not know who is and who is not carrying a concealed handgun, if even only a few citizens actually carry concealed handguns they effectively reduce the likelihood of attack for everyone else.

Would more laws regulating firearms have prevented the killings in Connecticut?  Do laws prohibiting the sale and possession of illegal drugs prevent drug addicts from buying drugs?

The answer is not to restrict the firearms rights of law-abiding citizens.  The answer is that the mentally ill should not be allowed to buy firearms.  Mental illness and crime reporting requirements should be tightened.  States must diligently submit mental illness and criminal records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System so it can red flag individuals who should not be buying firearms.

Difficult though it may be to understand when we see crimes committed with firearms and the tragic loss of innocent life, we must remember that firearms are not like any of the other things we own.  The Founders of America saw fit to place firearms in a highly exalted position in our framework of individual liberties.   We must resist the temptation to abrogate the rights of many due to the illegal actions of a very few.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • John

    Since rocket launchers, bazookas, flame throwers and cannons are types of 'firearms', do you advocate for these to be legalized to the public as well? Although we both know that these are not legal, because any rational human being would know the immense power and damage these arms can cause. They are exempt from being covered by the Second Amendment. The cons of making them legal greatly outweighs the pros. Why can't we have the same rational thought as well in determining what other 'firearms', such as semi-automatic rifles, would have more of a negative effect on society than a positive one? To make my point, there are current limits to your right to bear arms. Even the First Amendment has it's own exemptions (yelling 'fire', inciting a riot, etc).

    • Mary Sue

      you don't know what you're talking about, plain and simple.

      • MikeV

        Why not respond to his question? He is correct to assert that reasonable restrictions exist…you, "Mary Sue" cannot posses some arms (missiles and RPG's for example), so what is unconstitutional about further "regulating" (as the constitution says) gun ownership? Do you know of a "well regulated militia that does not require registration of its members? Or an initial competency test and frequent follow-up testing? The author of this article uses a semi-truck (a tool that doesn't even have a primary function of killing when its used properly). How much testing and registration goes into getting a licence to operate one? Nowhere near as much as a gun.
        Do yourself a favor and actually think when question are posed to you. It might help you grow as a person.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          Mike,

          He said:

          "Since rocket launchers, bazookas, flame throwers and cannons are types of 'firearms',"

          This is silly. Are you that silly too?

          Nobody is arguing for unlimited firepower. Don't be so dense please. Show you understand the topics under discussion before arrogantly demanding others think about stupid questions that I sense you expect to be taken seriously. It's easy to dismiss stupid questions and frankly, not everyone has the patience or time for them.

          Perhaps we should shut down all of those bazooka retail stores. I like to roast my dinner as I catch it, but I understand the objections. They are a little more dangerous "other firearms."

          What about nuclear weapons. Those are also firearms, right? I guess we need more laws against those. Good thing you two showed up. We almost missed the importance of the leftist positions on "firearms" aka "weapons of mass destruction" or any other silly thing you want to claim, eh?

          • John

            Where would you like to draw the line? Semi-Auto OK for you or is Full Auto preferred? If you DON’T think there are people out there who jump at the chance to own a rocket launcher I think you’re kidding yourself. And there are people out there (you know them on this site as “leftists” I think) who would do away with ALL weapons as a course of law. To generate a worthwhile discussion where do you and others reading these posts “draw the line?”

          • Michael

            Thinking that banning guns will make things better is ridiculous, the only thing that it will do is make things worse. Criminals will still have guns just like drugs, they are illegal but they still are able to get them. The only thing a gun ban will do is take guns away from innocent people who would use them to protect their families. Then we have the second amendment that says "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." That means we have the right to own guns and includes semi-autos so if you don't like it move to another country were you are not allowed to own them and see how much better it is and then tell me you don't think we should own them

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Where would you like to draw the line? Semi-Auto OK for you or is Full Auto preferred? If you DON'T think there are people out there who jump at the chance to own a rocket launcher I think you're kidding yourself."

            That's fine, but at least don't use that line of questioning to distract from the original hyperbolic statement about bazookas being firearms that we are all defending. In fact nobody is arguing for more powerful weapons. I've heard nobody argue that myself. Have you? Can you cite and quote those words?

            "To generate a worthwhile discussion where do you and others reading these posts "draw the line?""

            Just don't use it as a tactical withdrawal after attacking people who happen to disagree with you. Maybe you really were confused. That's fine.

            Personally, I see no need for more laws. I get angry when change is suggested at the wrong time because leftists always use emotions to push their agendas. That is the opposite approach from what I support. If you still care in say, 4 weeks from now, you return and ask me the same question and I'll discuss it for as long as you seem sincerely interested. If you have informed suggestions at any time, they are always welcome. But starting off by making dramatic statements about bazookas or some other exaggeration (even if you were sincerely confused) during this period when people are grandstanding and virtually spitting on the graves of the dead, makes it difficult for me to be patient when it serves evil leftist agendas at moments like this.

            "And there are people out there (you know them on this site as "leftists" I think) who would do away with ALL weapons as a course of law."

            There are a lot more people like that than there are those who want to own bazookas (that's understatement, in case you don't realize it), If you don't recognize which party is approaching this rationally, you've been duped. It's always easy to find a lunatic that agrees with the rational position, and then you and others dismiss that rational position. That is irrational.

        • Joel Jollymore

          Your argument that it is a ‘militia’ based right, falls soundly on its face. The Supreme Court, in its Heller decision found that the right to bear arms, is an individual right. So far as the ‘well regulated’ phrase, you should use a Webster’s 1791 edition dictionary to define it, as written and its context. Webster was a signer, and wrote the dictionary to prohibit what Orwell referred to as Newspeak. Also, read the preamble to the Bill of Rights, it clearly states that these amendments were put in place to prevent ‘misconstruction and abuse of powers’ by the federal government. Stop cherry picking pieces of the Constitution that suit you, while spitting on the rest. The document, its preambles, and its amendments are to be taken as a whole. Further, any question not answered in the Constitution, should be referred to the Declaration, before declaring judgment, as the Declaration is still law, and has never been repealed.

          • scum

            Clearly, the Supreme Court in Heller (thanks Scalia, for encouraging the slaughter of 26 innocents) exercised a broad interpretation of the most syntactically-weak amendment in the constitution. But the fact that the founders slipped in the phrase “well-regulated” militia suggests that they would be loathe to grant everyone license to carry a gun. But ultimately, the real problem is that the assault rifles of today bear little resemblance to the rifles of yesteryear. The Right keeps guaranteeing low body counts even while their policy has failed. It’s time to take the guns off the streets. No more pandering to the NRA.

          • Drakken

            We will never ever give up our God given rights to you bloody leftist/progressives, period! You want to try, you will get that revolution you fear.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "But ultimately, the real problem is that the assault rifles of today bear little resemblance to the rifles of yesteryear. The Right keeps guaranteeing low body counts even while their policy has failed. It's time to take the guns off the streets. No more pandering to the NRA."

            That's a completely subjective argument if I've ever heard one. Lead, gunpowder, long shaft…what's so confusing? Body counts were guaranteed by who? Which policy failed? The right has total control over the laws and their enforcement. Right-wing lunatics like Eric Holder, and the liberals that came before him. Yes of course, it's the fault of the conservatives for failing to believe in a perfect society. If only they'd start visualizing peace too, we'd have it by now and sickness and hunger would be banished forever.

            Weee!

    • RedWhiteAndJew

      Easy. They are not firearms.

      • trickyblain

        It all fairness, the second amendment does not say "firearms," it says "arms" (which include tanks, AH-64s, ICBMs…).

        • RedWhiteAndJew

          One cannot bear a tank.

          • trickyblain

            This is true.

            Except for Chuck Norris.

        • Gamma Ray

          Really? In that case, I'll take an A10 Warthog. It would be a blast just to make a low pass over that cancer cell of treason called Berkeley CA just to watch the wienies scream, faint, evacuate their bowels, run over each other, etc.

          • RedWhiteAndJew

            You just picked my favorite military aircraft, too.

            Ugly is beautiful.

          • Gamma Ray

            My son in law was USMC for 6 years – did 2 tours in Iraq, and later did 2 more in Afghanistan with Marine special ops. He saw the A10 in action and said that even though he knew it posed no harm to him and his buddies, it was terrifying to watch when angry.

            Thankfully he is out now, and finishing up his college education.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/firearm

      Definition of FIREARM

      : a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder —usually used of small arms

      "To make my point, there are current limits to your right to bear arms. Even the First Amendment has it's own exemptions"

      Who is arguing for unlimited firepower? All you liberals know how to do is repeat silly straw man arguments. We're arguing for the customary and lawful interpretation of the US constitution. You evidently have a big problem with that.

    • Stephen_Brady

      That's a ridiculous position to take, John. A rifle is not a howitzer. A rifle does not have an exploding shell, at the end of a 28-mile trajectory. A rifle cannot penetrate the armor of an M1 Abrams MBT.

      However, we shall obtain rocket launchers, "bazookas", flame throwers, and "cannons" when the government comes after our guns. Since we on the right don't want a civil war that will result in the deaths of millions of people, and I assume that you don't, why don't you leave our guns alone?

      If you don't want a gun, don't buy one. It's your right. If I want a gun, I WILL buy one, because it's my right.

      • John

        I'd love to leave your guns alone – not a partisan thing either. Problem is gun owners – legal or illegal – have put bullets into people who never did anything to deserve it. I'm all for the protection of the right to bear arms but the protection of innocent lives comes before guns despite any threats you make about going Ruby Ridge if the government tries to take our guns. Grow up and reconsider your priorities. Flame thower??? Really?

        • Stephen_Brady

          John, you are the one who brought up flame-throwers. I don't want one. You also brought up rocket launchers, bazookas, and cannons. I don't want one of those.

          Not unless the government comes after my guns. Then, I guess I'll have to go all Syria on Mr. Obama's government …

          • John

            He's YOUR president – I suggest you address him as such – maybe he'll be easier on you when he ships you off to the Canadian Gulag! Watch out – they're comin' ta git cha! Boo!

          • Stephen_Brady

            He's not my president. Where did you get that notion? My President is Ronald Reagan, to which you would reply, "He's dead." To that, I would respond, "A dead President is better than Obama. At least, he's not doing anything to me."

            Boo?

            I served in Vietnam, Delata/2/501/101st, from 1968-69. You'll find that I don't scare easily …

          • John

            Thank you by the way for your service. It must be tough to have given so much of yourself to a country to which you now feel disconnected from. My hat comes off to you sir and I weep for your loss. I'd encourage to reconsider rejoining the ranks of Americans and support your elected officials regardless of your party or political differences.

          • Stephen_Brady

            I've never left the ranks of Americans. However, what was my government has left me.

          • Tim

            Mr.Brady, first off, thank you for your service to this great nation. My family was all military personnel at one time or another. Thank you. To John and his quote of "It must be tough to have given so much of yourself to a country to which you now feel disconnected from." I say bull. I say you're a liar. I say you are un-American. You are the SAME people Mr. Brady came home to be spit on and called every name in the book. I do not agree with gun control except controlling from my own hand. It only takes 1 person to get behind the wheel of a 2,000 lb vehicle to run a family of 5 over. Yet not one person thinks alcohol should be abolished. Yes I am comparing alcohol to firearms. I believe, and I will admit I have not researched it, but I believe there are more alcohol related deaths per year than there are firearm related. After I post this, I will look this up to confirm or retract my statement. I am caught up in this moment right now. Calling a bazooka or flame thrower a firearm or claiming that because of our 2nd Amendment Right , we should be able to own one is utterly hilarious. I think that my local Walmart has them in stock. My right to bear arms was giving to me by My God and the founding fathers of this nation. They wrote the Bill of Rights because they (the founding fathers) wanted freedom from the King of England, freedom to establish their own goings, and freedom to begin a new nation unto itself. For that, I am grateful. For the men who served, I am extremely grateful. Grateful I can voice my own opinion. Thank you.

          • Gamma Ray

            Millions of other vets who served don't swap spit with Soetero, either, or get the Chris Matthews "tingle down the leg" thingy. Talk about the whole cut of personality syndrome – damn, but it's it's worse than what Jim Jones did.

          • Stephen_Brady

            Exactly.

            By the way, look up the Bill Gates-George Soros-Monsanto connection for something that goes far beyond a cult of personality syndrome. If it doesn't send a chill down your spine, nothing will.

            Hint – Agenda 21

          • Gamma Ray

            Funny the way many leftists scoff that there is such a thing as Agenda 21, when it is public record, and call it "wingnut conspiracy theory", while other leftists admit its existence, but hold it up as a totally benign master plan of future utopian society, even down to the local level. The town right next to me is having the "low cost housing" aspect of it foisted on it right now. They are being FORCED to build low cost housing whether they like it or not , or they will lose much state and federal funding, and face other sanctions. Of course, those who are pushing it used words to describe it as it as "cultural enrichment" and other lofty but empty platitudes, and those who oppose it as '"elitist" and "close minded". Really now, who is being elitist.

            First time I've heard of urban blight being described as "cultural enrichment".

            Funny thing is, about 10% of Danville are minorities who have been successful in their endeavors, some extremely so, and many of them live there because they wanted to get away from crime, drugs, crazed idiots, etc. So the statists have decided to bring the less desirable aspects of the inner cities to them.

            Those in power, and those pulling their puppet strings can do zero without electricity, gas, food, water and other natural resources. Last time I checked, all of the above came primarily from red states and counties, which are populated by the much despised red necks, who are the ones who do the real work in this country, developing and extracting all of the essential ingredients we need to sustain human life. On top of that, 90% of liberals live in the sheep pens called big cities (funny, but according to the left , conservatives are the sheep) If a major SHTF situation hits this country, what are they gonna do when they are cut off from food, water, power, etc.;i.e; everything necessary to sustain existance. If it comes to that, they can eat their own s**t for all I care.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "He's YOUR president – I suggest you address him as such"

            In America, respect is earned. Winning elections doesn't earn coerced respect.

            "maybe he'll be easier on you when he ships you off to the Canadian Gulag! Watch out – they're comin' ta git cha! Boo!"

            Now you're just being paranoid and silly. 0'Bama will never get that far. He's incompetent.

          • John

            If Obama is incompetent what does that say about his opposition (or lack thereof)…OUCH!

          • Stephen_Brady

            I'm not the one who said Obama was incompetent. No one is more critical of the conservative movement, at this point in time, than I am. I am of the opinion that the only reason Obama is the temporary occupant of the White House … when he's not golfing or on vacation … is the blithering political incompetence of the Right. It doesn't matter if you've got better ideas, if you can't communicate those ideas to the people.

            Also, the 1982 Consent Decree (from New Jersey) concerning the Democrat Party's cheating at the polls needs to be done away with. Wouldn't you say that agreeing to a judge's decision that one party can cheat, and the other can't (or challenge the cheating of the other) is a rather stupid arrangement?

          • Gamma Ray

            Try to reach the average Obama voter with anything. They have been filled with hate by their slave masters, and can only parrot the sound bite du jour. Hell, not a one of them can even define conservative – at least without resorting to false stereotypes. And yet they hate what they are too stupid to even define. It's not about so-called fairness, it's all about getting even with "evil" white people, conservatives, businesses, etc. "Payback time" is the term that Obama crone Valery Jarrett used. At least she's honest enough to admit it – something the Obama zombie on the street doesn't have the honesty to do.

          • knucklehead

            Yes, Obama is incompetent. And yes, the right was even more incompetent in their campaign efforts this time. And they didn't have the courage to refute the lies of the Obama campaign.

            I truly believe, however, that the main reason Obama won is because in this country, the entitlement mentality has replaced the work ethic. It used to be that when a man saw a wealthy person, he said, "That man made a better mouse trap and became rich. I can do that." And he went out and worked hard to better himself and his family. Nowadays, that same person would say, "Look there goes an evil rich man. He became rich on the backs of poor people like me. I deserve to have some of his money, simply because I exist." That's why Obama's philosophy of wealth redistribution is so popular. You can have some of what the rich people have, and you don't have to do anything except wait for Obama to take from them and give it to you.

            Obama ran on a platform of being a combination of Santa Claus and Robin Hood. This appealed to the ever-expanding dependent entitlement class. THAT'S why he won.

