You do have the right to bear arms, by Supreme Court rulings as far back as the 1800's show that the Federal Government has the right to determine what guns you are allowed to own.

YOU MEAN THE LITTLE CHILDREN AND THE TEACHERS AT SANDY HOOK........that's what this disgusting GUN APP. DAY IS IN RESPONSE TO....sick people.

Mr. Matthews,
So it is wrong to infringe on one right, but ok to infringe on another. The Right to Bear arms we must protect, but the right to Free of Speech is not worth protecting. Sorry, bad agrument. Don't claim to be protecting law abiding citizens, when you want to infringe your ideals on another group of law abiding citizens.

Michael D: So, you support violently mentally ill people not being registered, but guns should be?

Roy,
How is the right to free speech about the registation of anyone Roy? I believe an exact quote of what I said was:
"The Right to Bear arms we must protect, but the right to Free of Speech is not worth protecting. Sorry, bad agrument. Don't claim to be protecting law abiding citizens, when you want to infringe your ideals on another group of law abiding citizens."

In what context am I referring to registering anyone. Please let me know, because I'm not.

Kim,
Though the wording sounds like it is only for the Militia the right to bear arms for home protection and hunting has been defended since the 1800's though the U.S. Supreme Court. It does state the Federal/State Governments do have the rights to limit the guns that are available to the law abiding citizens.

The second amendment is to protect the citizens from the tyranny of an oppressive government.....our government is becoming more oppressive every day

Particularly an oppressive foreign government. But every government can be considered oppressive.

Back then we didn't have tv,internet,or facebook so I guess the first amendment doesn't apply to these, by the way the 2nd is for tyrannical governments as well.

Creating laws that are in the contect of today's society is an important role for government. I support the right of gun ownership for hunting, protection and responsible sports - although, rather than owning a gun, I have made the choice of protecting myself in other ways. I support gun control laws that outlaw purchase of semi-automatic or assault weapons and a stricter screening for ownership of any gun. Unfortunately, supporting or objecting to Gun Appreciation Day is likely to just get simplified into a quick soundbite of XX% of Americans object to President Obama's actions.

Dear Sir,
Concerning the issue of assault weapons and high capacity magazines and curtailing their use, I would like to remind you of their purpose.
The purpose of having citizens armed with paramilitary weapons is to allow them to engage in paramilitary actions, for you see, there is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment for military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees in opposing enemies foreign and domestic and against disorder and tyranny within our country. (Your not going to do that with a six shooter!)

Secondly, limiting the capacity of how many rounds a magazine will hold, is a frugal gesture that solves nothing. I ask you Sir, do you really think that reducing a magazines capacity to ten rounds will cause criminals, or mentally-unstable people, to stop their courses of action?

I would also like to remind you that the deadliest mass school murder in United States history, was not cause by a gun, but a bomb! May 18, 1927 Andrew Kehoe set off three bombs in Bath Township, Michigan killing 45 people and wounding 58.

Van Hahner

On September 11, 2001, the passengers on on Flight 93 learned their airplane had been taken over by the same group that flew into the WTC towers and Pentagon. Their plane had turned and was heading for Washington, DC., which was just 20 minutes away.

Brave men stood up that day and defended their country with their lives. It was not the military with their massive weapons, or a police SWAT team that stopped the terrorists sitting in the cabin of Flight 93. It was unarmed citizens.

THAT is our "militia". Every able bodied citizen is a member of the citizen militia.

We never know when we may be called upon to defend ourselves, our community, or our country. When pointing out the abuses of Mao, Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot, we are told, "Oh, that will NEVER happen here!" Before 9/11 who would have thought terrorists would take over jets and kill thousands? "It" doesn't happen here BECAUSE, as one wise Japanese Admiral proclaimed, "There's a gun behind every blade of grass."

We, the People, are the defenders of our country. We are not slaves to our government. We are its masters and its defenders.

Didn't know the NRA was at the school at the time of the shooting. How would they have prevented it?

Is it suddenly the NRA's job to serve police functions now? This aside from the fact that they are, by far, the largest provider of firearms safety training in the United States.

Democide. Learn the word. It means "death by government." Leaving aside combatants, the 20th Century had 290 million victims of democide. That's 264 Sandy hook shootings a day. Armed citizenry does not put up with democide. That's why governments are so desperate to disarm citizens. So-called assault weapons are far more effective weapons in opposing tyranny than handguns. That would explain why government is so desperate to get rid of the weapons that might kill them than the handguns that the proles only use to kill each other--despite the fact that the latter cause more deaths by many orders of magnitude. Unless people wake up to the government's agenda (government which long ago ceased to be of, for and by the people) they will be fully and irrevocably enslaved.

Mine eyes have seen the horror of the coming of the Reds,

They are standing in our closets, they are hiding 'neath our beds....

David,
I agree, there should be a test for all gun owners. Most people do not know how to properly use the firearm in their possession.

"never gets checked out first"

Did you forget about the background checks purchasers undergo? Something as small as being behind on child support payments causes one to fail such a background check.

Owning a gun is a Right under the Constitution. A drivers license is a Privilege that one must earn not a Right.

Let me see 2nd Amendment is the right to Bear Arms. Not the Right to Bear Guns. Arms as per definition is:
"(noun) Weapons and ammunition; armaments: "they were subjugated by force of arms".
So owning a gun is by Court decision is a priviledge which is set forth by the fact that not all citizens have the right to own a gun. Including those who have criminal history. Once we start putting restrictions on who can own a gun, it moved from a Right to a priviledge.

Amen! The 2nd Amendment is not sacrosanct, none of them are. We have amended the BofR before. It needs to be done again. I agree with the General.

You do realizes that ballisticly the 223 is far from a devastating round right? Common hunting cartridges are much more powerful....

Kim,
The Bill of Rights have never been ammended. The Constitution beyond the Bill or Rights has been, but the first 10 Ammendments have not been.

You do realizes that ballisticly the 223 is far from a devastating round right?
W.A.D.A

Ok. We have amended the Constitution. Maybe not the BofR, but the Constitution has been amended. They are still not sacrosanct. There is no reason why the 2nd Amendment cannot be revised to deal with the times and types of weapons that there are.

Kim,
The Ammendments are general guidlelines, the courts determine the restrictions on those general guidelines.

.223 is a poodle-shooter cartridge. Don't pretend it's identical to NATO 5.56x45mm, which is hardly "devastating" itself, by the way. If you're going to start claiming stuff in the 22-caliber range is too powerful, then you've effectively disarmed the whole nation. That a military man would say such a thing is truly disappointing; he must be more politician under the skin.

Furthermore, I reject the entire concept that self-defense weapons should not be as powerful and effective as possible; to say otherwise is to claim soldiers have a greater right to life and safety against attackers than civilians.

McChrystal is why duct tape was invented.

Don,
Though I understand your agrument. It is the basic flawed agrument from the NRA. It is based on Fearmonigering, instead of rational discussion. By your agrument, if we prosecuted criminals there would be no crime. What is a criminal before his first offense? A law abiding citizen. A car can kill people two will be the next agrument. Yes, and their are certain cars banned from general use. Instead of the fearmonigering agrument, lets have a rational conversation about it.
I believe we have the right to bear arms, but the conversation could be made on the restrictions on the type of arms/attachments that are available to the public. Less weapons that are available to the public, less that are available to criminals. Before you go with if we don't have that type of gun, criminals will. In less than 2% of US crimes does a criminal have an outlawed type of weapontry and usually doesn't know how to use it.

kim you commented that "We have amended the BofR before. It needs to be done again"
The Bill of Rights are the first ten ammendments of the US Constitution, NONE of them have ever been "amended" and they are exactly that a BILL OF RIGHTS!. When we give up of fail to fight for one, they are all at risk.

However, amendments to the constitution have themselves been altered by subsequent amendments.

Frankly, I don't see the need as it is SCOTUS rulings which have distorted the 2nd Amendment, but I am willing to see a clarifying Amendment making it clear that certain weapons (e.g., howitzers, machine guns, and others TBD) are prohibited, while certain weapons (like hunting rifles, full-size shotguns, self defense pistols with "x" rounds) are allowed and protected.

That would solve this current dilemma.

