[SeMissourian.com] Fog/Mist ~ 47°F  
River stage: 16.79 ft. Rising
Saturday, Dec. 27, 2014
Post reply Read replies (896) More threads Create thread

Banning Assualt Weapons WILL NOT stop Massacres
Posted by mobushwhacker on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 3:05 PM:

The massacre on the island of Utya is certain to lead to a security review, with particular stress on how Anders Behring Breivik obtained his weapons. Norway already has some of the toughest gun laws in the world, but they were apparently easily circumvented by the killer.

A licence is required to own a gun, and the owner must provide a written statement saying why he or she wants one. Many categories of guns, including automatics and some powerful handguns, are banned from sale altogether.

Hunting and outdoor sports are popular in Norway. But the laws are strict in these areas, too. Shotguns and rifles must be stored in a secure place, typically a specially designed gun safe, as must ammunition. Police have the right to inspect an owner's home to ensure the law is being followed.

Transporting a weapon to a public place is also covered by legislation. The owner must have a good reason for carrying a weapon, must ensure it is unloaded and concealed from view, but not worn on the body, and must keep the weapon under constant supervision.

Under the Firearm Weapons Act, only "sober and responsible" persons over the age of 18 may obtain a gun licence. For handguns, the age requirement is 21. In 2009, additional legislation was introduced, further tightening Norway's gun laws.

Sunday July 24, 2011 -The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul...



Replies

"Banning Assualt Weapons WILL NOT stop Massacres" but it sure as heck bring down numbers.

Norway has a homicide rate of .04 per 100,000 for a net number of 2 murders in 2010.

The US had a homicide rate almost 100 times greater, at 3.7 per 100,000 for a net number of over 11,470 in 2009.

So in a year Norway has 2 murders and the US has 11,470 and you say gun control does not work.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 4:08 PM

"Let's keep things in perspective ...."

That is why rates are compared per 100,000 citizens. The murder rate in Norway is 92.5 times higher than the rate in the US.

Gun control obviously works.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 4:19 PM

I am going to say this in caps so everyone sees it first. I AM A GUN OWNER AND ADVOCATE.

That being said I could never justify why a individual needed a assault style weapon or 30 round magazines. Just because I can is not a argument. Our forefathers never envisioned this type of weapon being available. A one shot Muzzle loader was the only thing they knew. Most of the people I have come into contact with that are shooting this style scare me. All dressed in make believe military and survivalist gear. They are mostly a pain in the a** at the gun range also. Most of them have no consideration of sporting shooters trying to line up a scope or just target shooting. It is all about how fast they can pull the trigger.

I have said this before. We need tom police ourselves or someone is going to do it for us.

-- Posted by 3forone on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 4:28 PM

Our forefathers envisioned the civilian population having access to the same type of weaponry in general use by the armies of invading nations. For the militia to be effective, it is necessarily so.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 4:30 PM

Our forefathers envisioned the civilian population having access to the same type of weaponry in general use by the armies of invading nations. For the militia to be effective, it is necessarily so.

What militia do we have now ? Oh yeah a paid national guard funded by the federal government. Sorry, I doubt anybody is going to hiding fighting a guerrilla war against tanks and surface to air missiles and a well trained army that might invade us. That is stuff old cold war movies are made of.

-- Posted by 3forone on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 4:41 PM

I had a friend that had a single-shot bolt action rifle he used to take hunting. Because he often needed more than one shot quickly, he cut up an old boot and made a cover for his stock, with loops to hold several rounds. He could empty and reload the chamber of that bolt-action rifle so quickly that it sounded like a semi-automatic rifle as he peeled off shots, a true artist in his particular medium.

Would it be necessary to prohibit the manufacture of zip-clips, speed-loaders, bandoliers, and ammo belts to ensure that those well-practiced in the shooting arts are not able to fire faster than the government-approved rate of fire?

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 4:49 PM

10 USC 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are--

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 4:51 PM

"Sorry, I doubt anybody is going to hiding fighting a guerrilla war against tanks and surface to air missiles and a well trained army that might invade us. That is stuff old cold war movies are made of."