          • Gamma Ray

            That, and the fact that the civil servant slacker class, both current and retired, vote overwhelmingly Democrat.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "If Obama is incompetent what does that say about his opposition (or lack thereof)…OUCH!"

            Because presidential elections are just like the Olympics in so many ways. It's political? What do you mean by that?

          • John

            About as stupid as the right redrawing districts, redefining voting requirements or intimidating potential voters with scary billboards. Politics is a dirty business – there is no high ground left so it’s a waste of energy to discuss the exploits of one side or the other.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "About as stupid as the right redrawing districts, redefining voting requirements or intimidating potential voters with scary billboards."

            It always boils down to feelings and emotions of the leftists. Billboards can be so frightening. Redefining anything is just downright scandalous. Imagine, redefining what is required to identify yourself, or even asking one to prove identity. It's just so scary to the criminal-victims of the left.

          • Gamma Ray

            Hello McFly!!

            Here In CA the districts have been redrawn by commitees controlled by Dems. They now have a vast majority of state legislature and federal congressional districts safely in the zombie camp. thanks to this gerrymandering.

            We are required to show ID for everything else we do, Why not voting? Why in the world would any HONEST, repeat HONEST citizen be intimidated by being asked for their ID? Your voter intimidation card is a giant red herring and you know it.

            Are the scary billboards you are referring to show a grandma in a wheelchair being pushed over the cliff?

            Nuff said there.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Problem is gun owners – legal or illegal – have put bullets into people who never did anything to deserve it."

          That's already against the law most days of the week. But I think you'd realize that if you stopped for a moment to process your entire argument. Let's make it against the law to kill someone, and just to make sure we're *really* safe we'll take away all the weapons licenses too.

          You've really thought this through with your leftist peers.

    • Gislef

      An "arm" or "small arm" or "firearm" (the terms are pretty much synonymous), as referenced in the 2nd Amendment and with definitions still in place, refer to rifles. And pistols.

      So no, rocket launchers, bazookas flame throwers, and cannons are not types of firearms.

      It's that kind of ignorance that prevents coherent gun control discussion from going forward.

      • John

        How about a .905 caliber rifle? 240 grams of powder, estimated to have enough kinetic energy to travel through several people wearing body armor. Would you consider it a Firearm?

        • Drakken

          You know absolutely nothing about weapons or firearms so please continue to live in the leftist utopia that the govt is there to help you and will save you from all things bad instead of taking personal responsibility.

          • John

            Guns kill people.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "How about a .905 caliber rifle? 240 grams of powder, estimated to have enough kinetic energy to travel through several people wearing body armor. Would you consider it a Firearm?"

          Technically, yes. Guns are more powerful today than in the past. You can't stop progress. Any other rational questions? By the way, even the first firearms had the ability to kill people. You can't un-ring the bell, John. What is the longest permissible sword, or maximum sharpness? Some of those swords can cut through several people in one swing. Were you aware of this? Does it bother you? Those corpses will look a lot worse than the ones penetrated by any bullet, I can tell you that.

          OTOH, if you're dead, you're dead and don't care much about the weight of the bullet, sharpness of the sword and so forth, but it's probably a better way to go than getting your head bashed by a rock. Progress is not always a bad thing.

          • John

            So progress is now measured by the effectiveness of placing a bullet in someone’s head rather than crushing it with a stone? As ridiculous as that is I must admit that I appreciate your bell metaphor. While you’re right that we can’t un-ring a bell we can choose to not ring it anymore. How many innocent lives will it cost for us to admit that it in the best interest of society to limit the firepower we legally sanction citizens to wield?

          • carrie

            You miss the point that the shooter was not able to legally own any of those guns.
            Like most crimes committed with guns, they were stolen.

            How many legal gun owners go on shooting sprees ? Now many of those are insane ?
            You are blaming inanimate objects for human choices and actions.

            The teachers,parents ,Dr.'s and society failed . The laws did not.

            The American population is loaded with mentally ill,dangerous ,sadistic people .Democrats and the ACLU made sure of that.
            Whether it be a bazooka or a spork, they will kill. Taking guns away will give them free rein to commit more crimes and leave everyone defenseless .

            The deadliest killers ,especially of children , don't use guns often.They prefer more personal and cruel methods of murder.

          • Gamma Ray

            Note that the left refuses to address environmental, cultural and social factors that may shape people into maniacs. Nope, can't do that!! Addressing external factors and actually trying to do something about them would be trampling on peoples civil rights!!! Horrors!!!!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "So progress is now measured by the effectiveness of placing a bullet in someone's head rather than crushing it with a stone? "

            Are you seriously confused or just playing? Progress leads to higher efficiency on related products. We've had progress in metal technologies and "gunpowder" too. The gun you cited happens to be more powerful as a result of progress, not as a measure of that progress.

            Grow up if you want to talk and learn at the same time.

            "As ridiculous as that is I must admit that I appreciate your bell metaphor."

            Who or what is ridiculous? OK, let's get really simple and use the bell analogy since we can both related to that.

            "While you're right that we can't un-ring a bell we can choose to not ring it anymore."

            That is correct. Guns are fired by people who choose to fire them.

            "How many innocent lives will it cost for us…"

            I don't know, I guess I need Eric Holder to have even more power to control the population that he hates.

            "…to admit that it in the best interest of society to limit the firepower we legally sanction citizens to wield?"

            We already do. What do you want now?

          • Gamma Ray

            The US Marines refer to putting a bullet into the center of someones head "hitting the T-box", while special ops guys in all branches go one up and put 2 in the skull, and call it a double tap. They all work hard at their trade.

            Practice makes perfect, right? ………… heh heh ………

          • Tim

            John, I don't have to go along with progress. I can take the rock and throw it at you, or what about the stick I picked up off the ground to beat you with. Is that considered an "assault weapon? Let's see, 1800's gunpowder was less effective than say…. 2012's gunpowder. What about that cell phone you so enjoy. When cell phones came out in the 80's, they were big bulky and didn't last. But now, 30 yrs later, they are smaller and have lithium-ion batteries. So progress should have stopped once the invention was made. So we should have the Model A's running around instead of the nice 2012 Ford's, Honda's, etc. Cable television should have stayed in the antenna age. How many innocent lives are lost maintaining freedom? How many American personnel have lost their lives keeping you free and able to speak your mind? How many families and loved ones die when some drunk driver kills them with his auto? How many civilians lost their lives in Hiroshima? Nagasaki? The questions can go on and on.

          • John

            @ Carrie – How’s this then…

            People will always fail. Laws are required to help protect society from it’s citizen’s inperfections. If that means that we need to repeal the 2nd amendment to protect innocent people like those in CT then I’m ready to go to those lengths. I believe there is a compromise to be made that would protect the rights to bear arms but the knuckle dragging Charlton Heston worshippers that troll around in here have to engage in rational conversation about gun control before any progress can be made. The old stand by that we’ll be left defenseless without our guns will no longer hold water. You are simply going to have to learn how to get along with others in society in a way that doesn’t end in a gun fight. It can be done – I’m 43 and never owed a gun. No of my friends own firearms. None of us have ever been caught in a situation that required a gun. Coincidence?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "People will always fail. Laws are required to help protect society from it's citizen's inperfections."

            Put them all in jail, take away their cars and any other ability to cause harm.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "knuckle dragging Charlton Heston worshippers"

            Do you really expect to be taken seriously? Your a leftist troll that doesn't even know he's been indoctrinated by the left. You want to try to smear people with silly statements like that long past losing any chance to establish credibility here.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            " The old stand by that we'll be left defenseless without our guns will no longer hold water."

            Because 0'Bama's got the plan to make our world perfect, and the Muslim Brotherhood will lie down with all other peaceful people who love Abraham blah blah blah.

            There has never been a more urgent need to keep citizens armed in my lifetime than now.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "It can be done – I'm 43 and never owed a gun. No of my friends own firearms. None of us have ever been caught in a situation that required a gun. Coincidence?"

            We'd need a lot more information before commenting, and furthermore, the details may disqualify you from comment. You've more or less admitted that you're totally ignorant and hope to remain that way.

          • Gamma Ray

            "You are simply going to have to learn how to get along with others in society in a way that doesn't end in a gun fight."

            Sure. Tell that to the gang banging thugs in the inner cities. Tell that to a woman who has been raped and wants to carry a firearm for protection.

        • Gamma Ray

          I thought you didn't know anything about guns, John.

          The 905 is a novelty, a joke. I don't know that more than a few have been built. It is not portable, and is totally impractical. At $40 a round, it is expensive, too. I would not want to foot the bill for that.

          At the other end of the spectrum, a little .22 rifle plinking rifle can be deadly, even at several hundred yards. For that matter, even a high velocity pellet gun has the potential to be deadly.

          • John

            I know…like I said…guns kill people…I can’t wait for “O”bama to take all the guns from y’all and earns the “0″bama tag…and you want to be taken seriously?

          • Gamma Ray

            I thought you were in favor of merely removing semi-autos from the hands of citizens,a dn leaving them with bolt action rifles, revolvers and such. Now you say to want total disarmament.

            Either that was your true intent all along, or you are "evolving" *snicker*

    • Gamma Ray

      @ John – You could make a case for semi-auto firearms, however the argument will eventually extend to all firearms, including muzzle loaders and single shot shotguns. Don't pretend that a total ban and eventual confiscation of citizens firearms isn't the utlimate aim of the left – as someone who has researched and tracked far left organizations for years, I can say unequivocally that it is.

      BTW, I love the way the "peaceful, loving, kumbayah left" is currently filling Twitter and Facebook pages with calls of violence against NRA members and other legal gun owners, not to mention calling for complete confiscation of firearms and the repeal of the 2nd amendment. You cannot dismiss that as "just a few kooks". What do you expect from a group of people who stood by for 70 years and said ZILCH while leftist dictators murdered well over 100,000,000? Hell, a lot of leftists dismissed those mass murders as "mistakes made in the name of progress", and many openly supported those leftist dictators and defend them to this day.

      If it comes to disarming the populace, then let the government begin by doing warrantless searches of every inner city household, the homes of gang members, the homes of violent union thugs, members of the American Communist Party, the Black Panther Party and other violent, far left nut job groups.

      After all, being good citizens, they should lead by example and cheerfully turn over their firearms, right?

      I also don't see any of these hate filled leftists who are advocating murder of legal gun owners volunteering to go disarm fellow citizens. Well known liberal cowardice not withstanding, they will let law enforcement do the dirty work. The left hates cops anyway – but hey, if a bunch of f***ing pigs get killed disarming "gun nuts", its as good as a "buy one, get one free" – right?

      • Gamma Ray

        No response – I didn't think so. So much for vaunted liberal "intellect" *snicker*

        • John

          Gamma – Whats funny is how well the left has society fooled into believing that they are the "peaceful, loving, kumbayah [party]"…Just wait until they disarm us all and line us up to shoot us with our own fire – er- arms – er weapons or whatever were now calling them…Oh the humanity!!! *snicker* *snicker*

          • Gamma Ray

            They haven't fooled me. I was a history major and Poly Sci minor, and continue to study both to this day. All they ever got re: history was horribly distorted bits and pieces spewed by far left pieces of sub humanity called college professors.

            As I stated elsewhere, there are currently 800,000 law enforcement officers in the US. Unfortunately for the left, many of them do not like what is going on in America, and will not stand with the disarmament Nazis.. There is also the matter of the military, but as I mentioned elsewhere, the government cannot use the military on US soil – AND most military do not stand with the leftist rabble in this country. So how are those remaining going to impose their will on the American people, when they are hopelessly out numbered?

            Sure, let's see the "outraged" left volunteer for disarming their fellow citizens. Let's see how brave they are! No, it will be law enforcement who is left doing the dirty work, because the eft is chickens**t. LOL!

            Of course, if any of them want to join the National Civilian Defense Force that Obama proposed a few years ago, let them. If the gubment tries to form anything like that, it will be a sure indication of what the left really is, and that they have no regard for the public, the constitution or human rights. At that point, the gloves are off.

          • John

            Can't wait…Bring it!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Bring it!"

            Bring what? Do you serve 0'Bama's revolutionary guard?

          • Gamma Ray

            God damn, John you finally starting to show what a shameless bootlicker you are!!

            You are incapable of answering a direct question, but have managed pose every straw man argument imaginable – Oh but you forgot this one –

            "What if a gun owner who is super safety conscious sneezes and inadvertantly squeezes the trigger on his 30.06 and a round flies over the hill and hits the driver of a van full of AIDS patients. The van careens into a gasoline tanker and they both go off the road and explode. Debris from the explosion, which is now tainted with a heat mutated strain of AIDS, flies up and strikes a B-52 that just took off from a nearby aircase and is carrying thermonuclear weapons. The flight crew are all killed but the plane continues to fly and hit Mt. Ranier and sets off the nuclear weapons, which causes the entire volcano to explode and showers the entire west coast with AIDS tainted radioactive lava."

            It could happen, ya know, really!!

            Time for you and a few others to stop evading and answer the simple, direct questions that have been put to you.

          • Drakken

            Keep living in denial hunyuk, facts versus your emotional thinking is a very tough thing for you progressives.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "I love the way the "peaceful, loving, kumbayah left" is currently filling Twitter and Facebook pages with calls of violence against…"

        What about the threats to riot if the 0'Bama 2012 election fraud failed? What about Occupy BS?

        They're all a bunch of kooks and dupes. Those who can't see that need to wake up or admit they're also lunatics.

        • Gamma Ray

          yes, I am well aware of the threats to riot if Obama lost. I am aware of the thousands of violent incidents involving the Occupy traitors, including murder and rape.

          I am also aware of hundreds of violent incidents involving union goons.

          Funny how all of these incidents always involve the safety and anonymity of the mob, but thats the left for you. Cowards always run in packs.

          They will try to do far worse if given the chance. They are looking for a reason to do so. But it will always involve the safety of the mob.

    • Mike

      You're a moron. I don't need you or anyone else telling me that i can't protect myself or my family by whatever means necessary.

      • John

        Your right…NP with that either…But I will happily work to compromise your legal right to do so if we can't work out how to protect the innocent of our society from events like those in CT. The day of reckoning is upon us…gun rights WILL change – keep hiding behind the 2nd Amendment and you'll find it provides less protection than you once thought. You might be OK with that – prepared to head for the hills and fight it out to protect your right to bear arms. I suggest you consider taking a rational look at the issue instead and come to the table seeking a pragmatic resolution.

        • Drakken

          If your willing to do away with the 2nd Amendment your willing to give up any other right that you don't like. Good luck with that.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "…keep hiding behind the 2nd Amendment and you'll find it provides less protection than you once thought"

          Why do I sense this pleases you? Your mask is slipping.

          "I suggest you consider taking a rational look at the issue instead and come to the table seeking a pragmatic resolution."

          Yes, let's solve this problem we have with a massive proliferation of bazookas in US suburbs and cities. Rational conversations require more than one party.

          • John

            It pleases me because the gun lobby hides behind the 2nd amendment no matter what. I don’t advocate the elimination of right to bear arms but the way we market, license and manage objects that make it so easy to cause such horrible carnage is ridiculous when a 150 lb. coward can kill 28 people in less than 15 minutes. Change is coming.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "It pleases me because the gun lobby hides behind the 2nd amendment no matter what."

            It pleases you to make nonsensical characterizations about classes of people you despise because of your indoctrination?

            "I don't advocate the elimination of right to bear arms but the way we market, license and manage objects that make it so easy to cause such horrible carnage is ridiculous when a 150 lb. coward can kill 28 people in less than 15 minutes."

            Can you make your case without the drama, embellishment and emotional arguments? Feigning rational thinking doesn't count unless you can make your entire case rationally.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Change is coming"

            Just what we need, more leftist "progress" when they've already screwed up everything by lying about the past constantly. How can we trust their visions of the perfect future when they can't even find their way around historical facts that also happen to be true and salient?

            I suppose soon we'll hear how the "slaughter" of the "poor indigenous Americans" was just another example of why firearms ought to be abolished completely.

            I'm for progress, not delusions.