Don,
As part of your statement you make it sound like your average criminal is going to be able to gain access to things that your average criminal will not have access to. I work for a military weapons manufacturer, so I am very intune with this particular agrument. It extremely rare that your average criminal is going to have access to something the public as a whole is going to have access to. The other avenues for weapon procurement outside of movies are usually regular publicly help weapons. And yes, some police districts are outgunned and that is more to do with poor equipment on average officer side. An average citizen right now can procure better equipment than your average beat cop. Where the police force has the advantage is when you get to your specialized groups. Also you mention one shot-gun per home, I feel that is an extreme example. Personally I love going to the range and using multiple types of weapons. It is a fear based agrument to believe the average criminal will gain weapons that are so far beyond what is publicly available and factually inaccurate. Only 8% of crimes involving guns in the past 20 years where by assualt or higer grade of weapon in the U.S.. I would also say, that I believe a person with a CW permit with propler training is more deadly than any average criminal with an assualt rifle.

"Assault weapon" is a term made up by anti-gun politicians with no fixed definition. I reject any arguments based upon it as both technically uninformed and biased before the fact.

Your claim that no one uses any weapon ever defined as such for self-defense is flatly false; in fact, these are by many metrics the most popular weapons for self-defense in America.

Finally, your comparison to nuclear weapons is silly; these are not defensive in nature, except on a strategic scale, and nuclear material is an environmental hazard and thus separately regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. But why do I care if my neighbor has a tank? How does that infringe upon my freedoms—unless he commits a crime with them, which is already on the books? Do you think the Second Amendment wasn't meant to let people have cannons? Because I have news for you: it was militia-held cannons and gunpowder, kept in private barns and a firehouse, that the British tried to confiscate—and that touched off the American revolution. The Founding Fathers experienced, and were referring to, exactly this.

Manus O'Donnell has produced a very rational and helpful analysis.

Only a fool would disagree with his recommendation.

So you are saying the man in China who stabbed 22 school kids with a knife is not a coward?

No one who takes responsibility for defense of himself and his family within the law can be fairly called a coward, regardless of his tools. No one's stopping you from sharpening your knives against criminals, but don't try and regulate anyone else's freedoms based on your own irrational biases against tools of self-defense.

nonya,
Questioning the status quo is what this country was founded on, so what you are suggesting. Is that the questions shouldn't be asked. That we should just follow what an organization or group of people are telling us is the way to go. Then you are no better than those who say that guns should be completely banned without reason. Maybe you need a refresher course on this liberty you are referring to. If we do not question the status quo every once in a while and have meaningful conversation, then we are no better than a truly oppressive state. But that oppressive state is fine with you, because you feel you are in the ruling class. It's your ideal of America or no way. Seems that is what our Forefathers were fighting against with the Government of England.

Michael D.: exercising Constitutional rights does not mean those doing so are proclaiming themselves "the ruling class." "nonya" isn't the one looking to take away rights from anyone.

I also don't understand how his free expression of his opinion is painted by your comment as "oppressive" while yours is perfectly okay.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/us/boy-12-found-guilty-in-killing-of-neo-nazi-father.html Just another cook.......like ADAM LANZA'S mother. Refresh your tree w/blood......yeah, we know the BS you haters are pushing. GOODNESS AND MERCY SHALL PREVAIL........you w/the hearts of darkness expose the HATE that is your God, and so we shun you. Keep you violence in your own homes.....true HUMANTARIANS know ye by your deeds, and LEAVE YOU TO YOUR OWN karma.

J.N.,
Really, you read that as excercising the constitutional rights which is the bear arms, not bear guns. Second telling people to leave for Englad if you do not agree with said Amendment instead of question is not being "opressive". I'm glad our Forefathers didn't question the Rights given to them by the English Government. Actually, you are reading comments in the fear of loosing your guns obviously. Because you are saying it's not ok to have a conversation over what we deem as what should be legal and what not. Also a ruling class doesn't need to be taking something away, usually they just don't give you the option to talk about it. Which is what you are suggesting is perfectly fine.

here's more. The 2nd Amendment is non=negotiable.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

Yes, the guv'mint is evil and filled with Blue Helmeted fascist troops who are going to descend on your houses from Black Helicopters, and only the well-armed civilians are going to be able to shoot down those helicopters with Stinger Missiles, and destroy the armored cars of the Blue Helmeted forces with their Anti-Tank Weapons.

nonya, Why is the second amendment non negotiable? It is not the bible of America written by God through devine inspiration through the pen hand of man. If the Govenment chooses to repeal it ( they won't do that, BUT ) they can. If you don't like it, you can pick up your Gun & give the Govenment the motivation & excuse to pry it out of your cold dead hand. Good luck taking on light atomic artillary fired at you from jet aircraft straffing your house. An athrax canister, or two will end your revolutionary pipe dream real fast. How about armored personel carriers at your front door?
Do you have a way to escape the light atomic Tomakawk smart missel that will get you? In Tom Jefferson's day, rebellion was an option. Today, napalm & agent orange would be the least of your problems.

Michael Mirra, napalm and agent orange didn't obtain victory. Light atomic weapons of any kind would bring on the fury of the world if we used them, especially in our own country, and the last I checked, armored personel carriers are still having a problem with stuff as simple as a" Molotov cocktail" let alone IED's. Superior firepower still has a problem with a determined enemy. Don't ever kid yourself, politicians work for us, never the other way around.

Roy McGinnis dreams that our governemt would worry about the scorn of the world if they used light atomic weapons. I said the Govenment COULD use them . They could use them & give the finger to the rest of the world. Napalm & Agent Orange didn't bring victory in nam, but it sure would have been effective at Ruby Ridge or Waco. We aren't talking about fighting the skilled Viet Cong or the Iraqi FreedomFfighters. Molitov Cocktails can do damage, but I'd put my money on the flame thrower getting 8 ot 10 bomb throwers. If you think politicians work for us, dream on. The Governmet gives the illusion of freedom to keep the lid on the preasure cooker. Try armed insurrection & see how far you get. Be careful what you ask for. Some day, if you keep on with this defiant attitued, the Government might find their excuse to bring it on. Then your theory of how you can stand up to them will be put to the test. Are you ready to face the concentrated force of the armed forces of the United States of America? Public backing would be on the side of the Govenment defending the Fatherland against inernal terrorist enemys. They can also use anthrax & deny that they did. Any insurrection would be toast.

nonya,
I'm well verseed in Thomas Jefferson. I guess you also were up in arms about the Patriot Act as well. If you are about injustice. If you believe that the only foundations of the nation were guns and whisky, I would say you are not well versed in Mr. Jefferson at all. I know what the 2nd Amendment is created for, and like most people you have taken it out of context. The right to Bear Arms was intentionally written fague, doesn't mean "guns". To be formed over the creation and life of the nation. To allow the courts to shape the limits of the citizens. That is why the Constitution is considered a living document of law.

These replies are so many examples of agrueing in the extreme so as to make the conversation useless. Poor use of a comment box & a big waste of time. Unfortunately, this is what many people pass as discussion of an issue.

and God-awful paranoid hillbillies.

John Boy

6:37 pm on Monday, January 14, 2013

God, Guts, Guns!
This makes me remember the Beatels line about the ALL AMERICAN BULLET HEADED SAXON MOTHER'S SON

The only problem with calling a paranoid a "kook" because they believe "someone is out to get them" is, sometimes they are right!

Sure makes one wonder about the mental health of these freakish individuals that could so easily kill many others with their large capacity ammo clips and military style assault weapons. What about the rights of those who wish to pursue their happiness in a peacefull non-violent way? Are these people a well regulated Militia? Not unless they belong to their state's Reserve or Guard. Then why do they need military designed weapons? You tell me.

Because he is a Godless communist that intentionally trying to bring this once great country down. And if I may add he is doing a good job.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…” - U.S. Declaration of Independence

I WILL NOT COMPLY!!!!!!!

nonya doesn't know what communism is. Under communism, the government would take your house & move five more families in with you. All vehicles would be taken by the government & you would have to use only public transportation. No one would get any money & each person would have a function & your job would be to preform your function for anyone free & anyone would preform their function free for you.
If the government didn't like you, someone would come to your house & shoot you in the head as an enemy of the people.
Obama is far from a communist. Obama is a middle of the road, leaning to the right politician. No democrats are communists. Democrats support the left, but they lean to the right.

nonya wouldn't know a communist if one bit him/her in the butt. You sit there and say that Obama is destroying the country when W did a heck of a good job before he flew off laughing into the sunset on O's inauguration day. And left him to fix up the mess. If Obama was a communist, then Fox News would be off the air, Limbaugh, Beck, Coulton, Sarah Palin and quite a few other wackos would all be in jail. Churches would be abolished, and if you said anything against the government you'd get a free trip to the Gulag (Gitmo or some prison). So you really need to actually look up what communism is before you show your lack of intelligence. Good heavens I remember when they used to say "Better dead than red," and the McCarthy days. You are definitely clueless.....Funny that I haven't seen anything communistic being done by Obama, he so far has seemed to be moving a bit to the right rather than to the left.