You obviously know little about the fighting of war.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 4:52 PM

You may want to tell that to the Vietnamese, to the Taliban, to the Iraqis, to the Somalis...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 4:54 PM

What I see coming here very soon is a complete ban on military type assault weapons. This ban was passed in 1994 by congress and signed in to law by President Clinton. The ban on assault weapons expired in 2004 and was never re-implemented. I see the gun show loop hole being taken out of the law. If a promoter has a gun show he will have to be a licensed firearms dealer and every person purchasing a firearm at one of these shows will have to do the same as required at a gun shop when they purchase a fire arm. I see over size clips being prohibted. I see a possible mental health/law enforcement network data base being implemented. Will you still be able to purchase a hand gun, hunting rifle and shot gun? sure you will as long as a person successfully passes the required background check.

-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 6:06 PM

Odd. I don't remember seeing the word "muzzle loader" in the Second Amendment. Maybe I have the abridged edition.

-- Posted by Simon Jester on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 6:22 PM

Our forefathers envisioned the civilian population having access to the same type of weaponry in general use by the armies of invading nations. For the militia to be effective, it is necessarily so.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 4:30 PM

Well I want a big M1 Abrams then. Bet I can't get it though. No matter how I yell about my second amendment rights.

-- Posted by 3forone on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 6:42 PM

Wish I could afford an M1 Abram tank like 3forone. He must have more money than Davy Crockett.

-- Posted by Simon Jester on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 6:44 PM

"Our forefathers envisioned the civilian population having access to the same type of weaponry in general use by the armies of invading nations. For the militia to be effective, it is necessarily so."

For the militia to be effective it may be the case, however that does not mean that the general population must have access to those same weapons. That is speculation on your part, unless you have some sort of psychic contact with the forefathers.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 6:50 PM

"Sorry, I doubt anybody is going to hiding fighting a guerrilla war against tanks and surface to air missiles and a well trained army that might invade us. That is stuff old cold war movies are made of."

The one think that liberals forget:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."

-- Abraham Lincoln, 4 April 1861

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

-- Hitler, April 11 1942

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 6:54 PM

If you don't like scary looking guns, don't buy one.

If you don't like cigarettes, don't smoke.

If you don't like abortions, don't get one.

If you don't like going to church, don't go.

If you don't like drugs, don't do them.

Etc, etc, etc.

See, I don't like being treated like a child so treat me like the adult I am. If you wanna be treated like a child, that is your trip, and you can count me out.

-- Posted by Simon Jester on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 6:56 PM

So I guess if Oswald didn't have access to that automatic assault weapon he couldn't have fired quickly enough to kill President.

And think of all the other highly reported on murders of recent that could have been prevented.

-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 7:08 PM

"For the militia to be effective it may be the case, however that does not mean that the general population must have access to those same weapons. That is speculation on your part, unless you have some sort of psychic contact with the forefathers."

I posted the pertinent part of the United States Code that identifies the membership of the militia. I'll give you a hint: It ain't just the National Guard.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 7:56 PM

"Well I want a big M1 Abrams then. Bet I can't get it though."

Do you think you can bear one? Methinks it is logical to accept that the right applies to man-portable arms.

But, I noted elsewhere, you can own one, but you will probably have to demilitarize all arms larger than .50 calibre.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 7:59 PM

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/indept...

Well, The Chinese State media has demanded that U.S. citizens be disarmed, so I guess we'd better get to it...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 8:25 PM

http://redflagnews.com/headlines/dem-rep...

...and Sheila Jackson Lee seconds the motion.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 8:31 PM

The Chinese should know. You can't have a police state and an armed society.

-- Posted by Simon Jester on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 10:04 PM

If the ban on assault weapons and other gun restrictions are forthcoming, then we must also place a ban on all violent video games and violent rapper music as well which both have been a major contributing factor to a lot of these mass shootings.

-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 4:30 AM

If you want an ak47 join the military. There is NO excuse to have one now.

Did you know there is no director of the ATF now, republicans passed a law that the director needed the approval of the senate,,,,there has been no director of the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for years thanks to the intelligence of the republican senators. How **** convenient. Nobody is watching the concerns of the citizens now.

-- Posted by Dexterite1 on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 5:31 AM

"If you want an ak47 join the military. There is NO excuse to have one now."

Our military does not issue AK-47s. Nor do most people have access to them, since they are selective-fire, fully or semi-automatic weapons. What is generally available to the public is the AKS, which is a semi-automatic weapon that resembles the AK-47 in appearance.