        • Gamma Ray

          Who wants to see innocents of any age gunned down, let alone children? There are other environmental, societal and cultural factors at work here, which the left always refuses to address, because they really aren't concerned with problem solving, they are obsessed with taking away firearms. And they consider this latest slaughter their golden opportunity, although they don't have the honesty to admit it.

          Hell, they can't even let these children be buried and let the families mourn without starting in with their reactionary foaming at the mouth.

    • Sussex Girl

      Look up Billy Ferry, Tampa Bay, July 1983, and discover what a paranoid schizophrenic can do by throwing a bucket of gasoline across the checkout area of a crowded supermarket and then sparking his lighter.

  • JLB

    Please keep in mind that the Supreme Court also affirmed the right of a woman to choose (Roe v Wade) which is as non-negotiable as the 2nd Amendment.

    • John

      Actually, there are exemptions to abortion as well. It has to be done within a certain term limit of the pregnancy.

      • RedWhiteAndJew

        You are not referring to the myth that RvW limits baby killing to the first trimester, are you?

    • Mary Sue

      there is no constitutional amendment about abortion. It was an Activist Decision.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "there is no constitutional amendment about abortion"

        Oh that little detail eh? He must be an 0'Bama disciple who likewise hates and resent the US constitution. That means in effect they hate the USA.

    • David R

      Which reminds me that all those cute little children murdered in that school were once conceived inside their mother's wombs…and hey come to think of it…you too JLB !!!
      What hypocrisy when you consider that millions and millions of children are murdered each year in the US even before seeing the light of the outside or letting their cries be heard by outside humans like them.
      No wonder God's judgement and wrath are on us and we're witnessing the crumbling of everything of everything we hold dear…even the safety in our schools. I can picture school principles toting AK-47s and Glocks "just in case." Yep…our Godless society has really made progress…good job!

      • IndyDave

        I hear that a lot…always blabbing about God and never in church. I have a "gun", I favor that right, but the whole issue of the 2nd Amendment is just silly. The 2nd Amendment was passed in 1791. That was 45 YEARS before the first revolver. In 1791 it took an expert 20 seconds to reload.

        I am in church every Sunday and give my time there during EVERY week as well. I know very well that God loves us all and has no "wrath" toward any of us.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "God loves us all"

          Yes.

          "and has no "wrath" toward any of us."

          Not collectively, not yet.

          • John

            I’m sure he/she will simply get so fed up of us shooting innocent victims and decide one day to smite us all…

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I'm sure he/she will simply get so fed up of us shooting innocent victims and decide one day to smite us all…"

            What makes you say that?

          • John

            Don’t you mean “shoot ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out?”

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Don't you mean "shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out?""

            That's roughly what comes before yelling, "Allah akbar!"

        • Gamma Ray

          Bows and crossbows were the assault weapons of 500 years ago. They are still fairly widely in use and technological advances have made them far deadlier than they were back then. I saw a guy on TV who fabricated a semi auto cross bow that could hurl large hardened steel darts at over 500 feet per second and could go right through 1/4 inch plate steel. It was based on a 2000 year old Chinese design, with some improvements.

          Is that acceptable?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Is that acceptable?"

            Give them enough time and it won't be.

    • JCM

      The Supreme Court did not affirm the right of women to choose; it created it.

    • Sussex Girl

      Read the 14th amendment very carefully and see if you can find anything even remotely concerning a woman's right to choose.

    • Franko

      First off Abortion isn't in the bill of rights and neither is sodomy. They both kill millions of lives every year and I call for a complete and total ban of both of them. They are negotiable. The second amendment is not.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        Sodomy kills people needlessly. Time to outlaw it again.

  • JLB

    Besides, we don't need to negotiate the 2nd Amendment… we need to repeal it. Then we need to ban firearms.

    In Japan, gun ownership is illegal. Do you know how many gun-violence related fatalities the ENTIRE NATION of Japan had last year? Less than Newtown had on Friday. We have more accidental gun fatalities in this country per year than any of the strictest gun control countries has gun-violence incidents PERIOD. Strict gun control works.

    • RedWhiteAndJew

      No, we don't need to. Laws limit the behavior of only the law-abiding. Laws against murder protect everyone, because no one has a right to murder. Yes, some break that law, but that is no excuse to repeal it.

      Passing laws to ban guns, however, hurt only those who obey the law, because it denies them the means to defend themselves. As has been pointed out numerous times by the more rational among us here, criminals will always be able to get their hands on guns.

      And could you pick a more culturally homogeneous culture than the Japanese as your example of a society that does not respect the right to defense against an overbearing government? A country, which a few decades ago, had a ghod emperor?

      • John

        Yo Red … according to your sources Japan must be riddled with violent crime! Hmmmm….

        • RedWhiteAndJew

          No, J. Japan's is a culture that is built around unquestioning obedience to a man who is a god, and subordination to a warrior caste. The denial of arms in Japan, as in other Asian countries, have rise to a culture of open hand marshal arts. Such can be used to maim or kill.

          Of course, there is violent crime in Japan. Whether or not it is "riddled" is a matter of opinion. That the word has no objective meaning in this context, is no doubt why you chose to use it.

          Ask yourself. In America, if an equal percentage of people were adept at open hand marshal arts, as in Japan, how do you expect this would impact crime here?

    • Seriously?

      Japan doesn't have a minimum wage either. Let's toss that out the window as well. Oh, and while we're at it, they don't have our Constitution, either. You want to finish wiping yer arse with it before you give it a flush?

      (rolling eyes)

    • al222

      if you can get two thirds of Congress and three fourths of the states' legislatures on your side, it's a done deal. anything less is tyranny. and the ability to resist tyranny–or those like you, who would seemingly dispense with such "bothersome" restrictions as the amendment process–is why we have a 2nd amendment in the first place.

    • TomD

      JLB, you don't know what you are talking about.

      Congress has the power to regulate firearms BECAUSE the 2nd Amendment says so. Remember a "well regulated militia"? Part of the reasoning of the 1939 Supreme Court decision in United States v Miller stated so, and further stated that if the 2nd Amendment did not exist Congress would have no power to regulate firearms as such. A straight repeal of the 2nd Amendment would mean that the only power Congress would retain over privately held firearms would be via the interstate commerce clause, which would be very limited.

      • Stephen_Brady

        Tom, Heller and MacDonald both separated the right to keep and bear arms from membership in a "well-regulated" militia. It is now a personal right.

        Since there is no state-sanctioned militia, Congress' power to regulate privately-held firearms should go to the interstate commerce clause.

        • TomD

          I am not so sure it is clear cut. I think that BEFORE Heller and MacDonald that the right to keep and bear arms is and always had been an individual (thus personal) right. Heller and MacDonald did not make it an individual right, they merely affirmed it.

          Remember too, that we all have a natural right to self defense that predates the civil right of keeping and bearing arms, so the 2nd Amendment is merely the codification of a civil right that serves a natural right. Natural rights are not subject to repeal via some future constitutional amendment.

          The existence of this individual right does not negate the militia. The militia, and its civilian counterpart, the posse comitatus, are civil institutions that allow individuals to collectively assemble for the public defense. If government were to collapse [God forbid] then these institutions would still exist under common law.

          It has always been understood in U.S. constitutional law that individual rights cannot be regulated (even as interstate commerce), and therefore only the members of the militia and posse may be regulated. This admittedly is a though call: how do you regulate something but not its components? I don't have an easy answer, but one answer would imply that individuals SHOULD own military weapons for the common defense, as in Switzerland.

          For me the bottom line is that the militia and the posse, if they were in common use today, would be the center of safe gun education. The NRA and other groups largely serve this function today, but they do so outside of a legal framework, which is both good (its very democratic) and bad (it may be less than effective). When we remember that we handle and store our weapons safely for the benefit of our fellow citizens we act as if we were militia members. That is not a bad thing.

          • TomD

            BEFORE Heller and MacDonald our right to keep and bear arms always had been an individual (thus personal) right. – rephrased

            Cursed be cut n' paste during lunch breaks!

        • John

          So our sacred Bill of Rights CAN be changed! Uh oh…little did the court know that their verdict in Heller and MacDonald would give the crazy left wing gun control lobby the crack in the door they need to legally disarm the masses and conquer the world!!! Boo!

          • Stephen_Brady

            Heller and MacDonald changed nothing. These decisions merely reaffirmed a right that had existed since before the founding of this nation.

            Do you deny that the Left wishes to end the Second Amendment? Is this your desire?

            If it is, I suggest that you put together an organization to actively pursue this goal. When you get an Amendment through Congress, and it is affirmed by the votes of 37 states, you will have achieved your goal. Until then, live with your gun-armed fellow citizens. I don't want to take a single right away from you.

            Boo? You don't frighten me …

          • Gamma Ray

            How would the morally subjective left even understand the definition of the word "sacred", or it's implied concept?

        • Franko

          Then maybe its time to start the well regulated militias again? Im all for that. I think the feds would rather we have a personal right though. I say bring back the militias and make a law against the lamestream media demonizing them. We will call it hate speech.

          • Gamma Ray

            In my state, militias are outlawed by the Dem Plantation. It is okay to start a "gun club", or something like a "search and rescue" team, that happens to carry firearms for protection.

          • TomD

            It is much more likely that PRIVATE militias are outlawed. That is not a bad thing. Setting up your own militia is like creating your own citizenship or coining and printing your own money. It would be in effect an act of succession or rebellion.

            The citizen's militia cannot be outlawed, banned, or abolished, no more than citizenship itself could be outlawed, banned, or abolished. Citizenship and the militia are prerequisites to the constitutional order; the constitutional order did not create them.

    • tagalog

      Repealing the Second Amendment will not eliminate firearms. Neither will a ban. The right to keep and bear arms existed before the Second Amendment, and it exists whether the Second Amendment exists or not. All the Second Amendment does is tell legislators that they can't make laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms.

      People will always find a way to have access to arms.

      • Ricky Michael

        Absolutely right. Banning firearms would do nothing to prevent someone hell bent on murder and mayhem from obtaining what he needs to carry it out. Here is a recent article about totally "safe" Sweden, who has very strict gun control. It has not stamped out the murder over there.
        http://news.yahoo.com/wave-shootings-baffle-swedi….

        Sweden has also had their share of execution style school massacres, their policy hasn't stopped that from happening there.

        • John

          Why do people continually assert that gun control would not eliminate violent crimes? Of course it WOULDN'T but that isn't a reason to NOT consider it.

          Remember the police were at Sandy Hook in ~15minutes after being called. How many people do you think would have been choked, stabbed, poisoned, etc. in that amount of time? Even if he were loaded to the gills with ammunition but had to stop to reload every 6 shots or so would that have given someone an opportunity to detain him?

          The 2nd Amendment is not the source of evil nor does it fend off evil nor will it banish evil if we modified it.

          • Ricky Michael

            I would choose to defend myself during that fifteen minutes as opposed to waiting on the police. During that time frame, my 380 would be a lot more handy than a cell phone. You don’t seem very informed about guns, sir. I can drop a clip and re-chamber a round in about 2 seconds. Nothing could have stopped this maniac except another gun. The best defense against bad guys with guns are good guys with guns.

          • Stephen_Brady

            The 2nd Amendment is not the source of evil nor does it fend off evil nor will it banish evil if we modified it.

            So, your solution is to do away with it.

            Evil is not spelled, "GUNS". It is spelled "EVIL".

          • Mr. H

            Do you remember what happened in Oklahoma City in 1995? How long did it take for 169 people to lose their lives?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Remember the police were at Sandy Hook in ~15minutes after being called. How many people do you think would have been choked, stabbed, poisoned, etc. in that amount of time?"

            Just as many under the same circumstances with the right alternative weapons, that are in fact in the USA under less regulation than firearms.

            You really don't know what you're talking about, but I know you're sincere.

            "Even if he were loaded to the gills with ammunition but had to stop to reload every 6 shots or so would that have given someone an opportunity to detain him? "

            What a silly question. Maybe you're sincere, but you haven't thought this through rationally. You made up your mind and then acquired silly arguments that leftists try out on each other first and then use after they agree with each other that they make so much sense.

        • John

          How long would it take to catch and choke 28 people? Guns kill people!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "How long would it take to catch and choke 28 people?"

            Ever seen a katana?

            "Guns kill people!"

            Lots of things kill people. All methods of murder are already against the law here in the USA, to this point. Although some religions may murder female family members without punishment, but don't worry about them. It doesn't concern you personally.

            More laws won't do anything to demotivate criminals.

            (!!!)

            John, this is getting boring. Can you step up your game a bit please? Wait, you don't have any rational arguments, so you can't.

          • Ricky Michael

            People kill people. They use guns, knives, explosives, shovels, hammers, screw drivers, etc…the list goes on. We also need to outlaw empty glass whiskey bottles, gasoline and matches, those kill people too. We also outlawed war. TheKellogg–Briand Pact(officially thePact of Paris) was a 1928 international agreement in which signatory states promised not to use war to resolve “disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them”.[1]Parties failing to abide by this promise “should be denied the benefits furnished by this treaty”. It was signed byGermany,Franceand theUnited Stateson August 27, 1928, and by most other nations soon after.That did work out too well either did it?

    • Gamma Ray

      Sure JLB – if you feel that strongly about it, then as a good citizen you can volunteer to go round up firearms when the time comes. Oh, but that would require moral, emotional and physical courage ………. naaah, let the cops do the dirty work – they're a bunch of f***ing pigs anyway. Who cares if a bunch of them get killed, right?

      BTW, what were doing when leftist dictators were slaughtering over 100,000,000 people ? Nothing, if if am not mistaking. Or were you like many of your far left kameradan and excusing the slaughter as "mistakes made in the name of progress"?

      Hypocrisy personified.

    • UCSPanther

      I guess you like the idea of a society where conformity is enforced and those who are different are automatic outcasts, hmm?

      • John

        Sounds like the way “lefties” are treated on this website!

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Sounds like the way "lefties" are treated on this website!"

          Your civil rights are violated here? Do you feel oppressed or even victimized? Convert to Islam and the world will be your oyster with an attitude like that.

    • Ghostwriter

      I don't own a gun myself,but I'm not going to stop a law abiding person from owning one if he or she wants one. It should be a matter of choice. I chose not to have one,that's all.

    • Sussex Girl

      No, in Japan they just use nerve gas for their mass murders.

    • Franko

      I give give a tinkers damn what Japan or any other country does. THIS IS AMERICA azzclown. If you don't love it leave it. Don't tread on me!

      • John

        So you support President Obama?

        • objectivefactsmatter

          >If you don't love it leave it.

          "So you support President Obama?"

          He just implied 0'Bama should leave, didn't he? What a silly question, again.

    • NAHALKIDES

      What has made America different is that the government is the servant of the people, not it ruler. Government is no longer the servant if it can disarm its masters, which is why the 2nd amendment exists. And yes, we need guns to protect ourselves from those who would be our masters. The Founding Fathers understood this even if you don't.

      As to crime, we need guns to defend ourselves from criminals. Criminals can always get guns, even if they're illegal, since breaking laws is what criminals do by definition. You want to disarm the law-abiding citizen, leaving him at the mercy of the criminal. Our answer to you is "no" – and you'd be wise to back off rather than trying to deprive of us of what few rights remain to us in the age of Obama.

    • carrie

      And in Japan child porn is legal.
      Try to move there. They are extreme racists and anti-immigration .

      By they way you do know the US is a large country with alot more people than Japan, don't you ?
      They also don't let the mentally ill roam the country and murderers serve 4 months in jail.

    • http://twitter.com/HBrandon86 @HBrandon86

      Repeal the 2nd amendment? That is the most asinine solution I have ever heard. Tell me what credibility will the bill of rights have if we can just toss out amendments?

  • Tan

    "…would we say that because a few kooks use these rights to upset us we should restrict freedom of speech and peaceable assembly for all of the rest of us?"

    According to radical Muslims and the radical Left, yes. For them, anything or anyone that disagrees with their views is viewed as intolerant or hateful. They don't respect free speech at all.

    "Of course firearms can be used by criminals and by mentally ill nuts to commit crimes and to kill innocent people. But so can knives, cars and hammers. A speeding truck can cause the same mayhem as an illegally fired handgun."