You can continue to snuff out the lives of those paraie dogs as they struggle, as God's creatures, to survive. If they make your killing toys illegal, & you get cought, you can hold your head up proudly as they march you off to prison.

If you think the gun laws work. Then they don't work well enough. If it was against the law for the CT killer's mother to buy the guns, then he couldn't have stollen the guns from his mother. No gun ever jumped off the shelf to kill people. Perple take them off the shelf to kill people. If we stop people from taking them off the shelf to kill people, they couldn't kill people as efficiently. We are not blaming the tool. We are blaming the accesability of the tool. Cars & hanmmers kill numberous people, but cars & hammers are not manufactured to snuff out life. That is the only function of guns. If the laws work, then imagine the carnage if they didn't work.

David and others. David what you said has made the most sense. Obama will most likely sign an executive order rather than leave it to the Congress. None of them want to touch this issue as it WILL effect their reelection. I heard someone on a talk say that is why they let the previous controls expire and did not impose others. Those that voted for the previous controls were not reelected. Obama has nothing to loose now. What ever measures are put into place, true hardened criminals will find a way around them. I have heard concerns about people who are "future" mentally ill. No one knows when some one will "snap". I do not like to read about someone going to a school, McDonalds, or a business and killing innocent babies and their families, but, as someone on here compared it to DUI laws, how many people get behind the wheel each evening drunk. Just go to ANY practically alcohol is being served and watch who gets in their cars to drive home. It is scarry. How long have those laws been in place and actively enforced!? I support the 2ND Amendment, whatever changes are put into place, we will continue to have Columbines because there is someone looking for their 15 minutes of fame.

We might not be in the wild west, but as long as there is bad guys with guns, I keeping mine to defend my family, because the cops are only minutes away when seconds count.

Dave,
I agree, the Legal Right to own a Firearm is not the question to me. That priviledge should still be fully within the bounds of the citizenship of this nation. We just need to have a rational and intelligent conversation over what are the limits to what the citizenship has access to.

The second amendment is antiquated. The clinical deffinition of intellegence is ability to adapt to change. Some individuals of humanity can adapt to change & the lesser intellegent never see the need. It's sort of evolution. Oh, there I go again using concepts the gun nuts haven't the ability to comprehend.

You mean you can get an automatic weapon, they were banned from general public in 1934.

Victor,
yes guns have been around the world history for centuries, so yes that includes this nation. So how would that change again? Second mass violence to schools and other public entities, has been around more than just recently. Like the Michigan school bombing in 1927, was that due to the violence on screens from tv, movies, and video games. The toll was 38 students, 2 teachers, and 4 other adults. 1966, 13 people at the University of Texas. 1976, Liberian Custodian California State University 8 dead and 2 injured. 1984, 21 killed at a McDonald's in California. 1986, Postal Worker Oklahoma 14 dead in a post office. 1990, Jacksonville, FL GM Corp, 10 dead and 4 injured.
But it is the Media of today's fault right. I mean it's ok, to infringe against the 1st Amendment, but not the 2nd Amendment. That is the basis of your agrument. The agrument is well guns aren't to blame, but the media is. Lets defend the right to Bear Arms, but not the Freedom of Speech. Next you will say we need those arms to protect against an opressive government that won't allow Free Speech.

just remember guns without bullets are only clubs. How many people do you think empty guns can kill now? restrict ammunition and let them have all the empty guns they want!

Michael D.,
You mentioned Michigan school BOMBING(!) in 1927 and that is another option that lunatics taught from the movies or games will be doing when access to firearms will be limited or banned. You can also add 1995 Subway Sarin Incident in Japan. And what about 9/11? What about those killed with knives, axes, chainsaws, etc?
No, I'm not against the 1st Amendment. I pretty sure that you're also aware that there is NO unlimited implementation of Free Speech. Just try to publish children pornography, or make an anti-black or anti-islam movie. (Though you're OK to make an anti-Christian or anti-white movies).
Freedom is not all allowed permission. It's responsibility first.
P.S. Watch how gun ban works in Australia:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fGaDAThOHhA

Victor,
Yes there are examples where gun bans work (Japan) and where they don't work (Australia). But people who are against banning always use the Australia example and ones that want the bann go to Japan. Bans only work based on society, and so far I'm not saying their needs to be a ban. I like how you believe only anti-Christian and Anti-White movies can be made. Their is anti-anything you are looking for out there, just depending on what will get funding. It's not a legal issue, but a what the consumer is buying issue. But you claim that these actions are a result of the current state of our media, which is the easy way out. People have done horrible things to each other through out history, it didn't take media to make them to do it. But you didn't address that fact in your reply that all those indecents happened before our current media culture.
As for Free Speech it has been framed just like the conversation we are having about guns. The Amendments are frameworks that are shaped through our legal system. Their is Free Speech, just as their is a Right to Bear Arms. The framework of that Speech and those Arms were set up to be determined by our government and legal system. That is how the Framework of the Bill of Rights was set up. I'm not avocating banning all firearms as you seem to believe, but I am willing to have a ration intelligent conversation on what weapons shouldn't be open to the average citizen.

Who gives a crap about the 1927 School Massacre? That was 1927. This is 2013. It just shows there are always crazys & that they will always find ways to do crazy things. That doesn't mean we need to aid & abet them in their insanity by fighting to make sure that they continue to have access to better tools to kill with mass efficiency.
Thank God it looks like Obama is about to add his executive actions for Mass Killing Appreciation Day. I hope he doesn't wimp out, like politicians do, & really brings the hammer down on assault weapons one & for all.

until the people who use guns to kill people are no longer doing this then the guns are an issue like it or not. i love that people fight to own a gun but not fight to keep children safe from them. interesting ...

Michael and Dharma,
There will always be weapons in our society. Just as I would defend the Right to Free Speech, I would defend my Right to Bear Arms. In a Utopia their would be no need for either, but this isn't an Utopia. This is the real world, with real evil. At times that evil has to be stopped by a weapon. To say that doesn't happen is just naive. To say that the police force is adequate to protect all from any harm is equally as naive. To believe we live in a world, where home protection is not needed is naive. There will always be conflict and always be evil. There for I understand the need for a weapon. If the government truly become opressive, then we as a citizenship will need to protect our lives. In this world words alone doesn't accomplish that.
As far as the Bath School Reference in 1927, it is quite important to the discussion. It is in retort to the conversation of it's the media's fault for corupting our society. Also that this isn't a new issue.

Dee,
To have a realist conversation conversation about this subject, we need to stay away from the fear based agrument like you present. This agrument is as jaded as the NRA all criminals have assault rifles so we need assualt rifles. The school shootings, movie theatre shootings were isolated cases. The number of high profile/mass shootings hasn't statistically gone up in the last 30 years. The news coverage of it has, but not the actual statistical numbers. In order to have a rational conversation over a very real issue we need to keep it fact based. And no mother should have to bury their child over this kind of tragedy, just like she shouldn't have to have they died over a curable disease.

You're right, the weapons changed. Maybe the 2nd Amendment needs to be amended to read: "In order for Americans to remain free, the right to keep and bear firearms and ammunition, openly or concealed, of whatever caliber, in whatever quantity, and of whatever type, configuration and capacity shall not be infringed with respect to any individual of sound mind and not under conviction for any felony." That ought to clear up any confusion.

The problem is that God is not allowed at schools anymore where children receive their lessons. Neither God is welcome in mass media or movies. Now you ask God to determine our lifeline?
The world doesn't change by itself, we the people change it. We allow mass media to shape this world.
Constitution like the Bible presents core values and rules that practically timeless.
But what has to be changed is what our kids are taught and watch and play.

Orloff, you are absurd and misusing Dee's reference to God. She spoke of determination of an individual's lifespan, but you misused it for political purposes.

As a committed and practicing Christian I affirm that there should be no religion - not mine, and not yours, and not anyone else's - in our schools.

But the topic is not God in our schools, nor in our houses of worship, nor in our inmost thoughts and prayers, nor anywhere else, but how to better protect children and adults from mass murder by convenient rapid-fire large magazine weaponry.

Last I looked most murderers were not registered gun owners.

Larry,
81% of murders by firearm in the last 20 years have been by by a person who legally obtained that firearm.

Dee,
They are real, but we also must be real in this conversation. Instead of going data and statistics you are basing your agrument on emotion. Yes, 80.33% of mass shootings in the U.S. over the last 30 years have obtained their gun legally. That is a fact. But to base your agrument over the 61 Mass Shootings in the U.S. over the last 30 years, is short sighted. And as far as shootings going up, actually they have been dropping by FBI statistics. Droping by 1,500 deaths by firearms in the last 5 years. So the "facts" that you state are inaccurate or based on emotion. Not on actual data/facts of the matter.