True AK-47s are available only to those who are licensed to own fully-automatic weapons, as has been the case since the 1930s.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 8:53 AM

"Did you know there is no director of the ATF now, republicans passed a law that the director needed the approval of the senate,,,,there has been no director of the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for years thanks to the intelligence of the republican senators. How **** convenient. Nobody is watching the concerns of the citizens now."

B. Todd Jones is the acting director. The acting director fulfils the duties of a director when a vacancy exists. He has the duties of the director, and overseas the agency the same as a director would.

The Senate has been in Democrat hands for over four years now. If they wanted to approve a director, I would think they could do so.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 8:55 AM

"Sen. McCain (Rep) Arizona , is calling for a ban on all violent video games ."

Another reason I had a hard time supporting him as the choice to replace Mr. Bush. His support of McCain-Feingold showed him to be a bit weak on First Amendment rights.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 8:58 AM

There is no director of the ATF? Now if there were only no ATF.

-- Posted by Simon Jester on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 11:32 AM

BTW, what happened to the "What Are We Going to Do to STOP..." thread?

-- Posted by Simon Jester on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 11:35 AM

"BTW, what happened to the "What Are We Going to Do to STOP..." thread?"

Not sure. Did M'Lange get booted? I think it was her thread.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 11:46 AM

Our forefathers never envisioned this type of weapon being available. A one shot Muzzle loader was the only thing they knew. -- Posted by 3forone on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 4:28 PM

As others so easily pointed a) it never mentions what type of arms and b) the government now carries guns more powerful than a single-shot muzzleloader.

The point that is missed on you and other liberals is this. The 2nd amendment was not created and has nothing to do with hunting or owning guns for "sport". It was created specifically for free people to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. Period. Read the history of the 2nd amendment. If that takes an AR15 to do that then so be it.

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 1:25 PM

From Lew Rockwell-www.lewrockwell.com

Some massacres of children are OK. When the FBI and BATF burned 26 children to death at Waco, and 50 parents and other adults, too, conservatives and liberals cheered. Anyone expressing sympathy for the murdered was an "extremist" to be condemned by the SPLC and MSM. (Thanks to Steve Quayle)

-- Posted by mobushwhacker on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 2:39 PM

"I posted the pertinent part of the United States Code that identifies the membership of the militia. I'll give you a hint: It ain't just the National Guard."

True, but the "inactive militia" boils down to no more than a list of names taken by the Selective Service Board of all males when they turn 18. There is no automatically enforced duties for those individuals unless a draft were reinstated.

In either case the reference to the militia in the Constitution has everything to do with a government organized militia to protect the nation from outside threats. It has nothing to do with with defense from a "tyrannical" government. This is simply one more fantasy generated for the entertainment of fanatically inclined paranoids.

Here it is per my copy of the Constitution...

"Amendment II

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."

At least my version says the Militia is to secure the state.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 3:20 PM

"...burned 26 children to death at Waco, and 50 parents and other adults, too, conservatives and liberals cheered."

The FBI gave the group at Waco every opportunity for children, women, and in fact, all men to come out of the compound peacefully.

I do not see where Lanza gave those children and the teachers the same opportunity.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 3:24 PM

"True, but the "inactive militia" boils down to no more than a list of names taken by the Selective Service Board of all males when they turn 18. There is no automatically enforced duties for those individuals unless a draft were reinstated."

By nature of a militia, there are no automatically-enforced duties, that is true. But what has that to do with anything?

"In either case the reference to the militia in the Constitution has everything to do with a government organized militia to protect the nation from outside threats. It has nothing to do with with defense from a "tyrannical" government. This is simply one more fantasy generated for the entertainment of fanatically inclined paranoids."

No, it does not. As the Supreme Court stated in United States vs. Miller: "These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

If you read your history, you'll see that defense from a tyrannical government was uppermost in the minds of the founders, they having just won a war of independence from one. Methinks it is your fantasy that our founders intended to invest all power in the government they created that is nothing but entertainment for fanatics.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 3:46 PM

The Congress shall have Power:

15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

16. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 3:48 PM

http://www.lawnix.com/cases/dc-heller.ht...

"Constitutional Construction

"The prefatory clause "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" merely announces a purpose. It does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

"The militia consisted of all males capable of acting together for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable citizen militias, thereby enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The Antifederalists therefore sought to preserve the citizens' militia by denying Congress the power to abridge the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

"This interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights adopted in state constitutions immediately preceding and following the Second Amendment. Furthermore, the drafting history reveals three proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts, and legislators from ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court's interpretation.