    Oh man. That's something the anti-gun people forgot to put restrictions on. Oh boy, guess we've got to ban all knives, cars, hammers, and all the rocks and stones on the planet. Next thing you know, the radical environmentalists decide to restrict all human existence so all violence can stop (sarcasm).

    "Would more laws regulating firearms have prevented the killings in Connecticut?"

    The answer is no. You could ask the same with the UN Arms Trade Treaty. Criminals will always find ways to get firearms, even illegal firearms. All these anti-gun laws will put the innocent at great risk, while giving criminals and corrupt governments the upper hand. Dictatorship includes anything that is okay for the criminal or the government but is not okay for the law-abiding citizen.

    • Gamma Ray

      @ Tan – The enviros do want a massive die off of humanity. Google search "Enviros want to depopulate Earth" or something along those lines. Many who advocate this are not "fringe loonies" either, but people in power.

    • carrie

      My cousin was brutally raped and beaten almost to death- with a hammer.
      I

      • John

        Unfortunate…no question. Were people there that could’ve intervened? Probably not. If there had been they would have probably found it much easier to stop the assault than they would have if the hammer used in the attack were a gun. Bottom line for me – maintain the right to bear arms but put more control on the types of weapons citizens are allowed to obtain. Laws, I acknowledge, will not stop all crimes. Lets make it harder for someone with malicious intent to obtain firepower that can do the type of damage as efficiently as the shooter in CT. If that’s unreasonable to you I understand. Not part of any gun culture myself I admit that my knee jerk reaction would be to favor strict gun control if a compromise cannot be reached that recognizes recognizes that We the people can no longer use the 2nd amendment to adequately challenge the US government as the amendment originally intended and so therefore we need to sensibly discuss what types of weapons should be legally available to citizens of the United States.

  • Ray

    “The answer is that the mentally ill should not be allowed to buy firearms. ”

    The mother who owned the weapons used in the Newtown tragedy was NOT “mentally ill” but as it turns out, her son had a form of autism. Are you suggesting that anyone with a history of autism or mental illness in their family shouldn’t be allowed to purchase firearms?

    My primary concern isn’t the possession of firearms but I am puzzled why anyone needs to own an assault weapon. Yes, I realize the young man in Newtown could have carried out his rampage with a less powerful and destructive weapon but I have to believe the carnage would have been minimized had an assault weapon not been accessible to him.

    • RedWhiteAndJew

      Which assault weapon was this? Do you even know what the term means?

      • Hudson

        Are you serious with that reply?

        This is about people having weapons that can kills many, very quickly!
        Not how clever someone can twist the words on paper.
        What exactly is the correct use of these weapons, why are they needed in our communities, in your eye's RedWhiteAndJew?

        • RedWhiteAndJew

          Your appeal for emotion over reason aside, I'm still waiting for an answer.

          What is an "assault weapon?"

          • Hudson

            What? Do you know what we are talking about?

            You must have google… have a look for yourself.

            What exactly is the correct use of these weapons, why are they needed in our communities, in your eye's RedWhiteAndJew?

          • RedWhiteAndJew

            What does "assault weapon" mean? It's a very simple question. That you are unwilling to answer it, and choose instead to verbally duck and weave says much.

            If you want to ban a thing, define that thing. It's common courtesy, don't ya know.

          • Hudson

            And that says it all.

          • RedWhiteAndJew

            Says what?

          • Drakken

            You obviously have never owned a weapon in your life and you don't know jack about them either, you can't even define what an assault weapon is. Typical progressive who is all about I feel therefore I am versus facts, logic and common sense.

        • Avsfreak24

          You are the one who clearly doesn’t have a clue what is being talked about. There were no “assault weapons” used in this crime. Two 9mm handguns. The rifle of his mothers that was found in the car but not used was not an assault rifle. Answer his question, our run along troll! You do not know the answer, that is clear

          • UCSPanther

            These idiots do not know bolt-action rifles from automatic weapons. No surprise.

            They would call a Mauser Kar98K an assault rifle if it suited their agenda.

        • carrie

          Dangerous weapons like fertilizer and a timer ? Gasoline ? Acid ? Castor beans ? Tylenol ? A box cutter and an airplane ?

          Thousands have been killed very quickly with those.

          Guy in China walked into a school and stabbed 22 children .

          • John

            Stabbed 22…thats terrible! How many fatalities? Guns kill people too efficiently…

    • adamjw2

      Assault weapons are already illegal.

      • tagalog

        I don't know what an "assault weapon" is, but asuming you're talking about assault rifles, they're not illegal; their ownership is, however, severely restricted and regulated by law.

        On the other hand, semi-automatic rifles that are made to look like assault rifles are perfectly legal, since they're just like any other semi-automatic rifle, except maybe less accurate, firing less powerful cartridges. I laughed out loud when the assault rifle ban way back when outlawed the manufacture of assault rifle replicas with bayonet lugs. I guess the legislators were worried about all those bayonet charges that gang-bangers were engaging in.

    • Echo Vector

      Regarding your last paragraph, allow me to remind you that Timothy McVeigh didn't use an "assault rifle" when he, in his mentally disturbed condition, chose to act on HIS anger issues.

      I dare say, a damn sight *FEWER* people, (including how many children?) would have died from his mis-application of common fertilizer and motor fuel concoction.

      The sad, cynical bottom line is very simply this:

      Criminals and insane persons couldn't give two farts from a dead, stiff rodent's rectum *WHAT* the 'law' is.

      This plain truth is glaringly obvious all around you, set in monuments to their acts, monuments we refer to as Jails, Courthouses and Prisons.

      You will *NEVER*, logistically speaking, retrieve and destroy every hand-held firearm in this country. It would be a fools folly and a suicide endeavor to even attempt it.

      There will always be firearms.

      As long as there are firearms, criminals and the insane will manage to acquire them.

      Decent society demands that innocent people be allowed to protect themselves from not only the criminals and the insane, but also from the tyranny of government; hence the very existence of the Second Amendment ( The Amendments which, by the way, were DEMANDED by the States before they would ratify the Constitution as a whole )

      Laws against guns in an effort to reduce or eliminate gin violence are about as useful as teats on a boar hog.

      And as for calls for a Constitutional Amendment banning guns?

      Tell us all again how well the Eighteenth amendment worked.

      Get your emotions out of the argument and try looking at the world through the eyes of factual data, historical relevance and the erring human condition.

      Your blood pressure will thank you.

    • tagalog

      If you own firearms, you have an obligation, both moral and (in most states) legal, to keep those firearms secure. The NRA instructs firearms owners always to keep the ammunition for firearms in a place separate from the place where the firearms themselves are kept.

  • Tpartywarrior

    Blaming the guns in this is like blaming a knife, fork and a spoon for making Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell fat.

  • R.C.

    The second amendment–is not negotiable! Guns are not the problem–but rather criminal human beings!

    Far more people are killed with motor vehicles every year–where is the call for a automobile ban?

    • JPCordier

      What a silly question. Simple answer: motor vehicles are designed to take people and stuf from point a to point b. there are sometimes accidents in which people get killed. semi automatic rifles are designed with only one purpose. That is to kill man people as quickly as possible. No-one accidentally shoots 26 children. The right to bear arms is a good right. The right to bear machine guns is dumb

  • John

    I believe the framers of the Constitution included the 2nd amendment to allow citizens to protect themselves from governmental tyranny. The acknowledgement that a “well regulated militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State” was meant to provide the right to citizens to arm and defend, with deadly force if necessary, themselves against foreign aggressors AND domestic governmental activities that undermine our inalienable rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” The wording used in the Constitution was carefully chosen. The right to bear arms is ASSOCIATED with a well regulated militia in the text but does not require the existence or participation in order to lawfully do so. While this construct protects a citizen’s right to bear arms it does so without definition. Again, the language the framers used is critical as the absence of a definition allowed future generations to define “arms” as necessary to balance the power of the government.

    The topic of gun control usually prompts people to invoke the 2nd amendment as an right guaranteed to citizens. The development and maintenance of a standing army – with armaments that will NEVER be available to citizens (e.g. Heavy artillery) – has undermined its primary intent. This has been tested, of course, both in court and in the field throughout the history of our great nation and the might of the US government has prevailed. The days, therefore, of a militia armed well enough to challenge the might of the government have long passed. Our right to bear arms, however, is protected and ingrained as part of the fabric of American culture – but it’s high time we debate just how powerful the arms we allow within the confines of our society should be.

    “Arms”, broadly defined, are instruments if destruction. They are not stamps, butterflies nor coins and should not be marketed as collectables unless their destructive capabilities can be disabled. Arms used for acceptable activities such as protecting one’s home and property or to hunt are acceptable applications of these instruments of destruction but I fail to see why one would need an assault weapon for these types of activities. Lets engage in a logical discussion about how we can protect our right to bear arms while protecting citizens from the nightmares that have become all to commonplace.

    • RedWhiteAndJew

      First, it has been established that access to guns is not the problem, so there is no need to consider repeal of the Second Amendment on those grounds. And indeed, it has been proven by John Lott and others, that as gun ownership increases, violent crime decreases.

      As to your standing army argument. BS. First, consider the high rates of attrition which would occur, if a dictatorial executive ordered, in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, American armed forces to fire on American civilians. Orders to fire which go unfollowed, are just words.

      If such a nightmare were to come to pass, though, this standing army would have a finite number of troops, with high AWOL rates, and little hope for conscription of new troops, and it would face a widespread and deeply entrenched guerrilla force, the likes of which the world has never seen.

      • TomD

        The U.S. military is deeply indoctrinated with democratic values. There have been surveys done of military recruits that show not only a widespread reluctance to follow such illegal orders, but even a large potential for refusal.

        If the federal government were to attempt to use today's military to confiscate privately owned weapons in violation of the constitution, the result might be the first real mutiny in U.S. history. As always, the utopians are playing with fire.

        • Gamma Ray

          @ Tom – unfortunately for the left and their messiah, there are those who compile data on the voting registration of all active duty military personnel and LEO's. If such an order comes down, any who willingly engage in disarming, (or attempting to disarm) the citizenry may be detained by sound minded people, or even killed. Of course, that works both ways. There will also be LEO's and military personnel of leftist political persuasion who try to detain / kill their fellow LEO's and service members, although in the case of the military, the lefties are greatly outnumbered. Still, the effect may be that a great many people in those services will be culled, their numbers greatly reduced and in many cases will be reduced to the point of being ineffective.

          The lefties knwo they can't get complete conmtrol of the military and many very well lose it. Which may be why Obama proposed his Civilian National Security Force …."We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded as the millitary." is what he said on July 20th 2008 – after which his advisors told him to shut up.

          So what would the purpose of this "force" be? Not hard to guess, really.

      • John

        So why do we need powerful weapons if we are neither asked to participate in a militia or defend ourselves from tyranny.

        I don't think you understood my point. I never said the government would turn the army on it's citizens. I believe the rights provided in the Constitution and Bill of Rights were to be considered as a framework for a government that protected against tyranny similar to that they were seceding from (e.g. Britain). IF the government did not abide by the framework set forth in the Constitution the Bill of Rights spelled out citizens rights that would legally enable them to regroup, form a militia if necessary (second amendment) and take the country back through the use of force if necessary.

        When the government choose to implement a standing army (rather than employ the concept of the militia to fight against foreign nations – also covered by the second amendment) it undermined the ability of a militia comprised of citizen soldiers to overthrow the government if necessary. In other words the government built an army more powerful than I think the framers had ever considered and thereby eliminated the ability of a militia of citizen soldiers to confront the US government with any real military threat (despite the attempts in Waco and Ruby Ridge).

        Even though I believe that the original intent of the second amendment is no longer relevant, the tertiary intent of providing citizens with the right to bear arms is indeed worth defending. We simply disagree (I think) on how we define "Arms". I would like to see us limit citizens to MUCH less powerful weapons than we currently allow.

        • Gamma Ray

          What is your definition of tyranny? That's rather subjective.

          • John

            Tough to define…probably has a definition similar to Potter Stewart's definition of pornography (e.g. I know it when I see it). The current shenanigans in DC, for example, would qualify in my book. Politicians seem to have forgotten that their first responsibility is to the constituents who vote for for them – not their caucus, their ego nor their party should come before the duty they owe to the people in their districts.

      • scum

        Seems to me that Lanza enjoyed easy access to legally purchased guns, and proceeded to blow away his mother's face. Just today, a new article shows that one of your pro-gun zealots threatened an entire school in Indiana, and was arrested with 47 guns and $100,000 of ammo in his house. That's more ammo than you'll find in Kabul at the moment.

        • RedWhiteAndJew

          And if he hadn't had easy access to a gun, he very well could have built explosive devices, or prepared poisons. He was characterized as being very intelligent.

          As to the threat made by the idiot. I haven't read any info regarding his ownership of guns or ammo, but obviously neither were used in the commission of a crime. The crime was making the threat, which is assault. He is guilty of such assault, whether or not he was prepared to make good on the act.

          As to your comment about Kabul…may I suggest that when you don't have a leg to stand on, don't make your case weaker with unnecessarily grandiose hyperbole.

        • Gamma Ray

          So what makes you think anyone is in favor of someone doing a stupid thing like that? You are projecting false stereotypes.

          Why don't you show the same concern for inner city people around the U.S., who are blown away by mostly illegal firearms several dozen times a day?

          Oh, I guess no political hay to be made there, right? Hypocrite!!

    • ApolloSpeaks

      "I fail to see why one would need an assault weapon………."

      "If the army has assault weapons I should have the right to own them. Why? If the state turns tyrannt I want as much firepower as I can afford to fight back."

      • scum

        You obviously didn't spend time in West Oakland during crack epidemic of the '80s.

        • Gamma Ray

          hell, it's still going on in Oakland!! I was on 18th St. in Oakland about 1/12 years ago and saw a 17 year kid get shot down about 1 block up from where I was stopped at a stop light. I found out later that the murdered kid wasn't in a gang, but the shooter was.

          Over 100 murders in Oakland AGAIN so far this year, and most of them gang related. But, hey – let's send the cops and Feds to kick out the jambs and go house to house with warrantless searches and round up all of those evil firearms – all in the name of safety, security and civility, of course.

          Of course, the phony screams of racism and violation of rights will ring through the already thick media airwaves, but hey, it's all in the name of public safety – right?

      • Stephen_Brady

        Amen, and pass the ammunition …

    • tom4you

      I agree with John's point, the right to bear arms was created in case the government they were putting together had problems standing up to others, since that time I believe our government works, meaing the power of the VOTE is the fireepower neccessary in today's USA….we don't need guns in America anymore however since we can nerver get rid of the ones currently here, we should at least only allow hand guns and get rid of the assult rifles and and rifle magazine with more the 10 clips sounds good also…let's get reasonable.

      • RedWhiteAndJew

        Yeah. That why Jefferson said that thingy about how the tree of liberty needs to be watered by the blood of patriots and tyrants every so often.

        :rolleyes:

      • Joel Jollymore

        Assault rifles by definition, are weapons that fire multiple rounds with a single pull of the trigger. These weapons are called Class 3 and are already highly restricted.

      • Stephen_Brady

        Your definition of "reasonable": everyone does what you think they should do.

      • Betty

        Perhaps being able to stand up to the “others” is because the “others” know that many of us are armed.

    • J. CHAMBERLAIN

      Refference to arms as you defined in your statement and mention to how carefully they choose their words, reflect upon the fact that did not know, how could they, how far guns would go in development. So before you go trying to take peoples rights away you should read the constitution second amendment alittle bit closer " 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."

  • John

    @ R.C. – Ok, you’ve convinced me…lets outlaw cars for their lethal capabilities as well. Oh wait – that doesn’t make sense – cars don’t kill people – people kill people right?

    • Franko

      No actually cars sometimes fail and decide to kill all on their own.

  • John

    @echo vector – Just because we’ll never eliminate firearms through legislation doesn’t mean we shouldn’t consider placing limits on the types of weapons a citizen can legally weild. There are laws forbidding theft, murder and rape but people still commit those crimes. I don’t advocate the elimination of those laws because they’re less thN 100% effective – do you?

  • John

    @redwhiteandjew – I can’t speak for Hudson but I’d be willing to define “Assault Weapons” as ANY automatic weapon. The ball is in your court now…

    • RedWhiteAndJew

      Great. So, name the "assault weapons" used by Lanza. Note what the OP of the original sub-thread, to which I replied, said.