And that is why the Bill of Rights is a framework meant to be fleshed out by the court system. As the court system in our country, mostly the US Supreme Court has decided it is the right of all Americans to be entitled to the possibility of owning a Firearm. But it is within the Federal and State Governments right to restrict the types of firearms available to them. So how does the it was written in 1791 change that fact? It was written intentionally vague for the country through it's growth to decided the limitations that it shall be followed. So the fact of the weapons available when it was written doesn't change the core of this agrument. It is still a question of first if legislation will be brought down to limit the types of firearms are available, then if the Supreme Court will find said legislation within the bounds of the Framework of the 2nd Amendment.

Well, I don't believe that was caused by crazy, but by poor construction. With an overheated furnance sparking some dry wood. But crazy is crazy.

How about the 1927 Bath School Massacre????????

Samuel,
That 1927 Massacre has been mentioned twice above.

Lynda,
The type of gun legislation will never happen through the legislative branch because each time it does during the next cycle of election those members are voted out of office. The "problem" you speak of isn't going to be solved with legislation which will grandfather in anyone that currently owned that weapon. It won't cover the gun shows where background checks and documentation are minimum. In the end their will always be guns in our live time, it is polical suicide to try to completely ban guns in this country.

My guns have more than one purpose, the main one is protection from criminals who don't follow laws, so make all you want. The fact is most gun laws on the books now aren't enforced.

Larry, when you say your gun is for self-protection, it means you are willing to kill with your gun anyone who threatens you. Apparently you also feel you have the training and the concentration to kill another human (who you also have the capacity to decide must be a criminal breaking laws). And apparently you always have access to your gun awake or asleep. I assume you have thought through the actions you would take to kill. Where you would aim, where the blood would splatter, what blood pouring from a wound smells like, the sounds a dying person makes. Oh, wait, it is not a person, it is a criminal breaking laws. You can pretend you will use your gun for protection from criminals, but you better have thought through just what that will mean. It means being willing to kill. And lots of innocent people are killed by mistake by people who thought they were only protecting themselves. Sometime it is their own relatives killed by the shooter, sometimes it is innocent bystanders. If you aren't willing and able to kill, then a gun is just another object you can throw.

Michael D. As usual a measured, sensible response. My point is that attitudes about guns are changing. And, some attitudes are changing very quickly. There is a limited time before all of those people who cry "Second Amendment" at any regulation will be surprised by the will of the majority of people. I agree only the people's attitudes will force the lawmakers at every level to take action. And unless the gun lobby starts to agree to sensible action, the actions taken will become more and more restrictive as more and more people refuse to accept gun violence.

Lynda,
I just don't believe that opinion of banning all guns has been shifted that much. According to different polling the shift has only been a few statistical percentage point. According to multiple polling on both sides of the isle show 60% of the population infavor of banning certain weapons and 93% agree that the loopholes in the gun purchasing process to bipass background checks should be closed. Currently only 22% of Americans are for banning all firearms. There have been some tragedies this year, but deaths by firearms have been on the decline for the last 5 years as well.

If a person has no criminal record before they do something, how are you going to say they deserve to be restricted. How do you control a criminal who hasn't committed a crime?

Michael,
And people who don't understand the framework that this creatiably intelligent document has made, makes me sick. Maybe you should do a little historical research to understand and comprehend why it was written the way it was. Maybe you should really take a look at yourself, because by your stance and posture. You are no better than the people who complain about.

I understand why the constitution was written as it is. I also understand that if people started to go into public places with gattling guns & mowing innocents down on a numberous, reoccuring basis, they would limit the accessability of gattling guns. They were only militarily accessable, for the most part, but if they were easily obtained by anyone & used for modern day type slaughters, they would have stipulated what type of arms should be accessible to anybody.

If you understood it, then you would understand the ingnorance of your start to this thread. You are complaining about one thing and agruing and seperate point now. The two points are not equal. You complained that document was written years ago, not complain about a particular type of situation which doesn't fall under the initial agrument. If you are agruing some guns should be not in civilian circulation that is a different agrument then the complaints about the 2nd Amendment. Two seperate agruments.

I repeat, what part of "well regulated" can't you spell? We have a "militia" called the national guard, and you can throw in many others designed to protect you under the constitution. If you want to make your own, I suggest you move to someplace like Afghanistan or Iraq, where that is how they do things.

BTW, why do you quote God while taking the name of a lifelong atheist like Mark Twain?

And unless gun owners and gun lobbyists start cooperating with "common sense" regulations, the majority of Americans will start demanding more restrictive regulations. Guns have only one purpose: killing. No one can deny that fact. Right now none of the proposals do anything but reinforce the Second Amendment; that will change if reality-denying extreme arguments put forth by a gun lobby simply to increase gun manufacturers' profits don't change. Cooperative now or lose tomorrow.

Conspiratorial paranoia can be treated.

there is not reason for any gun in truth. there is no good reason. people use them, have them, kill with them, but they only use them for sport. which in the end of the day kills people. and no one wants to cop to that blame. note i am not putting in question marks because humans have lost their ability to know the difference in what is safe, sane and good.

Dharma mentions how some people use them for SPORT.
Hunters KILL God's beautiful creatures that are only struggling to survive. There is no need to kill for food. In case these people are too stupid to realize, they have these stores called supermarkets now where food can be purchased without killing a poor animal. It's bad enough that these animals killed for supermarket food are also victims, but there is no need to kill even more animals for SPORT. These nuts tell us that all animals kill each other for food.
Read my lips-THESE ANIMALS KILL TO SURVIVE. MANKIND IS THE ONLY ANIMAL THAT SNUFFS OUT INNOCENT LIFE FOR SPORT. That says something about man. I don't fish either. It's the same, but we're about guns here.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.

It was NOT about giving the right to defend from common criminals, but enabling the people to organize a militia system, participate in law enforcement, deter tyrannical government, repel invasion and - yes - ALSO facilitating a natural right of self-defense.

Actually the only things that have been done are:
Executive Order to go into mental health Research
Strengthening pre-existing laws
Promote Research
Trace Gun from Crime Scenes (extending pre-exsisting)
Stricter Prosecution of those who fail the background checks

All the other things including guns only having magazines consisting of 10 bullets is still up for legislative branch approval. So what exactly was won on either side today? The improved background checking for 100% of sales is still up for a vote. So nothing really has changed based on what has been done today.

Baisically that's what I said, nothing was really done, but the right will go off on what they consider Obama'a arrogence in actually doing anything.
People like Rush, Sean, Glenn, etc need material to fill their time slots & that's all they have to stir up the Horray for Guns pep rally that is the current mole hill being presented as a mountain by the Faux Media.

The quicker they take your guns, the quicker less gun nuts will have guns & the safer we all will be,

Ridiculous. First nobody is proposing taking all guns. Second I have to ask, will you make your own decision when to start killing fellow Americans because you are restricted in your lethal hardware (Well regulated says the second), or will you start killing when some nutcase tells you to? If the latter, who?

Don't know if you noticed Jerry, we already live in a huge police state. All the guns in America didn't stop that from happening. Where were you and your guns while this happened to America? Blissfully sleeping with your gun under your pillow, perhaps?

David asks Jerry where he was when America became a police state.
He was probably waving his flag, thinking that we should kill all those godless commies in Nam, spouting my country right, or wrong rethoric, & saying things like Kill them all & let God sort them out. He most likely was voting for Nixon, Reagan, & wanting to kill everyone in Iran because the spy's nest we had in the embasy was taken hostage.

Michael Mirra, I wasn't around when Nixon or Reagan was running.. I'm 25 years old, and no, I don't wish death upon anyone. I believe in Karma and that you'll get back what you give out. The Universe is awesome like that. But just because I don't wish death upon anyone doesn't mean I want our Second Amendment taken away, it's our RIGHT.

Michael, was merely questioning Erik on why he feels the need to use a made up word for government, not putting him down in anyway. I have no need to feel superior over anyone including you as I'm quite capable of defending my intellectual position without putting anyone down. However, I will not hesitate to call a fool to account for their foolishness. Stop trying to project your own feelings of inadequacy onto me, won't work no matter how hard you try.

Don't need a gun Victor, have an ADT alarm system, two vicious dogs and a hickory ax handle to beat you with while my dogs are mauling you and chewing your face off. I do have a sign that warns beware of dogs. Will that work for you gunnie?

David,
Funny that Florida Crime Stoppers said the two things a criminal is most scare of seeing coming up to a house, 1. Beware of Dog sign and 2. sound of a pump shotgun.

Well said!