"No precedent forecloses this interpretation. United States v. Miller limits the type of weapons to which the right applies to those in common use for lawful purposes, but does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes.

"The Second Amendment right is not a right to keep and carry any weapon in any manner and for any purpose. The Court has upheld gun control legislation including prohibitions on concealed weapons and possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. The historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons supports the holding in United States v. Miller that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time.

"The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of arms that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. This prohibition would fail constitutional muster under any standard of scrutiny. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is therefore unconstitutional.

"The Court assumes that a license will satisfy Heller's prayer for relief and therefore does not address the constitutionality of the licensing requirement. Assuming Heller is not otherwise disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District of Columbia must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home."

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 4:00 PM

Given that ruling, banning weapons that are in common use at the time, or limiting their operation to something less than the common firearms of the time, would be unconstitutional, as it would weaken the power of the militia to do its duty.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 4:08 PM

Where there is a will there is a way and it doesn't require modern technology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1BwUJ4--...

-- Posted by 356 on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 4:10 PM

The FBI gave the group at Waco every opportunity for children, women, and in fact, all men to come out of the compound peacefully. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 3:24 PM

Those stupid little preschoolers didn't come out when the FBI and DEA told them to. Why didn't those Waco 4 year olds just walk out on their own? They got what they deserved when Clinton's people told them to leave and they didn't. Especially the baby that couldn't walk - he deserved his fiery death most of all.

How absurd.

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 4:26 PM

Common is the perfect example of how Obama got re-elected. The blind allegiance to a party - at all costs - is unbelievable.

People holed-up in a private compound get burned alive by federal agents - including small children - and common says "That's ok. They were warned you know!".

Just like Benghazi. Common said the ambassador wasn't forced to go to Libya so his death is his fault. Even after repeated requests for additional security were denied by the Obama administration.

Blind party loyalty.

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 4:36 PM

"This is simply one more fantasy generated for the entertainment of fanatically inclined paranoids."

Such as the majority of the Supreme Court.

One has to be somewhat addled, methinks, to believe that a people that had just shaken off the shackles of tyranny through bloody conflict wouldn't have concerns about tyranny uppermost in their minds when they drafted their own constitution.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 4:55 PM

At least my version says the Militia is to secure the state.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 3:20 PM

No. It says to secure a FREE state!!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"The FBI gave the group at Waco every opportunity for children, women, and in fact, all men to come out of the compound peacefully."

And then Janet Reno had them burned out because it was giving Clinton a black eye. This and Ruby Ridge is why we need to have our guns. You don't mind being unarmed because you sold out to them for a free ride.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 6:14 PM

Rick - I think you need to reread Commons post:

"The FBI gave the group at Waco every opportunity for children, women, and in fact, all men to come out of the compound peacefully.-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 3:24 PM"

Neither he or I said a word about blaming Obama for Waco. Where did I say that? The point is Common says "kids were warned to come out" so they should have.

Again, where did I say Waco was Obama's fault?

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 6:20 PM

We got a way of doin' things, that no one's gonna steal from me, they want to tear it all apart...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj7Zft8ai...

-- Posted by mobushwhacker on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 6:28 PM

Waco: Rules of Engagement:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCblw0_ls...

-- Posted by mobushwhacker on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 6:51 PM

Our forefathers never envisioned this type of weapon being available. A one shot Muzzle loader was the only thing they knew. -- Posted by 3forone on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 4:28 PM

As others so easily pointed a) it never mentions what type of arms and b) the government now carries guns more powerful than a single-shot muzzleloader.

The point that is missed on you and other liberals is this.

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 1:25 PM

Dug, you would not know a liberal from a conservative from a moderate if it it hit you in the face. Basically all you do here is call names and try to bully people with your simple minded high school ways. I could call you a backward a** conservative that lives in the long ago past too, but I won't..

-- Posted by 3forone on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 8:24 PM

I could call you a backward a** conservative that lives in the long ago past too, but I won't.. -- Posted by 3forone on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 8:24 PM

You did. But unlike a liberal I won't cry about it and demand an apology. Are you living in a cave? Liberals by and large don't like the interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Conservatives are very pro 2nd amendment. You talk about liberals/conservatives and never answered the point. As others said - where in the 2nd amendment did it say what type of "arms" you could or could not carry? Where?