    • Gamma Ray

      It is nearly impossible for an ordinary citizen to get a FULL AUTO firearm, unless they have an FFL, and only then in certain states. Unless they illegally modify the firearm or somehow obtain one illegally.

      You are aware that police are exempt from the ban on FULL AUTO weapons and are allowed to keep these weapons in their own personal collections right Even here in the People's Republic of KKKalifornia, I know several cops who own FULL AUTO weapons

    • UCSPanther

      I'm guessing you would consider Lee Enfields or Mauser Kar98ks as assault rifles…

      • Gamma Ray

        200+ years ago, smooth bore muzzleloaders were the assault weapons of their day. Liberals will find a way to include them in any future ban, also.

    • Stephen_Brady

      Assault weapons defined as "automatic weapons" (I suspect you meant "semi-automatic weapons") can be easily modified to include many weapons that are not even "suspect", at this time. For example, I own a Russian Mosin-Nagant that was manufactured in 1929. It is a bolt-action rifle, and has a magazine capacity of 5 rounds.

      What if some creative bureaucrat decides that an "assault weapon" includes weapons with bayonet lugs? Well, my Mosin doesn't have a bayonet lug, because it's bayonet is a ring-bayonet. Unfortunately, it attaches to the front sight. So, my bolt-action, 5-shot rifle suddenly becomes an "assault weapon".

      And so, I go to my local gunsmith, have the front sight removed, and install the mount for a modern riflescope. I'm cool now, right?

      The same creative bureaucrat decides that range and penetration of the ammunition should be included in the definition. Since my rifle is highly accurate out to 1000 yards, and unaimed shots will go much farther, it's an "assault rifle" again.

      It never ends. You don't want to end the ownership of assault weapons, sir. You want to end the ownership of all guns. That's the purpose of the Left. They will never give up on this issue until they get their way and plunge our nation into civil war.

      • John

        he said civil war me precious just what we wants we do…Thats like someone claiming that the right will only be happy when all labor laws have been eliminated and JP Morgan, Dale Carnegie et al reincarnated to bring back the 100 hour work week – wait a minute THAT sounds eerily accurate…mayne the left needs to accelerate their plans…

        • Gamma Ray

          You are aware that many business owners and CEO's are liberal Democrats, and are just as "greedy" as their conservative Republican counterparts, right

          Here are a few registered Dems who belong in the GREED HALL OF SHAME –
          Leona Helmsley,
          Martha Stewart and …………….. *drum roll please* …………………..
          Bernie Madoff!!

          We now return to our regularly scheduled program ………..

  • John

    Personally I’d consider every one of the weapons recovered on Friday to be an assault weapon but I’m not a firearms enthusiast, do not hunt nor have I ever felt that I needed to protect myself with a firearm. Your question raises an interesting point – just how do we define “arms”? If my definition of “arms” do not meet with yours how do we work together to come to a compromise? Can one be reached?

    • RedWhiteAndJew

      I graciously accept your acknowledgement that you don't know what you are talking about.

      My question was not how we define arms, and I certainly would not trust your definition, as you latest reply shows your use of terms serves only rhetorical value.

      I fear that no compromise is possible with those of your mindset. What you consider an "assault weapon" demonstrates this. The maniac used two handguns, the same handguns popular with American law enforcement today.

      I will note, BTW, that you mislabel the guns Lanza used as "assault weapon," but can't even be troubled to name them. How does one compromise with smoke?

    • tagalog

      An assault rifle is a rifle. It is a rifle that fires an intermediate-sized round (examples are 7.62 x 39 mm. or 5.53 mm.), a more powerful cartridge than a pistol but a less powerful cartridge than a rifle. Assault rifles are capable of full-automatic fire.

      What an "assault weapon" is, is not known to me. I submit that there is probably no such thing.

      All the firearms in question were semi-automatic, not capable of full-auto fire, therefore none of them was an "assault" firearm ("rifle" or "weapon").

      • John

        As I've said in my previous posts, I have no real-world experience with guns. Having admitted that, would you help me understand why citizens are forbidden to own firearms that are full auto-fire enabled/?

        • TomD

          Citizens are NOT forbidden to own firearms that are full auto. They may own such weapons after paying a special tax, undergoing rigorous checks, and complying with an intrusive registration scheme.

          BTW, there is a reason few people have gone through the trouble to legally obtain a full-auto weapon. It turns out that such weapons are only marginally more effective than semi-auto weapons. Most M-16s in the U.S. military are select-fire, which are not full-auto but allow only 3 rounds to fire if the trigger is held down. The troops of the illegal Rhodesian government traded in their full-auto weapons for semi-auto and did very well against their full-auto equipped opponents. Full-auto individual weapons are difficult to aim and usually just waste ammo into the sky, despite Hollywood depictions to the contrary.

          And of course, semi-auto weapons are only marginally better than pump-action, level-action, and revolver-action firearms. This is why the effort to find a line to divide 'bad guns' from 'good guns' is so hard.

          • tagalog

            Full-auto process: the first round goes toward your target, the second round flies three or four feet above your target's head, the third round goes towards the clouds.

            Full-auto is expensive.

          • John

            OK – If full-auto is only marginally better than semi-auto and semi-auto only marginally better than pump/level/revolver I'd vote to dumb it all down to the pump/level/revolver technology as a pragmatic step towards limiting the ability of a few – less than .1% I'm sure – of all gun owners who live on the lunatic fringe and wake up one day and make a decision that "today's the day" and calliously put a hurt on so many.

          • TomD

            I would tend to agree, when the subject is a classroom of unarmed schoolchildren. The death toll of such atrocities would be only marginally different.

            But if legal gun owners had to defend themselves against well-armed opponents, such as the lunatic fringe that commits most crimes, then margins DO matter.

          • John

            Who the F are all the "legal gun owners" defending themselves against??? Where are all the gunfights? I'll concede that if you bring a gun to a fight you better be ready to use it and you NEVER want to find yourself at a disadvantage when your life is on the line but where are the stories about how this guy fending off the lunatic fringe with his higher powered handgun??? "Good thing he decided to pack the big one today!!!" (I sense a "liberal media" answer coming back)

          • Gamma Ray

            Because the "liberal media" answer is correct. They rarely report anything like that . Google search "homeowner shoots intruder" or something along those lines. You will see more than you care to admit.

          • TomD

            Touche

          • scum

            So you favor gun control.

    • Joel Jollymore

      I love it when someone that doesn't exercise a given right tells me I should relinquish MY rights. That approach is a #FAIL. What right should be next? The right to a trial, with a jury of my peers? Or perhaps the right of individuals to be free from unlawful search and seizure?

      • John

        I’d settle for the elimination of mindless executions like we continue to see in public place, schools, etc. If that means amending a 200 year old statute old to reflect the signs of the times so be it.

    • Stephen_Brady

      We don't. Your purpose is the confiscation of guns … all guns. And I, for one, will never compromise with you.

  • John

    Thank you for your reply and spelling lesson. The great thing about being an American is that were all entitled to an opinion and I respect yours. I’ll overlook you’re obvious ignorance to the meaning of the term ‘graciously’ as I laugh out loud at your fascist attempt to invalidate an opinion that differs with yours. At the end of the day – gun, firearm, bang-bangers or whatever you’d like to call them – reform is coming. Not elimination nor a violation of the 2nd amendment but I suspect you’re not going to like it. By the way – law enforcement, as and extension of the state, can carry bazookas for all I care but I feel better if nuts like you were limited to bb guns and plastic knives – it be less of a strain on the healthcare establishment to not have to keep fixing foot everytime you shoot yourself in it. I’m prepared to keep footing the bill to help you remove your foot from your mouth though! I’ll consider it an entertainment expense! Can’t wait for your reply! In the meantime may Allah bless you as you go about your day…

    • tagalog

      Please watch your spelling and grammar when you're taking another poster to task for his ignorance.

      Thank you in advance.

      • John

        Thank you for your recommendation. My previous errors were a result of typing on a small phone keyboard, my fourth grade education or, quite possibly, a combination of the two. While that's no excuse, it's worth noting that forums like these are a form of social media and are generally not held to the same scrutiny as, say, someone writing an essay in an English class.

        I now realize, however, that the spelling and grammar of my previous posts were not up to the standards of some of the viewers of this site so I will make an attempt to improve the quality of my posts in the future.

        Please accept my humble apologies…

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "While that's no excuse…"

          Yet we're still asked to read it.

          "…it's worth noting that forums like these are a form of social media and are generally not held to the same scrutiny as, say, someone writing an essay in an English class."

          Um yeah, but you forgot that a little while ago while griping at another. What do they call that again?

          "I now realize, however, that the spelling and grammar of my previous posts were not up to the standards of some of the viewers of this site so I will make an attempt to improve the quality of my posts in the future."

          Work on logic and evidence, and forget about style until the fundamentals of your arguments are more reasonable and rational.

    • RedWhiteAndJew

      I was sincere in my use of the word "gracious." It is not often that one acknowledges ignorance of the detail of a topic, especially when politics are involved. You admitted you know little about guns. I respect the admission.

      That said, your opinion is largely invalidated by that ignorance, and it has nothing to do with me.

      With your use of phrases such as "reform is coming" and "nuts like you," when it comes to who is a fascist, and who is not, I suggest you look in the mirror.

    • Gamma Ray

      Gee, John, in an earlier post you said were were not in favor of abolishing the 2nd Amendment and confiscating all firearms from the American Public, but now you are saying "nuts" should be limited to BB Guns and plastic knives. Thanks for clearing up the duplicity.

      Show me the last time an NRA member or any RESPONSIBLE gun owner commited any crime like the horrific tragedy we saw last Friday. You will be hard pressed to do so.

      Like I said earlier, let the government start by disarming gang bangers, violent union thugs, members of the American Communist Party and Black Panthers, and any other far left gun owner. That would be the patriotic thing to do, right?

      • scum

        Stupid tautology: A responsible gun owner is one who is responsible. . . .

        • Gamma Ray

          @ John – re “nuts” – If I misunderstood you, my apologies. Leftists typically copy and paste the same nonsense referrirng to all firearms owners as nuts, maniacs, etc. , who sit around in their trailers drinking cheap beer and beating their wives and kids. Funny thing, almost all of the people I know who are fiirearms owners (and there are many) are middle class to downright wealthy, and many served the US in the military and in law enforcement. All have much to lose if they are careless with a firearm in a way that results in injury or death, or damage to property. All know the consequences of commiting a violent crime with a firearm, unlike gang bangers and other criminals who don’t care about laws, or nuts who live in a sick fantasy world.

          I don’t think anyone who is nuts should even be allowed to have a BB gun.

          The NRA, of which I am not a member, should remain mute at this time – unlike their opponents who use a senseless tragedy to further an agenda,and demonize all gun owners. And I don’t know of anyone who is now or has ever been tolerant of such tragedies.

          Do you have the same outrage for the callousness of the hundreds of anti-gun types who have been on Facebook and Twitter the last few days calling for the murder of NRA members, and screeching for a total gun ban and abolishment of 2A? Not that any of them have the balls to do anything about it.

          The only thing I wanna be clutching when get old and cross the great divide is the hands of loved ones. Of course, if I die while I am still relatively young, hopefully it will be clutching the pretty Mrs. while in the throes of ecstasy. : P

      • John

        To be VERY clear. I support the right to bear arms. "Nuts" SHOULD be limited to to BB guns and plastic knives. Do you promote giving them weapons?

        RESPONSIBLE citizens are one of our country's greatest assets and should be afforded every liberty and opportunity to pursue happiness afforded citizens of the United States.

        I am simply no longer tolerant of senseless violence. As a responsible member of the NRA I can imagine the pressure you feel when these things happen because society starts pointing fingers and accusing gun owners of every evil under the sun. While that is not fair, groups like the NRA remain mute and responsible gun owners tend to dig in when challenged for what many in the society we share consider rational discourse about the plague of violence metered out by people wielding firearms.

        I'm not looking for a panacea and harbor no expectations that gun control will solve society's problems. My optimism, in part, for the future of our our great land now lays cold and dead in graves in CT. The callousness of many posters on this site is shocking and brings out the worst in me. I'd like logical discourse which I probably need to realize I likely won't find here. Rationality, in my opinion, has been exchanged for conspiracy theories and gun knowledge d*ck measuring. It's sa fun debate for a while until I'm reminded of the stakes at hand. In the end, I guess it's all gonna end with cold dead fingers clutching something – I'm proud to say that mine probably won't be holding a gun.

        • Drakken

          Your emotional response over facts and logic is duly noted, the 2nd Amendement is non negociable, period. If your willing to give up one right, your willing to give up others and frankly there is nothing to discuss with progresives like you.

          • John

            Contempt like that will make the act of confiscating your weapons so delicious.

          • carrie

            But first you must confiscate the weapons of all the criminals .

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Contempt like that will make the act of confiscating your weapons so delicious."

            Said the rational concerned citizen about his well-considered position. It's not about emotion at all for you, is it? You actually take it personally that anyone wants to dismiss your ideas for attacking the US constitution.

          • John

            Contempt like that will make confiscating your guns so delicious!

          • John

            It’ll be so fun I had to post it multiple times…Christmas is almost here!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "It'll be so fun I had to post it multiple times…Christmas is almost here!"

            You're so emotional about it, you're actually intoxicated and proud of being so.

            Wow. At least you could be approaching a breakthrough where you can see yourself as delusional, and then work your way back to reality based thinking.

            I'm an optimist by nature.

        • carrie

          Why is it you suddenly care when 26 people were killed but ignored the 7,000 African Americans murdered every year and the 4,000 Americans killed by illegal immigrants annually ? Why is it you don't complain about drug dealers murdering people 24/7 ? Thousands of raped and strangled kids are ok with you apparently .
          You discount and dismiss every crime victim that doesn't fit your argument .

          The only thing known about this tragedy is 26 people are dead. The investigation is still ongoing.
          The children were not even ID'd yet and people like you were raging about gun control.
          Where is the respect you claim to have when those poor children aren't even buried yet and you are sneering at people that disagree with your superior attitude ?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Why is it you suddenly care when 26 people were killed but ignored the 7,000 African Americans murdered every year and the 4,000 Americans killed by illegal immigrants annually ? Why is it you don't complain about drug dealers murdering people 24/7 ? Thousands of raped and strangled kids are ok with you apparently . You discount and dismiss every crime victim that doesn't fit your argument . "

            Because they are dupes, following leftist agendas and cues.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "I am simply no longer tolerant of senseless violence."

          Really? Work on root causes then, not your distorted view of reality and the politics you were indoctrinated with. I'd also work on being tolerant of things you can't realistically control and focus on those you can, and when you reasonably should try.

    • scum

      Remember, Roe v. Wade was overturned without being overturned. The same thing is coming for guns. The man with the biggest gun is he who is most fearful.

  • tagalog

    The Second Amendment is one of several rights that are God-given (or that are innate in the human condition/experience for those atheists out there). As a God-given right, the Second Amendment is merely a clause that ACKNOWLEDGES something that has existed since before the Constitution was written, that the Constitution cannot change, and that will exist even if the Second Amendment is repealed.

    The Second Amendment, it should be noted, does not talk about guns; it talks about ARMS. Arms can be clubs or knives, or some other instrument. We have ALWAYS had a right to bear arms, even if rulers have taken that right away, and we will ALWAYS have the right to bear arms no matter what the Constitution or the laws passed thereunder may say.

    • John

      I'm not as sure as you that the things like the right to petition the Government , hold private property or the right to a public trial are innate/God-given. I appreciate your view, however, on the right to bear arms and wish there was someway to bridge the divide between those who view the right to bear arms in its most broad sense (those who might be very sane but would love to have, say, a rocket launcher in their gun collection) with those who would gladly eliminate the second amendment from the Bill of Rights. The distance between these two camps seems to vast to hold any common ground…

      • RedWhiteAndJew

        A rocket launcher is not a firearm. Non sequitor.

        The first step toward negotiation, is agreeing on what words mean. You can't even do that.