How utterly ridiculous. Why don't you tell us who's orders you will be taking to start killing fellow American who disagree with you? Glenn Beck, Donald Trump, Some religious fruitcake? Perhaps you will decide to kill all on your own, like the Taliban do?

This is silly. If you want changes you need to be rational and not simply validate what the gun nuts say, that "they" are coming for their guns and there will be a civil war with god fearing terrorists (mostly Christians) ready to kill anyone who disagrees with their right to be as nutty as hell.

Dharma,
Over reaction to a singular issue. becuase less than .01% of our population is killed by guns every year. I guess we should start removing other things as well if that is the basis of what should be completely removed.

Stacy,
I agree if you remove the 2nd Amendment what is next, the 1st Amendment. The Amendments are guidlines and we place the limits of those guidlines through Court decisions as intended by the founders of this nation. But if you allow the removal of one amendment then you have to wonder what other amendments would you like to see removed.

The comments here get more and more ridiculous. There must be a conspiracy or paranoia virus going around in some circles.There is nothing in well regulated that says the 2nd amendment goes away.

No one is infringing on your 2nd amendment rights and no one is coming to get your guns, Stacy. You and your cohorts are living in a delusional fantasy land. Of course, if you are mentally ill or a criminal the government can come and take your gun away. You are neither of those type of individuals, are you?

Hey Stacy, where were you and your gun buddies when the Fouth Amendment was being eroded? Where were you when, under the Patriot Act, the government began collecting data on all of our texts, Facebook type accounts and Google searches? Where were you when the government hampered protesters rights by penning them up in places far from the venues and people they were protesting against? Where were you when American citizens were detained and even tortured illegally? where were you when an American citizen was executed by a drone strike without due process? You all are so focused on the 2nd Amendment that you can't see all the other freedoms that are being infringed upon. Thought your guns were supposed to stop all of that from happening.

Erik,
I actually took the number of murders by firearms in the FBI statistics for 2011 and then divided it by the population of America in 2011. Then doube checked that against the figures housed by the FBI statistics, National Law Enforcment, CDC, and Crime Stoppers. So what you are telling me is that myself and those other organizations who all have the same numbes are lying. Now before you accuse someone of lying you might want to check your stats on that. If there are 4.7 deaths by firearm per 100,000 American Citizens is that below .01%, why yes, it is .000047%. Being that their are 5.3 homcides per 100,000 which is .000053% of the population. A homcide by firearm is 3.6 per 100,000 which is .000036% of the population. The number of deaths by firearms has been dropping over the last 5 years. Having dropped 19% in deaths from 2007-2011. But that doesn't help your agrument does it. Maybe before accusing people of lying you should know the data. Just to make sure you understand , there were 32,163 deaths by firearms in 2011, and an approx population of over 311,800,000 people, tell me is that less than .01%... is 32,163/311,800,000 less than .01? Instead of twice as likely to be killed by guns it's only 2 to 5 times more likely. If you want the most you would get is 70 time more likely in Hondoras.

Apologize, last line should read:
"Instead of hundred times more to be killed by guns it's only 2 to 5 times more likely. If you want the most you would get is 70 time more likely in Hondoras."

Editing due to space requirements caused me to miss the partial delete mistake.

•Each year in U.S., average of more than 100,000 people shot, according to Brady Campaign. •Each day, average of 289 people shot. Eighty-six die: 30 murdered, 53 kill selves, two die accidentally, and one is shot in police intervention, the Brady Campaign. •2000 & 2010, total of 335,609 people died from guns -- more than population of St. Louis, Mo. (318,069), Pittsburgh (307,484), Cincinnati, Ohio (296,223) (U.S. Census; CDC) •One person killed by firearm every 17 minutes, 87 people killed during average day, and 609 killed every week. (CDC, 2011 data) •Handguns comprised 72.5 percent of firearms used in murder and non-negligent manslaughter incidents in 2011; 4.1 percent with shotguns; 3.8 percent with rifles; 18.5 percent with unspecified firearms. •13.3 percent of homicides done with knives/cutting instruments. •5.8 percent of homicides use of hands, fists, feet, etc. (source: FBI) •82 children under five years died from firearms in 2010 compared with 58 law enforcement officers killed by firearms in the line of duty (sources: CDC, FBI) •More kids ages 0-19 died from firearms every three days in 2010 than died in the 2012 Newtown, Conn., massacre (source: CDC)
•Nearly three times more kids (15,576) were injured by firearms in 2010 than the number of U.S. soldiers (5,247) wounded in action in the war in Afghanistan (source: CDC, DOD) •Half of juveniles murdered in 2010 were killed with firearm (Office Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention)

David,
Those are all true, and don't contridict anything I said. When you are dealing with a population the size of our population, it is still just a miniscule portion of the population. Just take the 335,609 from 2000-2010 that would be out of a population of 3,534,437,292 (U.S. Census Sept 2011). Which would mean .000095% of the total population. Even at 100,000 shot a year tht would still only be .000327% of the population shot in 2011. It still a small percentage of our population even though that percentage because a larger gross number due to the amount of our population.

So you a cool aid fan. Most of those spell it kool aid.

The NRA allows anyone to get guns, and the gummint complies. Personally I would want to put the board of the NRA on the mental health list that you fantasize about. No doubt if you find yourself suffering from depression one day you will have no objection to making your medical records public and your rights taken away by someone somewhere, just like you would do to others.

Any felon can buy a gun from a gun show or personal ad, or have a friend buy it for them. Don't you know that??

The real gun nuts don't want guns to protect their home, they want guns to protect against the gummint.

Gary,
Like you I support the Second Amendment, but beleive their needs to be a ration/logical converation on the boundaries of what is available to the public. Do I understand the need for an assualt rifle with a 30 round magazine. No. Do I feel that all guns should be banned, absolutely not. But as the creators of the 2nd Amendment intended for the legislation and courts to determine the boundaries of the types of arms allowed by the public. I have a problem with the everything should be available as much as the nothing should be available. But without rational, intelligent, factual converation how are we to get to a real decision.

Michael D.: Do you understand the TRUE ramifications of the New NYS firearms legislation? Think about it, to a person with your firearms background it should be obvious. If the choice is nothing at all or everything, what would you pick?

Roy,
Yes, I have read the documentation behind all of the proposed changes, actual law that is being brought forth (goverment contractor with lobbist friends). I do not agree with all of it, but do agree with some of it. And as I have written previously, I believe in the Second Amendment. But I also believe as a citizenship that we should have a rational intelligent conversation on the subject. It is not a all or nothing proposition in my view. As for the all or nothing, neither side is going to get that. Too many people in the gun lobbies, also after every voted on gun ban it has kill the political carreers. So in our lifetime this will never be an all or nothing issue. The problem with most gun owner the most vocial firearm political group (not the most powerful) is the NRA. The problem with the no-gun agrument is that the statistics do not match the emotional aspect. Their leadership is questionable.

You seem to forget about "Executive Privilege" or what or "our President" thinks he can do with it.

I do it to make an abbreviated commentary, meaning that the macho children pretending they are a militia ready to fight a civil war, on their say so, are morons.

I thought that was obvious.

You understood what gummit meant. Why ridicule the poster? Does it give you a feeling of superiority to put someone else down? If he was stupid & really thought Gummit was Govenment what does it serve to put him down? If he was being, what he thought was, clever, what does it serve to put him down?
People that need to put other people down to feel superior are really trying to appear adequate in their own eyes. Do you have a need to feel superior in order to feel adequate to yourself? Tell us, we are confused. Explain it to us.

MM,
While you are talking about Superiority complex aren't you the one who said:
"David asks Jerry where he was when America became a police state.
He was probably waving his flag, thinking that we should kill all those godless commies in Nam, spouting my country right, or wrong rethoric, & saying things like Kill them all & let God sort them out. He most likely was voting for Nixon, Reagan, & wanting to kill everyone in Iran because the spy's nest we had in the embasy was taken hostage."

Wouldn't this be the same as you are saying in putting people down?

Michael D, What part of what I said about voting for Reagan, etc was a put down? That's what most Consevative people did. The put down I was criticizing was putting down his spelling & implying he was stupid & couldn't spell. I just speculated on what the person was most likely doing when the time period passed that America became a police state, because that's what most Americans were doing. That's why it was so easy to make America tha police state that it is today.
I was criticizing all people on the internet that criticize spelling & typo errors. That's a personal affront & personal criticizm. It is an obvious insult when you call someone too stupid to spell Govenment. Even if someone is that stupid, there is no reason to call them on it. I admit that I did mean that most Americans had their heads in the sand when we became a police state, but I never said anyone was stupid in that comment. Sometimes I think Gun people have stupid ideas, but I don't ridicule them for not being smart enough to spell, or use proper grammer. That's a personal put down.

MM,
With the context of your agrument. It is a put down on both sides. The spelling and the context of what you said. Trying to change that after the fact, doesn't change the fact it's intent was to put down. Just because the "put downs" were of different nature, doesn't change the fact they were "put downs". So complaining about one type, while you do another is hypocritical.

erik,
I'm not saying that 31,000 deaths are good, just that in the context of the numbers that we are discussing they aren't that harsh either. It is providing context to the conversation. I'm not suggesting doing nothing either, but I also do not agree with going overboard as well. Currently, most people on either side are agruing over emotion and not facts. What needs to happen is a rational intelligent conversation over the subject.

my god no wonder our country has so many problems u still think the beginning was a war zone. when it was people traveling her to make a life and then invading others then it began. its not yours its everyone’s and anyone who can remain here in the USA today doesn’t have to go to war or bring a weapon. they just have to live her, make a living, support the whole, themselves, their families and a healthy way of life not the trigger impending. freedom the choice or a place that doesn’t need any weapons.. our great country wasn’t made via guns. guns were made, sold, stolen, taking lives, and killing. if you are a killer of course this is your bag. for the most part we do not need a weapon to live, walk, work, talk, be apart of... its something that kills, it was meant to kill. why do you want that?

Bulldog, you "suppose" you would kill another person in defense of "life, property and liberty given the right circumstances". You have killed animals so you could eat them. You have applied for a carry permit. And you can only "suppose" you would kill a person!!!! I have a real problem with people who carry guns and haven't been very honest with themselves about understanding when they would kill another person and what the the outcome of that choice would be. Guns have one purpose: to kill. If you don't know exactly when, why and how you would kill a person, then you have no business carrying a gun with a concealed carry permit. Sloppy thinking leads to mistakes which kill or injure innocent people. An example is the defense of "property". Would you kill someone taking your newspaper from your porch? No? How about repossessing your car? Stealing a lawn decoration? And just how would you go about killing someone who knocked you off your bike on the Pinellas Trail and while you were unconscious, took your bike? If you have a child visiting or living in your home, where do you put your gun when you sleep? And if your gun is locked up, how do you get to it when the "criminal" sneaks into your house and takes your "property'? What if you take a sleeping aid and only think someone is breaking in and you shoot a relative? "Shooter (s) are solely responsible, right? Sorry, only the availability of guns results in people being shot on purpose and by mistake.

Many other countries have the same video games as the USA, and have a fraction of the gun deaths. Let's not have red herring arguments, please.

I agree wiht Erik on this... So Video Games are the issue in the U.S.... but no where else in the world where the censoring of video games is a lot less than here. Bad Agrument. It goes back to don't censor my thing, but lets censor another thing.

Inrchld

You think that video games are the problem and that I am unfair in being critical of that "red herring". I say that gun violence is higher in the USA because we have more guns and easier access to them than just about anywhere except perhaps places like Afghanistan, and you think the problem is video games.

What can I say? Nothing polite.

Fine, but what does any of this have to do with rational gun control?

Thanks for a FINALLY rational approach, erik.

This discussion was headed right into looney-land, with radical extremists demonstrating a level of paranoia that goes well beyond dangerous.

These people that play revolution get release for their frustrations in vocally acting out. Even politicians,playing to their base, talk of impeachment & revolution. None pf them, however, can site even one of Obama's proposals that is treasonous. One went on to say that they were patriots, & not terrorists. To these people, life is a giant video game & they see themselves as the good guy. The enemy is the big, bad, evil, man in black that they must defend all good from. THey think war is a game.
I keep telling them to be careful what they wish for. The way things are going, some over the top gun crazy may just open fire at the wrong time, in the wrong place, & give the Government the excuse they need to bring it on to these crazys.
Talk is cheap. If real bullets are flying & they feel one go deep in their gut, lets see if they are proud to leave their loved ones behind so they can go out playing war when there is no tyrany in reality.

Erik,
I have picked a side. It is with neither of the groups of extremist on this issue. If you say that guns are the causes of all this, so lets remove all guns. Just because one group puts up a as you say "nutters" agrument, doesn't mean that the other side isn't doing the same. The numbers do not agree. As I stated above I agree with some of what the proposals have and not with others. But then again, I have actually read the proposals that have been submitted. This isn't an all or nothing proposition, there is a rational ground to it. Now if you use false data on either side, and I know otherwise. I will point it out. Because it's not moving the conversation forward.

Michael D:

I don't see much of substance in your comments. My point is simply that we have more guns per capita by far than any other civilized nation, and we allow military weapons that none others do, and we allow anyone to buy guns without checks of any sort, and we require no responsible securing of guns by those who have them. Given then that we have many times the gun deaths (and accidents) of other "civilized" nations, it must mean that there is something in the food or air in the USA that makes us so prone to gun violence.

Can you think of any other reason?

Erik,
You do not see substance, because you look at the numbers differently than I do. You want everyone to look at the gross numbers without context. I disagree with that observation. You want to say if the numbers in context don't match my agrument, then forget the numbers. Now you want me to pick a position of your pre-determined positions. It is like telling me, you have to pick a President, but only showing me two options that neither fit. Yes, per capita we own more guns than any other country, but we also most of almost everything per capita. We are a nation of wealth. You say all other "civilized" countries don't allow assulat/military type weapons, but France, Canada, Switzerland, and New Zealand allow them. I agree on the closing the loopholes on the background checks. As far as why is it worse here than other places, it is our cultures fasination with firearms. Been the case for over 200 years. Nothing more or less than that. We are a country that as a whole are fascinated with firearms. Look at the top grossing movies in most weekends has a lot of death in them. But it's not the media's fault, they are just selling us what we like to buy.

The Joseph Goebels News Network has reported that the US State Department has signed a treaty with the Romulans, and pledged that all white males between the ages of 18 and 65 will serve two year terms in the Blue Helmet Forces of the Romulan Empire.
On that basis Glenn Breitbart, lead anchor for Goebels, has theorized that this means that Obama will now release the five Klingons, who someone's fourth cousin in Charlston claimed are being held in Area 51, to the Gamma Sigma terrorist brigade based on the planet Alderaan.
The fact that the twelve captured Klingons, part of the Klingon invasion force which the Obama-led US Armed Forces has been unable to locate, are now being granted preferred work-visa status by Obama's left-wing Immigration and Nationalization Service, is cited by other unidentified sources as proof that socialism now exists in this country.
Once those fifty-seven Klingons receive their visas, it is expected that they will take over the public library system in the United States, thereby rendering everyone not now watching Goebels News as clueless as those who do.

This is all rubbish fiction for people who know nothing of history. Like the current gun spokesman who suggest that if blacks had the right to weapons they wouldn't have been slaves. I can't think of a more moronic statement than that one, but some people believe such stuff.

When did Danny Glover become a Gun Spokeperson? I thought he was just an actor speaking to a group of students. It seemed that is all he was to all the legitimate news broadcasts.

Realized last post didn't read as intended. Is Danny Glover who made the comments about Slavery and the 2nd Amendment a gun spokesman, or just an actor asked to speak?

The Waco wackos committed suicide rather than give up their guns. May I suggest you do that instead of killing fellow Americans you don't agree with.

Liberty Bell, the reason the Government didn't use direct lethal force in the incidents you mention is obvious. Ask yourself how many of those incidents threatened the Governments hold on power? They would treat any uprising as whatever it is. If it is a nusence, like what you site, then they would treat it as such, but if the Govenment sees a chance that they can lose power, you're toast in the blink of an eye.
The Government we have are Jack Booted thugs in sheeps clothing.
You think like a woman I know. You think the Government is evil, but you expect them to handle your threat with kidd gloves. That would only be if your threat is just a pain in the butt, but no threat at all.

Oh my, how I would love to see so-called Liberty Belle get her comeuppance from our Armed Forces.

Those of us who served, whether in a full military career as I did or just as patriotic duty for a few years, took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

I know my oath, as do all men and women in our Armed Forces, and when the President gives the order, we obey it, and not the lunatic rants of someone like Liberty Belle.

Like the domestic terrorist, Timothy McVeigh, those who would prefer anarchy and treason, because they don't like the results of our democratic elections, can just either leave, as the cowards did in the mid to late 60's (but I doubt that either Canada or Sweden would welcome dangerous paranoid radical rightists, as they welcomed draft dodgers), or they can get thrown in the slammer if they refuse to conform to the laws of the United States.

Just try us, LB.

Just try.