        • tagalog

          A rocket launcher is a "small arm," and qualifies as a "firearm" under most definitions. Our government has simply prohibited ownership of them except under very limited circumstances, along with mortars, full auto rifles, machine guns, machine pistols (aka submachine guns), sawed-off shotguns, and so on.

          • RedWhiteAndJew

            I do not agree. A firearm launches a ballistic projectile. A rocket launcher launches…well…a rocket.

            There may indeed be political reasons for lawmakers to bend the meanings of words, but rocket launcher is no firearm, whether it be shoulder mounted, or stuck in the ground, stabilizing an Estes model rocket.

          • John

            Red – You suggested that someone else should read the second amendment. Have you? If so why all the hair splitting about the terminology here? The second amendment makes no mention of "Firearms" but protects our right to bear arms. As tagalog pointed out earlier, "arms" could mean sticks and stones if nothing else is around. I think you're intelligent enough to make a good point here but "Hah – A rocket launcher is NOT a firearm nah nah nah…" doesn't qualify. Take a breath and come join us at the big boy table if you think you can handle it.

          • RedWhiteAndJew

            J, at the big boy table, people define their terms, and abstain from childish name calling when they can't defend their arguments.

            But if you want to argue for a broader definition of what "arms" means, you go right ahead. Seems to me going down that path contradicts your earlier assertions. I can't be sure of that, though, because of your studied vagueness.

          • tagalog

            The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines the term "firearm" as follows: "A weapon, especially a pistol or rifle, capable of firing a projectile and using an explosive charge as a propellant."

            Especially, but not necessarily, a pistol or rifle.

            Rocket launchers fire projectiles, namely various types of explosive weapons (sabots, HE, etc.), and use an explosive charge as a propellant. So do grenade launchers (as in M-203 or M79).

            The U.S. Army includes rocket launchers as part of their term "firearm."

          • RedWhiteAndJew

            A rocket launcher may very well be part of a firearm, but a trigger guard is part of a firearm as well. That doesn't make the trigger guard a firearm.

            Regarding the use of an explosive charge, I would argue that the propellant used in a rocket, while possibly explosive under certain circumstances, is not being used as an explosive when propelling a rocket.

            Also, a grenade launcher is not a rocket launcher.

    • Dennis

      Hey Tagalog…Very good. Mentioned above was "Guaranteed right". You mentioned "God-given". I may say "Natural Right". The fact of the matter is the "Right" is not "Granted" to Americans by any king, president, international group, foreign politician, etc. The GUARANTEED RECOGNITION WAS DEMANDED BY US AND WAS THE CONTRACT ESTABLISHED BY US AND GOVERNMENT WITH GOVERNMENT BEING IN THE INFERIOR STATUS.

      The "MILITIA" dependent clause is basically meaningless. The "RIGHT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" independent clause is he meat of it.

      See: http://www.german-latin-english.com/diagrams.htm
      http://www.german-latin-english.com/diagramamend2

      Does anyone out there really think the Founders were stupid, uneducated, or could not read and comprehend the realities of an oppressive government?

      http://jpfo.org/

      The above LINK will take you to a site that explains the importance of the RIGHT from the perspective of those who lived a "gun free" existence as mandated by government.

      AND IF YOU ARE BLACK OR HISPANIC, CLICK ON EACH LINK BELOW:
      http://www.old-yankee.com/rkba/racial_laws.html
      http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.h

      Educate yourself and your government officials before it's too late..

      • tagalog

        Are you old enough to remember the ohs and ahs among white folks when Malcolm X made a couple of speeches encouraging blacks to organize into gun clubs?

        Whites have always gotten a case of the vapors when blacks own firearms. You can almost hear their fans flapping like the Southern belles in Gone With the Wind. From the black person's perspective it's probably more worrisome, but as a white guy I find the white distsress over black ownership of weapons humorous. "Oh no, we're not racist."

  • geula

    Interesting that the many who extall the RIGHT to bear arms, self-righteously citing the Constitution almost as an eternal, inalienable Biblical precept and without any essential nuance as to the implementation, have nothing to say about JUSTICE. The are many rights in this country that a huge amount of people cannot afford. Self defence – such clamored right against the least degree of gun control – includes the justice system. Those who cannot afford the best defence have less rights than those who do. Same for guns. I can see each an every argument against gun control disolving in view of the realities. But the only argument that cannot be conquered is the one from the gut: we want the guns. It's our right. Our ideology. Our hobby, sometimes.

    • John

      huh?

    • tagalog

      Justice is a virtue, not a right. Virtues are learned, not inborn, Therefore, justice cannot be guaranteed because not everyone is taught to be just. However, the means by which justice can be obtained can be guaranteed, in our system by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments' guarantees of due process and equal protection, along with other protections like speedy and public trials, prohibitions on excessive punishments, bail, and so on.

      Those who cannot afford the means by which they can protect themselves to the maximum are not people who have been denied rights; they are people who lack the means to protect themselves to the maximum degree. Justice, in our system (and in most systems), does not require complete equality with regard to access to protection. It demands equality before the law, together with the right to notice of the claims against one and the opportunity to be heard.

      • carrie

        The boys who committed the Jonesboro school shooting served less than 2 years per murder and were released from jail in 2009.

    • Gamma Ray

      Sure, guela – tell that to the 100,000,000+ people who were slaughtered by far left dictators in the 20th century.

      • geula

        This has nothing to do with the issue a hand. Unless you need all these guns to protect yourself against the American government chosen by the people, and  against all the government representatives such as law enforcement and the military. A constant state of preparation for potential civil war, in short. This is so out there, so lunatic, that I feel sorry that Frontpage magazine, with its high quality articles much worth reading and thinking about – even if not agreeing with every proposition –  draws so many fringe, rabid non-thinkers to its comment pages. Of course they want their guns. Uncontrolled, totally. No more argument needed.

        • Gamma Ray

          Nice evasion guela. It has everything to do with it.

          I was pointing out the murderous hypocrisy of the American left, who openly supported the leftist dictators who murdered all of those millions of people, and now cry crocodile tears for those murdered school children in Conn. Yeah, right – boo-f***ing-hoo, you hypocrite!!!

          BTW, lay off the threadbare "superior intellect" card that you lefties love to trot out. Liberalism requires blind, rigid obedience, coupled with the inability to think beyond a certain point.

          • geula

            I am a right wing conservative. I vote Republican. Surprise. There are single issues in which I differ. Free thinking people often do. Frontpage , to which I subscribe, is one of my favorite magazines. Except for the abysmal quality of some of the commentators.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Interesting that the many who extall the RIGHT to bear arms, self-righteously citing the Constitution almost as an eternal, inalienable Biblical precept and without any essential nuance as to the implementation, have nothing to say about JUSTICE. The are many rights in this country that a huge amount of people cannot afford."

      Rights are not affordable? What are you talking about? You don't know what rights are. You've been indoctrinated.

      OMG this gets so old. Where do these people come from?

      "Self defence – such clamored right against the least degree of gun control – includes the justice system. Those who cannot afford the best defence have less rights than those who do."

      False.They have more rights because the state will fund their defense. Those who can afford to must use their own funds.

      "Same for guns. I can see each an every argument against gun control disolving in view of the realities."

      What you see obviously has little to do with the real world.

      "But the only argument that cannot be conquered is the one from the gut: we want the guns."

      From the gut? Absolute, blatant projection.

  • Ken

    I believe our Constitution is the greatest document created by man. It has kept us strong for over 200 years.Many of your Posts indicate the 2nd Amendment is not important. I believe it is as important as the 1st amendment. NO AMOUNT of laws would have prevented this TRAGEDY by a very evil person. EVIL people do not obey laws.

    • geula

      It is important, no more and no less than anything else in the Constitution. No one attacked the Constitution. Besides the fact that it can be changed, and has been, it was written by people. And it is people who may or may not change it. This country is changing at a rapid pace. The thought that no amount of law can prevent any tragedy is irrational, speculative and ultimately defeatist. It is the fetish of "EVIL" per se used as excuse which is frightening. Evil is a cherished idea, particularly by those who like to contemplate their clear categories undisturbed. Hitler and Ahmadinejad was/is evil. Both can be said to be/have been mentally ill by common psychiatrict standards as well. The Newton murdered may have been mentally ill. I cannot know if he was evil, in the sense of the others ( ideology, premeditation, malice, genocidal hatred ). But I know that he was enabled by the guns purchased for the heck of it by his mother. And I know that , as has been said – and apparently still not understood – all it takes for EVIL to triumph is for men of good will to do nothing. Whatever we CAN do, we should do.

    • John

      I don't agree. While I'll concede that we'll NEVER legislate evil out of society, stricter gun control might very well limit the effectiveness of the attacks.

      For example, lets pretend that the US put strict gun control measures in after the Civil War – limiting citizens to shotguns and revolvers. While this might encourage the development of a black market (Americans HATE prohibition and find industrious ways around it), I would be willing to bet that someone like Nancy Lanza would have a far more difficult time obtaining the firearms her son used last week. While still gruesomely effective, I'd be willing to bet that there would have been far less carnage if the shooter had to reload a shot gun or revolver throughout his rampage. In fact, given the types of firearms used in the attack, one could argue that the event might have been avoided altogether if she didn't find shooting shot guns or revolvers as enjoyable a hobby as she did some of the weapons she bought and licensed with the controls we have on arms today.

      I don't advocate nor do I believe we should try to eliminate guns in our society. We absolutely need to take a look, however, at the types of guns we are allowing to be bought and sold throughout the country. We owe it to too many who have died at the hands of cowards who find it way too easy to point the barrel of a gun at someone and squeeze.

      • geula

        well said.

      • Drakken

        The problem in your logic is, once you ban something, you will want to ban more things, sorry but it will never work and all you folks on the left have done is make folks run to the stores to by everything they can while they can.

  • Jerry

    Comedian, Dave Gardner said a long time ago, "Let us do away with all laws. Then there would be no crime!" That statement was meant to be a joke at the time. But, that same senseless argument has been made by the anti-gun folk as if doing away with guns would end all violent deaths. They know that doing away with guns won't end the violence. That's not their goal. The object of the left-wing gun control lobby is not control of guns, but control of the people that would oppose them as they take over the government. How simple does it have to get before we understand that the first step to tyranny is disarming those that would oppose it?

    • MFranklin

      Quote: "The object of the left-wing gun control lobby is not control of guns, but control of the people that would oppose them as they take over the government. How simple does it have to get before we understand that the first step to tyranny is disarming those that would oppose it?"

      Exactly.

      • John

        I really wouldn't worry about the left-wing gun control lobby or whatever comes next when they're successful in prying that cold hard steel from your long dead fingers (you motto goes something like that right?) …If your THAT into conspiracy theories theres a big one coming on the 21st why not put your weapons to good use before then and end it all before the Mayans or – worst yet – Obama comes knocking on your door. Get out while you still can!!!!

        • Franko

          I sure hope you don't own any guns because you are more than likely mentally ill. I think you are jealous they won't let you own a gun.

          • John

            Darn…discovered again!

    • scum

      On the contrary, the argument cuts the other way around: Eliminate ALL GUN LAWS, and ALL GUN VIOLENCE WILL MAGICALLY DISAPPEAR. That's your argument, even though CT blood is on your hands.

      • carrie

        You are a vile person.
        Only the killer has blood on his hands.

    • Beth

      I agree Jerry. There are always those who want to control or ban guns but when their freedoms are slowly torn away, I often wonder what their argument will be then. The Constitution was put in place to protect our country from tyranny and dictatorship. Those that assisted in writing the Constitution knew what it was like to live in a country that dictated what the citizens were allowed to do or not allowed to do. I hope and pray that our Government does not fail to protect our rights under the Constitution but I believe this incident in CT has played right in to Obama's plan on gun control.

      • John

        What, exactly, is Obama's plan for gun control? (This'll be good)

        • Franko

          To take away all the guns from the law abiding citizen and talk to the psychopaths and try and convince them to please give up their guns.

  • Nogivingin

    I hear people saying these semi-auto rifles should only be on the battlefield. But that is the type of weapons the 2nd Amendment is for. 170,000,000 people killed in the 20 century by their own government more than by all wars, All against a disarmed population. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAU9AJfttls

    • John

      You really think you can make a stand against the power that is the left-wing gun lobby and their conspiracy to rule the world with your – I'm sure sizable – collection of guns and ammo? What's that? Your neighbor is stocking up too? If the government turns on it's people there's only one thing your gun is going to be good for. Good luck.

      • Gamma Ray

        You forget that many gun owners are military, and most currrent active duty military are not lefties and would not stand by and let the government disarm the citizens.

        • IndyDave

          You idiot…the 2nd Amendment was written in 1791…are YOU NUTS? Have you ever READ the 2nd Amendment? You say…"But that is the type of weapons the 2nd Amendment is for".

          It was 45 frickin YEARS before the first REVOLVER!!! YOU HAVE NO SENSE AT ALL!!!

          I am in favor of my right…I have a gun…but this WHOLE thing has gotten way out of control!

          • John

            I’ll drink to that! A gun owner with a rational opinion about the relevancy of the sacred 2nd amendment – FINALLY!

  • Moishe Pupick

    M., 12/17/12 common era

    The use of the term "gun violence" is in itself a linguistic ploy to demonize firearms instead of the violent criminals who misuse them. Using a firearm in self-defense is also a form of "gun violence," but it is not criminal violence. Sadly, the dumbed-down government schools in the U.S. are obsessed with "diversity" and not with critical thinking.

    The ruling elite want a national registry of civilian-owned firearms and ammunition. This wil be a prelude to their desired nationwide confiscation. It can't happen here?! Ask Canadians, Australians, and subjects in the U.K. Be assured that those ruling elite will always have fulltime armed security details and often have concealed carry handgun permits. It's those "little people" that need more and more "gun control."

    • scum

      See, the RIGHT wants elimination of ALL GUN LAWS, as proved by Moishe.

  • reader

    Precisely. The 2nd Amendment refered to events and realities in America's past, surely adequate measures at the time. One of the signs of a nation's decadence or decay is rigidity, the lack of adaptability, renewal and change. Conversely, nations and peoples survive in great part out of resourcefulness and noble common purpose ( even if only by a benevolent evolutionary theory ).
    With regards to the millions – or billions – of killed/murdered people, two wrongs don't make a right.

    • RedWhiteAndJew

      Wrong. The Second Amendment is implicit acknowledgment of the corrupting influence of power. It is an acknowledge of human nature. We have not changed.

      • geula

        Seriously. You want the guns to oppose THE GOVERNMENT? Against LAW ENFORCEMENT? That’s a new one. Leaves me speechless.

        • RedWhiteAndJew

          I want the ownership of unknown numbers of guns, by unknown numbers of citizens, to be a reminder to would be dictators that there are limits.

          And if that's a "new one" to you, you haven't been paying attention. Try reading the Second Amendment again.

          • scum

            Uh, you mean NO limits. Chaos in the streets. Newtown as daily bread.

          • RedWhiteAndJew

            Nope. If I meant that, I would have said that. Sounds closer to your dream, truth be told.

        • Gamma Ray

          Are you implying that the government will use the military against the populace? Our constitution prohibits the use of our military on domestic soil – not that Obama and his lap dogs wouldn't somehow try an end run around that provision. Only one problem there – most of the military , both past and present, don't like the direction our country is headed, and are not exactly fond of leftists, in spite of the left's hollow claim of "We support the troops".

          Federal law enforcement agencies number about 120,000 employed, and many of those are support staff. As of 2010, there were also about 680,000 police officers employed at the state and local levels. Once again, many of them do not agree with the direction the country is headed.

          Not to mention there is the fact that there is a private organization on the "right" side of the political coin that keeps track of the political affiliation of all current active military personnel and law enforcement officers, as well as the political affiliation of every registered firearms owner in America – for reasons that should be easily apparent even to the goose steppers on the left.

          Even if every law enforcement officer in the country went along with any future plans to disarm the citizenry, that would hopelessly be outgunned by millions of 2A supporters, many of whom are former military and law enforcement personnel themselves, who understand the tactics and strategy of winning. Of course, many law enforcement officers would be diverted from attempting to disarm the citizenry to keeping order in the inner cities, where wholesale rioting and looting by good Obama supporters would be taking place in the event of civil breakdown.