Dream on. The Military would be on the side of the people. You are not the people. You are a small group of crazys that are dangerous to the people. Obama represents the people. That's why the people voted him in twice. You people are a vocal minority that would rise up & shatter the peace. Some military would desert & be traitors to their contry. That would be the Timothy Mc Veigh types that happen to be in iuniform, but most soldiers will be resposible. The Military is more like Colin Powel than Timothy McVeigh. The Government controls the official propoganda & you will be stigmatized as dangerously insane. America doesn't like troublemakers & that's what you people are, so official propoganda will have an easy job painting you as such.

liberty bell is torrid in her opinions.

to dad of three, Not all that left were cowards, some stayed & were marched off to prison in this land of liberty. Some rose up & fought. People like Fred Hampton were shot & killed. Some, like The Weathermen, The Panthers, & the Young Lords took the fight to the steets. The Jack Bootted Storm Trooper Government squashed the parting on the left & they will do the same for the parting on the right.

The new litmus test for advancement to a leadership position in the military is whether you would fire on the American people. http://www.prisonplanet.com/nobel-peace-prize-nominee-obama-asks-military-leaders-if-they-will-fire-on-us-citizens.html

Reading further back I realize I misinterpreted your humor for seriousness. Sorry.

Too bad this blog doesn't allow for connected threads or replies to all comments.

I also realize that the middle east will turn into a bloodbath when we leave. It is their world, not ours. We caused the vacume of power in Iraq by eliminating the govenment that was there. The different political factions must fight to re establish Iraq power back in the people's hands.
We call the Iraqis that opposed us to be insurgents & we are liberators. To many there, we are an invading occupying army that took their country over & tried to make it our sattalite country. They are Freedom Fighters, in their eyes & they won't just give up their country. We might not like who comes out on top, but it;s their country & their part of the world. It's none of our buiness to make the whole world just like us.

What is a terrorist & what is a patriot? It all depends on the victor. The victor controls the view of history & therefore control history. Had the colonists lost, they would have been terrorists & the King's army would have been valiant fighters that quelled the rebels who took up arms against the established order & legal authorities. Benedict Arnold would be a hero, etc. All perception is in the eye & mind of the perceiver. To me, the Weatherman struck at the heart of the Beast. They took the fight to the lair of the enemy & cut at the cancer that was festering on the heart of America. Had they won, they would have been the Founding Fathers of the People's Revolution. The only difference between the Boston Massacre & The Kent State Massacre was 200 years.

That's a comment that says nothing.

If you think the comment of I don't agrre with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it says nothing, you don't understand what America is all about. It is as true today as when it was first said over 200 years ago. If you check you will see that is about the only thing that the ACLU stands for.

Don, I felt you spoke with calm intelligence. While we wait for our government there is much we could do at home. Raising our children as well as improving ourselves is nature and nurture. With youth we can't yet do much to alter nature but those parents who still try can nurture. We adults who wish to make a behavioral change can pull it off if we're motivated enough and recognize one is needed. Even to the point of becoming more observant toward those who are struggling with a mental issue. In these hard times good people can become depressed and do things they wouldn't ordinarily do. Eric blew off my suggestion that I used violent games as red herring citing the example of other countries not having our issue yet playing "red herring games ". Unless their situation was exactly the same as ours I don't feel that comparison fair. I began smoking at age 11 and finally quit after 23 years! I choked my way into this bad habit under peer pressure. Quitting was a huge accomplishment. Aren't there non violent ways to be entertained? I can't imagine they wouldn't help. We are all shooters. Those old enough have CC and carry responsibly. If I left my house without my gun I'd have to go home and get it. My 13 y.o. Grandson, a very mature young man plays the popular " red herring " games but also deeply respects gun care and laws. He's included in our frequent gun related conversations and his opinions are respected. We're doing all we can, here at home, where we can hopefully begin.

Here's to all the draft resisters who did fight for sanity as they marched them off to prison in this land of liberty. They did fight to end the power of the mighty Pentagon that was wasting precious millions on the toys of Washington.
All those who refused to follow Traitors to Humanity.
Here's to all the draft resisters who did fight for sanity, as they marched them off to prison, there they went for you & me.
Shame, discrace & now dishonor, wrongly placed upon their heads, did not rob them of the courage that betrys the innocent.
-steppenwolf- 1969-

erik, you ought to read a little more instead of constantly spouting stuff you hope no one will check. Switzerland has no standing Army, most males at the age of 19 or 20 undergo a period of military training and are issued a Sig 550 select fire rifle by the Swiss Government. These weapons remain with them when the return to civilian life. The period of conscription lasts for 20 to 34 years. Switzerland has one of the highest per capita gun ratios in the world. Though the government does not issue ammunition any more, mostly because of labor required to check on issued ammunition, there are no laws preventing the citizen/soldier from buying their own. Shooting matches are encouraged by the government to keep the troops proficient. By the way, the standard Sig 550 magazine is 30 rounds. The days of the bolt action rifles are long gone in this day and age. One has to be blind not to see why no one has been at war with them for over 600 years, when you keep up with technology, other countries notice! (Even the Nazis went around rather than through.)

Erik,
Check your facts. All three of those allow citizens to own assualt weapons with the proper license. In the industry I work in (listed above) I'm pretty sure I know the consumer bases for these products better than you. It does require a special license, but it is allowed. So as a person who has now accused me of lying twice without your facts correct. Lets us look at an overview of the laws.
Canada: civilian ownership of assault rifles is allowed under Prohibited-class licenses. Semi-automatic civilian versions of "assault rifles" such as the M4 carbine and VZ58 are quite common in Canada and can be owned legally with a restricted firearms license.One must pass the CFSC as well as the RCFSC in order to obtain their RPAL. Examples in this class include all AR-15 variants. (Got information from Canadian Ammunition Manufacturer)
Switzerland: Citizens are allowed to own/carry semi-automatic Assault Rifles. Czech Republic: under the provisions of Act 119/2002, regulates civilian ownership of assault rifles, which are classified in the Czech Republic as Category A.
France: Firearms: Category 1 : Military firearms ; According to French law, a military firearm is a weapon which has a gauge used by the army since 1880. Some of them are prohibited, for example, full automatic weapons, but semi automatic assault weapons or handguns are authorised. Examples of military gauges into category 1 : 9mm, 5.56 NATO, 7.62x39, 7.62 NATO, .45 ACP, .50 BMG, .50 AE.

Steppenwolf was Canadian? I didn't research it because it isn't that important, but I don't think so. Even if they were, which I don't think they were, what difference would that make? Are you an anti Canadian bigot? The more right wing Americans are, the more bigoted they appear & have no clue, themselves, that they are bigoted. It sounds like you think you are better than a Canadian. Then you people can't understnd why we say you think America is the Master Race It's your over the top nationalism & acting like we are the Master Race that causes us to call you facist pigs. Bye the way, I don't hide "where I really stand" I stand for the total reconstruction of American society, as we know it, & transforming it to meet the promise of what all the propaganda teaches that it is supposed to be.

Again I say that I'm not going to check this out because I am on my way out to go to work, but I think Steppennwolf was from California. I know you people think California is another country, as you also think NY & Chicago are other countrys too. I'm Ok with that because I think Texas is another Country. LOL. I am a product of NY in the late 60s. Most of my generation was like me in my neck of the woods. The campus at Stony Brook looked like you were in the East Village back in '71.

I also recommend Coven's One Tin Soldier-Go ahead & hate your neighbor, go ahead & cheat a friend. Do it in the name of Heaven, you can justify it in the end. There won't be any trumpets blowing come the judgment day.
On the bloody morning after. One tin soldier rides away.
I don't know, or care where Coven came from.

Actually they are a little of both, all but one member was a Canadian. The other Rushton Moreve was from Los Angeles.

But that isn't the same as what you said before, and what you said when you accused me of lying for a second time in this thread. You are now changing your agrument.

Michael D:

I don't know what the second accusation of lying was. The first I apologized for. Presumably you think being corrected is the same as being called a liar.

The country laws you cite about "military" style weapons are no comparison whatsoever with the free for all situation in the US with half hearted background checks, destroyed in 24 hours, and no restrictions at all on private sales. farcical is what it is.

I support the right to own such weapons, even fully automatic ones, but under extremely strict conditions, and liability in case of misuse by anyone else.

I also note that you still offer no counter explanation for why Americans are so much more prone to gun deaths and violence compared to other nations.