          Need I say more?

          The only chance the government would have to disarm the public would be to have millions of foreign troops come to our soil, and you know what that would mean.

          You lefties would do well to stand down.

          • John

            Oh – in that case I'm STANDING UP – come and get some Gamma – because I'd LOVE it!

          • Drakken

            Let me see if I have got this rgiht, you don't believe Americans should have weapons to protect themselves but your going to stand up and fight? With what? LOL !!!!

          • John

            The pen, lest you forget, is mightier than the sword. Come get some Drakken!

          • RedWhiteAndJew

            Tyrants know this. That's why after they take away guns, they take away the pens.

    • tagalog

      One of the signs of this society's rigidity is its clinging to the Second Amendment, is that what you're getting at?

      Let's see, how many revolutions were fought by armed private citizens, in the past 100 years?

      How about a Supreme Court so locked in to rigid logic that it says that laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman are unconsitutional? How about a California constitutional provision, adopted by the state upon a proper majority vote on it?

      • Gamma Ray

        @ tagalog The guela's of the world undoubtedly gave tacit support to insurgent communist "freedom fighters" around the world. I wouldn't be surprised if he wears a Che Guevara T-shirt

      • TomD

        "Let's see, how many revolutions were fought by armed private citizens, in the past 100 years? "

        Costa Rica, 1948

  • Dave

    Most people do not know that on May 18, 1928, an evil man, who was school board treasurer of the Bath Township Combined School District, Clinton County, Michigan. At about 8:45 am he detonated a home made time bomb triggered by alarm clock placed in the basement of his district school. There were 43 people killed (38 children), and 58 injured. The rescue workers were killed and injured when he shoot a rifle into the explosives in the back seat of his car upon drove up to the disaster site at about 9:45 am (killing himself in the process). Earlier he had beaten his wife to death and set fire to his farm killed the lifestock. So, here is a monster who used weapons of mass destruction, committed mass murder, domestic violence, animal abuse, and detonated a car bomb. The death toll would have been higher if another time bomb he planted under one wing of the school had gone off (first explosion disrupted wiring for the second bomb).

    • scum

      1927.

    • Ghostwriter

      I've never heard of this incident. Why?

  • Dave

    What set the May 28, 1928, Bath Township School killer off? Tax problems and debt were two factors at play, but when you look at his history, he displayed prior classic symptoms of a psychopath- cruelty toward animals according to neighbors, and there was that suspicious incident as a youth where he accidently contributed to his stepmother burning to death in a kitchen fire. We need to work on identifying the potential monsters among us. They are smart and will devise ways to attack, with or without guns. It has been almost 85 years since this tragedy and our society has done nothing effective in protecting itself from them. We can lock ourselves up behind barred doors and alarms and armed guards, huddled unarmed but supposedly protected by others with arms, or we can do a better job of identifying the monsters before they strike, and take action such as mandatory treatment, monitoring and even incarceration where necessary.

    • scum

      You mean it wasn't the media, which is what the Right's telling us………

  • ALWARRIOR

    MAYBE WE SHOULD OUTLAW AIRPLANES, SINCE THE ASSAULT ON THE TWIN TOWERS KILLED FAR MORE PEOPLE, BUT; IT WAS NOT THE PLANES THAT KILLED, IT WAS THE EVIL, DISTORED MINDS OF THE PEOPLE THAT TOOK OVER THE PLANES.

    • John

      OK good idea

  • Mike

    Death is a byproduct of owning firearms, point plank. If you own a firearm there is a possibility however slight it might be that it will one day hurt or kill someone. I don't see that as a negative though, because more times than not a death was prevented by using a firearm. If you can't handle the extreme consequences of owning a firearm then lay down like a sheep and wait for the wolves. No we can't eliminate all firearms (to hell with the laws) there are too many and too many criminals are out there just waiting to use theirs so we are left with a choice. I think the choice should be to arm people but train them. You go to driving school to drive right? How about firearms training to own a gun? Its not that hard! I would love to put my kids through firearms training in the next few years. I would gladly take a test of any kind to validate owning a weapon. Its the people who are sick in the head that need to be kept away from them.

    • RedWhiteAndJew

      Lefties assert that sex education leads to better health for students. Suggest a school visit by Eddie Eagle or Brasco Bear, however, and be prepared to be called a "fascist."

      • John

        Cogent point as always Red…

        • RedWhiteAndJew

          No need to belabor the obvious…but thanks.

        • Gamma Ray

          Cogent points always seem fly over the head of the willfully obtuse gravity wasters in the left wing.
          I don't know if is Their M.O. is predictable here as any other forum – ignore direct questions, evade, deflect, etc …… lather, rinse and repeat.

    • scum

      10,000 people a year prove you're right, Mike: Death is a byproduct of owning firearms. Time for a sea change. Stop the legal manufacture of guns, now.

      • Gamma Ray

        Yes, let's do that!!!

        As I have said elsewhere, let the government start by disarming all gang bangers and other criminals, search warrants, Miranda rights and due process be damned. Bring in the ATF, FBI, DEA, National Guard, etc. seal off the cities and do house to house sweeps, kicking in doors if need be. While they are at it, they can also do the same to violent union thugs, members of the American Communist Party, the Back Panthers and any other far let loony toon organizations who are a threat to civilized society. Let the left lead by example, in the name of civility, safety and security.

        Like that is gonna ever happen! Disarmament as currently stated is aimed primarily at "right wing gun nuts" You know and I know it. Stop being disingenuous.

  • Dennis

    The GOVT. can do all the bans they want. They can not have my weapons, the constitution and supreme court have said its my god given right to own them (period). I am not a lawyer, however SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, in plain english means to me that any ban is voluntary for me to comply with. Also we dont need new laws, the laws we have are fine as long as they are enforced.

    • Sean

      You have no rights to own weapons under the second amendment unless you are part of a well regulated militia. Period. Any future supreme court or congress can re-assert the second amendment in the way it was intended.
      Please re-read the document. Your right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED to possess arms for the purposes of maintaining a well armed militia. Join the U.S. reserves, and you are covered. Otherwise, nothing in the constitution says you have that right. As for god, I don't know that he believes in the right of someone to possess weapons meant to kill large numbers of people in a short period of time.
      You will not find that listed in a right in either the constitution, or the bible.

      • UCSPanther

        I just bought an auto-ordnance M1 carbine. Whatcha going to do about it?

        • Sean

          The same thing I do every day, hope that you are some sort of morbid collector and not one of the crazies that plans to go on a rampage. It would be nicer however to not have to worry about such things. Hopefully some day it's not something parents will need to hope.

          But I'm glad to hear that you think you are a real tough dude because you own it. Personally I think I'm a little more brave since I walk around without one. The only weapon I own is a shotgun I use for hunting ducks. And it's locked away so the kids can't get a hold of it and take it to school. So if I did get broken into, I likely wouldn't be able to get to it in time to defend myself. But since statistically speaking, a robber is more likely to use my own weapon on me, I guess I'm better off.

          • UCSPanther

            In Canada, we have a name for gun owners like you: Fudds.

            Your kind generally don't like any gun that can be fitted with folding or telescoping stocks, has bayonet provisions (IE Lee Enfield included), flash hiders, anything that can hold more than five rounds, handgun hunting, etc, AND are willing to throw fellow firearms under the bus in an attempt to appease the gun grabbers.

            Obviously, it hasn't clicked that there are a lot of AR 15s on North American soil and they have since weaved their way into acceptance as sporting rifles. Trying to ban them will be waste of time because that train has already been loaded, left the yard and is barreling along at full speed now.

            In addition, just because someone owns a so-called "assault weapon" or a dozen firearms doesn't mean that they are going to commit evil acts with it.

          • Gamma Ray

            There are an estimated 400,000 off list AR lowers in CA alone.

      • Drakken

        The word milita in our Constitution means we the people.

  • Dennis

    GEULA,

    How about this historical information:
    http://www.dailypaul.com/101031/battle-for-blair-
    http://www.glendale.edu/chaparral/apr05/blair.htm
    http://www.newsinhistory.com/blog/kent-state-stud

    YES…SERIOUSLY!!!

    PS: How long did ragtag Afghans fight Russians? Did Jews make a stand in the Warsaw Ghetto? Start educating yourself…

    • John

      Really – Afghans and the Warsaw Ghetto are your examples? How did those groups do?

      • UCSPanther

        Hey American Leftist: We in Canada just repealed our long gun registry.

        Put that in your pipe and smoke it, and while you are at it, pack up your garbage and move to Europe or Japan. .

        • John

          What are you talking about eh?

          • UCSPanther

            It means that we have a gun culture too, and it ain't going away.

            If you don't like it, there's the door: Use it!

          • John

            Ha!

    • geula

      O, God. And what has this to do with the issue at hand. Scary to see where the opinions you represent come from. Otherwise, I still respect Frontpage magazine.

      • RedWhiteAndJew

        Yes, dismissing as irrelevant evidence which contradicts your fallacies is a common tact of one who does not have fact or logic on his side.

  • marios

    Dictator in WH and his accomplices don't want "waste a good crisis" as it was mentioned by former head of BHO administration Rahm Emanuel. They are dreaming about deprive us any defense. They already seized control over our health. 50+ years they seized control over propaganda machine MSM, over our kids minds/Educational system. Now they are trying to change Constitution's one of the most important article against tyranny and tyrants. Obama did not showed any emotions or at least any sympathy when as result of WH operation "Fast and Furious" was killed our officer, American citizen. He was someone son as well as all those kids. He did not showed any emotions or at least any sympathy when USA ambassador and 3 Americans were killed by Islamic terrorists on USA land. They were someone sons as well (and some kids fathers.) BHO city Chicago is #1 by criminality rate in the world though IL/Chicago has the strongest gun control laws. Contrary the lowest rate in gunfire death rate is the states with lowest restriction on that one. The last one why no one blame Hollywood for their bloody films productions? Hollywood should be blamed for those kind of tragedies. __

  • Concerned

    Most if not all hear need to research the Federal NFA written in 1934, known as Title II. Realizing there was a 2nd Amendment, the Congress knew it could not prohibit all of these weapons. They just made it harder to obtain the "gangster weapons". Yes you can own grenade launchers, rockets and almost whatever you want to buy. http://www.atf.gov/firearms/nfa/

  • Gamma Ray

    During the Rodney King riots, most of the rioting thugs stayed well away from the Korean part of town, because the Koreans were heavily armed.

    • John

      So it stands to reason that IF everyone had armed themselves as well as the "Korean part of town" there would have been less rioting?

      • RedWhiteAndJew

        Either less, or more concentrated.

      • Gamma Ray

        Perhaps. The documentaries of the whole Rodeny King trial and aftermath always show the rioters staying well away from the Koreans after shots were fired by them. Draw your own conclusions.

        • John

          I conclude you’re crazy!

          • Gamma Ray

            Typical leftie response when they have no logical answer – the ol " you're crazy/insane" card.

            I merely stated with what I observed in those documentaries, which was based on the observations of the producers of these documentaries, and the Korean merchants themselves.

            Even with all of their anger, those who were rioting had enough the same inborn self preservation instinct we are born with, and chose to avoid grave bodily harm or death.

  • Vermont Yid

    40,000 people die as a result of auto accidents in the USA EACH YEAR.
    75,000 people die as a result of alcohol abuse in the USA EACH YEAR.
    443,000 people die as a result of smoking tobacco in the USA EACH YEAR.
    That's a total of 558,000 people EACH YEAR.
    In 2010 8,775 people were murdered with firearms in the USA.
    That's a ratio of a bit more than 63.5 to 1.
    Logic dictates that we should keep the guns and get rid of cars, booze and cigarettes.
    NOT the other way around.

    • John

      After spending a few hours on this board today you might think that a country whose citizens ALL had guns would Utopian while a country whose people are prohibited from arming themselves with guns would spend their waking hours devising how to best murder their neighbors. Logical?

      • RedWhiteAndJew

        No, it your distortion which is not logical.

      • Drakken

        Your logic is so effed up that I am surprised you can find your way to the parking lot.

        • John

          What is this parking lot you speak of?

  • Sean

    Since you are likely not part of a well trained militia, the definition of which being "Militia- or irregular army, is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens[2] to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service."

    Unless you are part of a militia, such as the U.S. military reserves, you have absolutely zero constitutional rights to bear arms under the Second Amendment and should get over yourself. You don't, and should not have any need or right to possess tools designed to kill. If anyone is given such rights, for the purposes of hunting, or on a ranch for work purposes, they should view it as a gift, not a right. Your desire to own weapons not designed for hunting, or skeet shooting, that are only designed to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time is both confounding, and somewhat demoralizing to those of us that would like to live in a safe society. Arguments that guns make society safer are made by those that have no interest whatsoever in looking at what the overwhelming amount of evidence around the world shows.

    • UCSPanther

      Move to Europe if you don't like it here, cupcake.

      • Sean

        Glad to hear a well thought out response to my posting. In the absence of any real logic or intelligence, it is much easier to make a comment like yours. A better option to me moving to Europe may be to create a partition in the country where we can stick the minority of Americans who seem to feel an assault rifle is a right. There they can shoot each other as much as they want and do the rest of us, and the gene pool as a whole a favour.
        Incidentally, when I get a response such as yours, I instantly view the poster as a coward afraid to defend an indefensible belief.

        • UCSPanther

          And I'm guessing you consider a Lee-Enfield or a Winchester 94 assault rifles as well.

          We gun owners are far more common than you leftists realize. What gives groups like the NRA the power that they have is the grassroots support. Something that the hoplophobes do not have.

          • Sean

            Glad to hear you have labeled me as a leftist with no knowledge of my political views. I believe that assault rifles should be banned, I believe that for appropriate purposes firearms should be allowed. On other fronts I have what would be considered right wing views such as capital punishment. On other fronts I have views that some would consider leftist. I'm not a political cheerleader. I'm an individual with the ability to think for myself. Give it a try some time. You may like it.

            I am basing my views on how many people believe in banning assault rifles on several polls done. I realize after the last election, that some people have a hard time realizing the validity of polls. But the polls seem to have been pretty accurate in the last election, so I'll base my beliefs on the polls rather than your opinion. I don't believe for a second the NRA does not have any grassroots support. But you are in the minority.

            As for the weapons you mentioned, nope, I don't consider them assault rifles. If you can figure out a way to modify them to fire 20 rounds at 5 rounds per second, then I would change my opinion. If you have those weapons for hunting, if you own a farm, or if they are for home protection, I have no big issue. You are going to have a tough time mowing down 20 kinds and 6 teachers with those guns before the police get there.

          • UCSPanther

            You seem to be more intelligent than some of the trolls on here. I'll give you that, and yes, there are some rampages where lever and bolt actions have been used.

            What I consider an Assault rifle is one that is set up to operate in automatic mode, such as any of the purpose-built m16 or AK 47 series. Their civilian counterparts do not count, since they are not purpose built for automatic fire.

          • Sean

            I suppose we have differing views on what an assault rifle is then. I consider what the person in Newtown used, is far above what would be required for deer hunting. If you require those weapons to defend your home, I would say you should stop dealing with the mafia, bikers, or the local gangs.

            Lever and bolt action rifles have been used. But let's face it, someone could beat someone to death with a well rolled up Saturday version of the New York Times. But they are certainly not going to reach the same death tolls.

            I suppose the question is what is a reasonable weapon. Yes, people are going to kill other people regardless of what is available. But putting weapons that were intended for war into the hands of regular citizens, is not what the second amendment intended.

            One other note, I don't think someone needs to he a hoplophobe to be averse to having whackadoodles walking around with assault rifles. I go hunting and used to go target shooting. I have no fear of guns and don't really have any major fears about being shot or dying. I think my biggest fear would be of being in a mall or a school while some guy opens fire on people, and seeing seeing several kids get shot. And I'm certainly not foolish enough to think that if I had a sidearm on me, that I would be able to save people against a guy with an assault rifle and wearing body armour. Especially when he has the element of surprise to his advantage.

          • Drakken

            That is why you get a CCW in order to avert those type of scenerios.

        • Gamma Ray

          Ah, gotta love the "superior intellect" card you lefties trot out.