If you had really read about WWII do you really think the NAZI's would not have invaded Switzerland, Sweden, Portugal, and eventually even Facist Spain after they had conquered England? Switzerland forced all warplanes violating its airspace to land on their airfields or be destroyed, Allied and Axis alike. Do you really think Hitler would have let that lie? If so, you should do more reading and less postulating. As far as Switzerland, when a country supports gun ownership to the point of supplying them to it's citizenry, sponsers gun education, makes ranges available throughout the country to practice, they should have less violence than us because of a more informed public. And.......even though they do demilitarize the Sig 550's (remove the full auto capablity) after you posess it for twenty or thirty years, the 30 round magazines remain intact. Insisting on a ten round magazine is comparable to being in a fist fight for your life and saying you can only have ten punches. Stick to your video games where you can reset and have another chance after you are killed!

Erick,
What would you consider you are saying with this statement:
"We have nothing to discuss if you pretend to make arguments on pretend facts." If I'm making up pretend facts, then won't I be lying? That is exactly what you are saying.

"The country laws you cite about "military" style weapons are no comparison whatsoever with the free for all situation in the US with half hearted background checks, destroyed in 24 hours, and no restrictions at all on private sales."

Different agrument than your earlier agrument, which I was disputing:
"My point is simply that we have more guns per capita by far than any other civilized nation, and we allow military weapons that none others do, "

When infact they do, there is a difference in Background checks, that wasn't part of this agrument. Now it is something I agreed with you on in my post in response to yours on January 22nd, along with the gun violence/ownership question which was in the same post. So I didn't ignore it at all. If you continued to read past the point where I pointed out the counties that allowed ownership you would have seen it.

I apologize about the name, it's is Erik, not Erick.

Michael D.

You persist in avoiding the issues stated.

You claim that other countries allow "assault" weapons (but I doubt extended magazines or armor piercing ammo), under controls that don't exist in the USA, without explaining how that compares to the USA; which of course it doesn't.

You claim that Switzerland and others have plenty of guns, without addressing why they have only a tiny fraction of USA gun violence.

Roy K:

I don't know what your latest rant is supposed to prove. Of course the Nazis would have invaded the "neutral" countries had the won the war, although there would have been no need to fight, they could have dictated whatever terms they wanted. What does that prove in this issue of gun control?

Switzerland has a military form of conscription that allows weapons (some weapons) to be kept with it's citizens, but the weapons and ammunition is totally registered and the owners are well trained. What does that have to do with the essentially uncontrolled free for all in the USA?

What do you need more than 10 shots in a weapon for? You are not one of those who have fantasies about killing the police FBI, are you?

Erik,
I have answered all your questions. You keep up bringing different issues to the questions you state in order state that I'm no answering your questions. On January 22nd, I talked about the Gun Culture. You have changed and continue to try to change your agrument. Now mentioning Armor-Piercing Bullets.

You said that other western civilized counties do not allow assualt weapons (which you were quoted on). You were wrong.

You switched the agrument to the level of controls. Which surprising I have addressed in this thread on January 24nd. But it appears easier for you to accuse people then actually read what they write. Do you want me to write the exact licensing laws for each country? Are you grasping that much for an agrument?

As for the question you have now asked for the third time, and as I wrote the last time you asked I answered on January 22nd at 9:49am. If you would like expound on that statement then ask that specifically. If not, telling me I haven't answered a question I answered for almost a week now is not a valid agrument for you. Especially being you have a habit of accusing people of things like lying and not answering questions they have anwsered.

Erik,
I have answered all your questions. You keep up bringing different issues to the questions you state in order state that I'm no answering your questions. On January 22nd, I talked about the Gun Culture. You have changed and continue to try to change your agrument. Now mentioning Armor-Piercing Bullets.

You said that other western civilized counties do not allow assualt weapons (which you were quoted on). You were wrong.

You switched the agrument to the level of controls. Which surprising I have addressed in this thread on January 24nd. But it appears easier for you to accuse people then actually read what they write. Do you want me to write the exact licensing laws for each country? Are you grasping that much for an agrument?

As for the question you have now asked for the third time, and as I wrote the last time you asked I answered on January 22nd at 9:49am. If you would like expound on that statement then ask that specifically. If not, telling me I haven't answered a question I answered for almost a week now is not a valid agrument for you. Especially being you have a habit of accusing people of things like lying and not answering questions they have anwsered.

Reposting after the initial attempt is still pending approval.

Erik,
Obviously you do not like my answer, so you want to continue to ask the same question multiple times. Do you expect a different answer? You got called out a few times to making false accusations, now you feel if you ask a question which has been answered, but a slightly different way each time that makes you feel better. I asnwered this question on my response to you January 22nd at 9:49am. That is my answer. It is not my problem you do not like the answer. Have a wonderful evening.

You said there that guns and violence is in our psyche. That is your explanation, presumably meaning that most of the immigrants to the US have been composed of people with gun fetishes.

Silly answer.

Erik,
I know you do not like any answer that goes with your ideal. By your use of accusations that is obvious. "silly answer" is cute but immature. You like to divide civilized and non-civilized cultures in your gun agruments, except when it doesn't fit your agrument, like lumping all immigrants together. But then again, in this statement you are taking 1+1 = 12 to fit your agrument. The logic of your statement doesn't add to what I said, but you do not care about that either. When you are ready to have a intelligent, factual converation on the subject let me know.

Michael D:

Your reply makes no sense whatsoever, again. Show that you have minimal intelligence and try to answer the simple question I pose. I repeat it to make it easy for you.

Why does the USA have many many times the gun violence of other (comparable) nations, even those who allow gun ownership but under much stricter controls than we have in the USA?

Erik, go to another country and tell me if you notice anything different watching their televised commercials. Unless you are in New Zealand, you should quickly notice something absent from the idiot boxes.

Samuel Clemens:

Sorry, I don't get your point.

Erik,
How does the gun culture within the US have anything to do with immigrants coming into the country? Nothing, just another attempt by you to change the subject. Taking something I said, and trying to point out something that has nothing to do with what I said. It is you that isn't making sense.
"Why does the USA have many many times the gun violence of other (comparable) nations, even those who allow gun ownership but under much stricter controls than we have in the USA?"
Question has been answered, you do not like the answer. So you now going with asking question again and again. What is so hard about my reply to that to comprehend? It certainly didn't have anything to do with immigrants coming into this country.
"Show that you have minimal intelligence and try to answer the simple question I pose."
Childish and immature. I have answered your question January 22nd at 9:49am. You do not like said answer.

Erik, being that you alluded to a "conspiracy" when I provided proof from the witches mouth regarding an outright ban on firearms led me to believe you wouldn't get my point......especially when you were incapable of understanding the MILITIA quote from one of the founders. I'm guessing Tench Coxe had better knowledge than us regarding the Militia and the "right to bear arms," but you had to focus on the God part, opposed to the message. FYI: The people as a whole are the militia. I'd love to know who originated this "well regulated militia" talking point because the parrots sure have used it.

I am always amazed at how others lack the ability to search for anything themselves. I have people bash me for my postings when a simple Google search reveals what I stated.

America and New Zealand have on thing in common, Direct-to-consumer marketing. Direct-to-consumer drug ads is such a detriment to our society, it's beyond evident to any sentient being. Pharmaceuticals are destroying lives, but people want to blame the symptoms.

Suicides are blamed on bullies when the majority of suicides are committed by people prescribed "legal" drugs.

Mass shootings are blamed on guns when the majority of the shooters are also partakers of these mind-altering substances.

Ultimately, each individual is responsible for their own actions, but when there's so much evidence, people have to start focusing in on the real culprit.
www.ssristories.com/

Michael D:

You continue to waffle without answering the question. Why does the USA have many times the gun violence of all the countries that most of the original immigrants came from? PS. Can you spell sarcasm?

Talk about changing the subject.

If criminals followed the law they wouldn't be criminals, would they? Do you think laws alone, without tools and regulations to enforce them, are all that is needed?

Why do you blather about disarming? Nobody is suggesting that.

You are another of those crass bigots bringing in the president's children, as if all presidents have not always had secret service protection for the families, given the amount of hateful nutcases out there listening to the usual hate mongers.

Only paranoid fools think there is anything about banning all guns in this matter, and Samuel Clemens would be turning in his grave if he knew that someone was using his name in this context.

You don't really say anything in this post, except attempt to toot your own horn, and make claims about Mark Twain that you are not competent to do.

You are a classic denier of reality. Yes I listened to the Feinstein video, and she says nothing that you claim, unless you are one of those that thinks you should be able to own military high capacity weapons, and no background checks on sale.

You obviously have a problem with reasonable regulation, and you are NOT "we the people" because every poll made has a large majority of the population in favor of such basic controls.

You really spend too much time on conspiracy nut sites, and youtube videos making stuff up. Are you against Homeland security spending significant time training its people, with fully automatic weapons? You must be concerned that they are practicing against terrorists. Are you a terrorist wannabe?