          You left out the part of the 2nd that says "…….. being necessary to the security of a free state ….". Of course, I also understand that "free state" is totally subjective to the left – yes, let's let the state control every aspect of our lives and tax us to death in the name of "fairness" – ah, what freedom!!

          2A was also meant as a hedge against overbearing government and tyranny. The people, or at least law abiding citizen, should respect their government, but should not fear it, but the government should both respect AND fear the people – of all political persuasions.

          Whatever happened to the "question authority" canard the left used to trot out? That is what we do now.

          Gun owners going out and "shooting each other as much as they want" – come on, you can do better than that. That is merely projecting using false premises and shallow stereotyping – and also shows a lack of that stellar intellect of yours that you keep trumpeting. Show me the last time an NRA member or any other responsible gun owner commited such a heinous crime as we saw last Friday.

          However, if you are truly concerned about gun violence, then by all means, contact your representatives demanding disarmament of inner city thugs and gang bangers in general, violent union thugs, members of the American Communist Party, the Back Panthers, and any other far left group or demographic that advocates and/or commits gun violence.

          After all, being good citizens, they will wish to set a good example for the rest of us and will all peacefully submit and cheerfully turn over their firearms – right?

          Oh, yeah, I can just see what would happen if the cops attempted to disarm good Obama supporters in the inner cities – more phony screams of racism, rights being violated, etc

          Or is disarming primarily aimed at "evil, right wing 2A supporters"?

          • Sean

            So you don't think the free state they spoke of was concerning the ability of the people to defend themselves against an invading army? It isn't worded in the second amendment that it is to fight against our own government.
            But let's pretend for a minute that the purpose is to protect you against the evil leftist empire that you believe to be the democrats I'm assuming. Personally I voted for a republican for congressman, a democrat for a senator, and an independent for president. But I suppose that kind of independent thought would be beyond someone who obviously buys into party mantras hook line and sinker.
            If you actually read my posts, you will see that I have not said I would like a full ban of firearms. I wish to see weapons with no purpose but mass murder to be banned. I don't have a problem with "law abiding citizens" possessing firearms. You may want to ask yourself though, who are the main people that would want to possess a assault weapon? Is it a law abiding citizen who happens to be a gun collector? Perhaps. It could also be someone who likes them for target practice? perhaps. But it sure is the kind of weapon that would be attractive to a crazy who plans to kill people, or a criminal. I know if I was one I would sure be looking for such a weapon.

            I think the thing I wish most, is that people would actually look where the money comes from for certain lobby groups. Ever look to see who backs the NRA? It is mainly companies that make guns. Do NRA members ever feel used? They are honest hard working people, who just want to protect their rights, who are being manipulated by big companies that just wish to expand their markets and their profit by being able to sell bigger and more powerful (and more expensive) weapons.

            I feel sad in the same way when the Tea Party is used by big business like the Koch Brothers. People are just trying to fight corruption, and for their freedom, and instead they are used as pawns to help secure more profits for the very people causing the corruption.

            I'd like to see a truly free NRA. One that advocates for sensible laws and rules that don't infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens, but also take the safety of others into account.

            I'd like to see the Tea Party as an advocate for fair taxation, not just a group that is manipulated to create even more wealth for the wealthy.

            I'm not a lefty. I believe in sanity. Smaller more efficient government. But a government that does spend whatever it does for the benefit of all citizens. I want an end to stupid gun control laws that don't actually do anything to protect people. But do like laws that make it harder for nutjobs to get their hands on especially dangerous weapons.

            Perhaps if people such as yourself, stopped playing political cheerleader, and worked with others to restore some sanity to the process, we could think of ways that help both sides of the political coin.

            I realize that's too much for ask for, and you would just treat your political ideals as if they are an unmovable religious doctrine.

          • Franko

            The words of a fool are many.

          • Gamma Ray

            The words of the gullible are few.

          • Gamma Ray

            1.) I am not NRA.
            2.) I am not for the uncontrolled sale of firearms, but I believe that the average gun owner should not be hassled by the government. And If a citizen does commit a violent gun crime, lock him up for a long time, if not for good.
            3. I am a Libertarian, who was once a Repub. When I was in college and for a few years after I was a Dem, although what is now called a Blue Dog Dem, who have all but disappeared.
            4.) Being that the founding fathers had experienced low order tyranny at the hands of the English, 2A was precisely meant to counter government getting too much power. As I said earlier, people should respect the government, but not fear it. On the other hand, the government should both respect AND fear the people. History has hundreds of examples of government that acquired too much power, and not one of them has a happy ending.
            5.) I don't hunt, as I don't enjoy it. I don't have a problem with those who do, though. I merely punch holes in paper target mounted on haybales.
            The left is not interested in compromise, although some liars say they don't want to ban all firearms. They do. End of story. Anyone lefty who says otherwise is living in a parallel universe, or is an out and out liar.
            6.) In the end, if the government loses its last vestiges of sanity and goes after legal law abiding gun owners, I will stand with the gun owners – and there are millions of them. Too bad the government is too stupid to realize what they are unleashing.

          • Gamma Ray

            And one other thing – I am not a corporatist. I believe in free enterprise, and the ability of both large and small businesses to compete and thrive. Big Business can largely make it through the bad times and can work through and around government regulations, restrictions, taxes, etc. imposed upon them by fat assed, useless eater bureaucrats in do-nothing bureaucracies; small business is mostly being crushed by the same.

          • Sean

            I agree with your views regarding big businesses ability to take advantage of rules and get around them. The problem is that whether there is an abundance of regulations, or none, large business will always find ways to use their power and influence to screw the little guys.

          • Gamma Ray

            The problem you stated that we have with big business getting around the rules is mostly false. They work within the framework of their corporate charters and answer to many regulatory agencies, most especially the IRS. The IRS ALLOWS them to take advantage of lawful tax loopholes that they themselves created. So who is really at fault.

            If the government closed all tax loopholes for business, in order to remain profitable, companies would have to raise their prices in order to stay in the black and continue with operations. That's why I don't understand idiots who want to tax the oil industry more. They are too stupid to realize that the oil companies will merely pass the cost on to the consumer.

            Here in CA, when gas was at $4.00/gallon, the local, state and federal government was making an average of .64 cents/gallon on gasoline. Those same greedy oil companies made about .12 cents on a gallon of gas.

            From 1999 to 2011 Exxon paid over one trillion in income taxes, property taxes, royalties, fees and other taxes to the government. Their profit during that same period of time was $352.5 billion.

            So tell me – who is really greedy?

          • Sean

            Well, I can't speak for the "lefties" since as I said, I refuse to buy into the dogma of any particular party. On some fronts I'll agree with one party. On other issues, I'll agree with others. I believe in a great deal of Libertarian views. Unfortunately I think that the belief that markets can operate with absolutely no oversight, or that people will magically take care of each other in some magical way without some form of government, I think is utopianistic insanity. It used to be sold under a different brand. That was called anarchy.

            As for "taking on the government" I think you are overestimating the ability of gun owners, and underestimating the strength of the military. The military has more than enough weaponry to sweep aside gun owners quite quickly. The other problem is that not everyone who owns guns is going to be in agreement as to what is going to be done. Different factions would break out fighting against each other, as much as they would the military.

            One more time, I am not for an outright ban on firearms. If it ever happened, I'd really have to brush up on my bow and arrow skills for hunting.

            There are always crazy extremists on both sides of a debate. What I hear resoundingly is that assault weapons should be banned. And that's what I agree with. I have always disagreed with using the 2nd as an absolute right for gun ownership. I believe in gun ownership. But it is a large responsibility. There should be no restrictions to firearms by law abiding citizens when the weapon has a reasonable use in society. Any firearm that has no reasonable use, has no place outside the military.

          • Gamma Ray

            Most people in the military do not support Obama or his policies. And he knows it. 'Nuff said.

    • RedWhiteAndJew
    • tagalog

      I think the U.S. Supreme Court holding in District of Columbia v. Heller would tell you're incorrect on the militia argument.

  • UCSPanther

    I wager you hoplophobes would all wail in despair if you saw MY gun cabinet. And I am not into AR 15s…

    • Robert

      @ I think Sean is a Foreign insurgent and must be repelled due to invasion. You are a complete Moron. A free People ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status from any who might attempt to abuse them including their own Government" George Washington. You seriously lack any knowledge on American History as does much of the World you get your statistics from Idiot. Sincerely an American Patriot that you despise. You know nothing of Militia so go back to the SPLC for some more Propaganda.

      • Sean

        I’m trying to figure out if you are a foreigner Robert since it sounds like english is your second language. I’m trying to make sense of parts of your argument. You mention a quote from George Washington which is an interesting quote, and definitely gives an idea of what our first president thought was appropriate for the time. Of course that isn’t what’s written in the constitution. To maintain the kind of army and ammunition that would be needed for people to stand up to the government, you will need to work on your ability to purchase tanks and missiles.

        As for the statistics I’ve gotten “from Idiot”, please tell me which statistics you speak of. As for what I know of militia, try looking at a definition of the word. It’s where I get it from. Not from what you wish the word to mean.

        As for the SPLC, I actually didn’t really know anything about them. So I guess my history was lacking in that regard. Now having looked them up, I find it disturbing to think that you see them in a derogatory light. But I suppose I appreciate you bringing them up. It is a good thing. It tells me what I am dealing with. Someone who has a major problem with a group that fights against the KKK and other white supremacy groups, should have to wear a rattle like a snake. Something that says “do not touch….stay far far away”.

        I suppose that’s one reason I don’t have a problem with people owning hand guns. But I do have a problem with being able to carry them concealed. I like to know what I am dealing with when I meet a person.

    • Gamma Ray

      Given that lefties have the emotional make up and limited intellect, and react like spoiled 3 year olds, I would rather like to see their reaction to your gun cabinet, or any one else's for that matter.

    • John

      sounds sexy…do you get a little bullet I’m your pants when you look at all your guns?

      • Gamma Ray

        No, I get the same reaction that I do when I go kayaking, trout fishing, mountain biking, ATV riding or any other outdoor activity I normally engage in – "it's time for FUN!!" And I manage to fit all of that and more into a few days in the Sierras.

  • Russell

    Automatic weapons are already banned in this country John, so you won in 1986…you call for bans and dont even know what laws are already on the books.

    • UCSPanther

      It's a safe bet that idiot probably doesn't know an M1917 Enfield from an M16A2.

      • Gamma Ray

        It's a safe bet that they can't tell their own d!ck from their boyfriends, either.

    • John

      Yeah that too! How’s the 6th grade?

      • Gamma Ray

        You should know better than anyone after spending 25 years there. Plan on moving to the 7th grade in the next decade?

    • John

      I won? If I “won” no one would have heard about Newtown, CT. No one wins when so many lose.

  • Roderick

    MOLON LABE.

  • Gamma Ray

    Sounds like another Nigerian scam website. Thanks for the tip – we are all so very grateful.

  • Gordon

    The type of weapon most people think of when they hear "Assault Weapon." That is any weapon capable of being fired in the automatic mode (more than one round with only one trigger pull.) Has been banned for private ownership since the National Firearms Act of 1934, amended in 1938 and again in 1968. Therefore any "New Assault Weapon Ban" would be redundant. The Government shills who are demanding a NEW Assault Weapons Ban are either ignorant or grandstanding.

  • IndyDave

    45 killed in England last year by guns. 10-12,000 DIE each year in the US by guns. What a "right" we have. How wonderful it is. I have a gun…I am a supporter of my right. But COME ON all you goofies!!!
    Hasn't this all gone WAY too far?

    • gray man

      are you a moron?

  • carrie

    Illinois is the only state that does not allow concealed carry in some form.

    llinois does not recognize licenses issued by other states.
    Open carry is also prohibited.
    When a firearm is being transported, it must be unloaded and enclosed in a case.
    To legally possess firearms or ammunition, Illinois residents must have a Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card, issued by the state police.

    Non-residents who may legally possess firearms in their home state are exempt from this requirement.

    There is a waiting period to take possession after purchasing a firearm — 72 hours for a handgun, or 24 hours for a rifle or shotgun.
    Private sales are allowed, and are subject to these same requirements.

    Possession of automatic firearms, short-barreled shotguns, or short-barreled rifles is prohibited.

    Illinois does not have state preemption for gun laws, and some local governments have enacted ordinances that are more restrictive than those of the state.

    Possession of automatic firearms, short-barreled shotguns, or short-barreled rifles is prohibited.

    Illinois does not have state preemption for gun laws, and some local governments have enacted ordinances that are more restrictive than those of the state.

    By 1980, several Illinois municipalities had banned the possession of handguns. Chicago required the registration of all firearms but did not allow handguns to be registered, which had the effect of outlawing their possession, unless they were grandfathered in by being registered before April 16, 1982.Additionally, several Chicago suburbs had enacted outright prohibitions on handgun possession.

    • carrie

      In Chicago gun owners are required to have a Chicago Firearm Permit, which costs $100 and must be renewed every three years.
      Before getting the permit, the resident must complete a training course that includes at least four hours of classroom training and one hour of range time.
      Each gun must be registered with the Chicago Police Department at a one-time cost of $15 per gun, and an annual registration report must be filed every year.
      Gun possession is permitted only inside a dwelling, not in a garage or on the outside grounds of the property. Only one gun at a time may be kept in a usable state.

      Chicago's ordinances are being challenged in court, with plaintiffs alleging that they are so restrictive and burdensome as to interfere with citizens' Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

      On December 11, 2012, these blanket restrictions were struck down as unconstitutional by a federal appeals court, which gave the state 180 days to change its laws or appeal the decision.

      Now go look at the crime rates in Chicago & IL

  • David H

    Actually, for the "2nd amandment" worshipping fellows, what part of the text "well regulated militia" means that anyone should be able to have guns, (without almost no regulation or control (especially by the elected goverment) whatsoever), and even given to the types who NEVER would cooperate if the goverment actually needed them to do something (say, getting vasal kingdoms governed by their fellow "survivalist" after a catastrophe under the nations goverments controll again) actually, i think most of them would make wars over their own "kingdoms" for resources and plundering long after the rest of the civilized world rebuilt itself, just listen to how they usualy react if the word "regulated" is mentioned. (in spite of them almost(?) thinking that the 2nd A. is written by Jesus himself!)

  • David H

    Actually, for the "2nd amandment" worshipping fellows, what part of the text "well regulated militia" means that anyone should be able to have guns, (without almost no regulation or control (especially by the elected goverment) whatsoever), and even given to the types who NEVER would cooperate if the goverment actually needed them to do something (say, getting vasal kingdoms governed by their fellow "survivalist" after a catastrophe under the nations goverments controll again) actually, i think most of them would make wars over their own "kingdoms" for resources and plundering long after the rest of the civilized world rebuilt itself, just listen to how they usualy react if the word "regulated" is mentioned. (in spite of them almost(?) thinking that the 2nd A. is written by Jesus himself!)

    • Gamma Ray

      What website did you copy and paste that rant from? Do you libs ever have an original thought of your own?

      Furthermore, you are using the same projections and false stereotypes that every other liberal does.

  • David H

    So, discussing what the 2nd A actually sais about "well regulated militia" forbidden?

  • msbetz
  • guest-1-1-

    One side says "Gun Control" and the other side hear "take away all of your guns". It's about regulation not removal of guns.

    • tagalog

      No, it's about first regulating, then banning, guns. First they get regulated then they get taken away, except for the criminals and the government.

  • mememe

    Please stop comparing cars/airplanes/etc to guns because someone car killed someone once with a car. A car was invented for transportation and it's still it's main purpose. Guns were invented to kill people. It uses now include killing animal, killing people and sport shooting (pretending to kill people/animals). They are NOT similar to cars in anyway and making that comparison shows your lack of thought on the issue.

    • Gamma Ray

      At least you are honest. I suggest you go back and read the entire comments section if you think there is a lack of thought.

    • RedWhiteAndJew

      Are guard dogs trained for the purpose of ripping peoples' legs off, or for the purpose of protecting people and property?

      Guns are like any tool. Their purpose is dictated by the user who controls them. My guns are recreational. My guns are for admiration of mechanical and engineering ingenuity.

      My guns are a deterrent.

  • john

    hitler took guns you have a hard time telling those people it worked o wait you can not most of them were killed