Anyone with half a brain would know that the calls to ban some guns is almost exclusively democrat/liberal. The calls to allow the purchase of all guns is almost exclusively republican/conservative. Do you actually deny this?

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 8:34 PM

I could call you a backward a** conservative that lives in the long ago past too, but I won't.. -- Posted by 3forone on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 8:24 PM

You did. But unlike a liberal I won't cry about it and demand an apology. Are you living in a cave? Liberals by and large don't like the interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Conservatives are very pro 2nd amendment. You talk about liberals/conservatives and never answered the point. As others said - where in the 2nd amendment did it say what type of "arms" you could or could not carry? Where?

Anyone with half a brain would know that the calls to ban some guns is almost exclusively democrat/liberal. The calls to allow the purchase of all guns is almost exclusively republican/conservative. Do you actually deny this?

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 8:34 PM

Actually you should look at some of your more conservative representatives who are rethinking their stand on this issue. I own dozens of firearms but also believe assault style weapons and high capacity magazines have no place in our society. Sorry, but all the arguments for these style weapons do not hold water. It is really sad that people are comforting themselves right now by buying every one of these weapons and hoarding ammo as a comfort. Sort of like a baby blanket.

And Dug not everyone walks the road of one party or belief. Some of us walk down the middle.

-- Posted by 3forone on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 8:41 PM

I own dozens of firearms but also believe assault style weapons and high capacity magazines have no place in our society. -- Posted by 3forone on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 8:41 PM

That would be the current liberal belief. Sorry - I can't help that. It's simply what they believe.

The point about assault rifles completely ignores the point of the 2nd amendment. As I posted above the liberal argument is that you don't need assault rifles to hunt. The 2nd amendment has *nothing* to do with hunting. It is very specifically crafted to allow citizens to ARM themselves and not against deer or rabbits. Against people - as the declaration of independence says - "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness............."

You may think that these guns have no place in our society. The founding fathers disagree with you. They weren't talking about hunting. All the arguments for these guns DO hold water according to that little document and amendments to the constitution.

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 9:09 PM

"One has to be somewhat addled, methinks, to believe that a people that had just shaken off the shackles of tyranny through bloody conflict wouldn't have concerns about tyranny uppermost in their minds when they drafted their own constitution."

I would expect that you did read the dissenting opinions in your link...

"Dissent (Stevens)

The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people to maintain a well regulated militia. It was a response to the concern that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to state sovereignty. Neither the text of the Second Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidence the slightest interest by the Framers in limiting any legislature's authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms.

There is no indication that the Framers intended to enshrine the common law right of self-defense in the Constitution. The view in Miller that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but does not curtail the Legislature's power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons, is both the most natural reading of the Amendment's text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption. The majority fails to identify any new evidence supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to limit the power of Congress to regulate civilian uses of weapons.

Dissent (Breyer)

The Second Amendment protects militia-related interests, not self-defense-related interests. Furthermore, the Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves. Colonial history itself offers important examples of the kinds of gun regulation that citizens would then have thought compatible with the right to keep and bear arms, including substantial regulation of firearms in urban areas, and regulations that imposed limitations on the use of firearms for the protection of the home."

These opinions point to an "un-addled" position of a slightly different interpretation of the "founder's intent." The connection may exist between federal power and state's rights, but it does not seem to be a matter of individuals fearing either the state or the federal government.

Furthermore, there is little evidence that the "framers" had intended the right to bear arms to be totally independent of the brutality and killing power of weapons. Had today's weapons existed in 1775, it is highly probable that the second amendment might have been worded differently.

Another consideration is that in the 18th century the need for firearms was based on subsistence hunting and protection against native Americans (who had this strange tendency to resist being thrown off of their land). The thought of having to overthrow their newly established government was probably far from their minds.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 9:48 PM

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 9:48 PM

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness............."

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 9:51 PM

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 9:48 PM

Common, why don't you look up some of the quotes of those framers instead of spinning the liberal web to suit your desires.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 10:16 PM

Most Americans understand that "alter or abolish" means to do so by electing others to office.

Paranoia runs deep in some quarters...

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 10:16 PM

Rick

I am not a conspiracy guy but Reno's reason for approving the final gas attack varied. She said the FBI had told her that Koresh was sexually abusing and beating babies( which the FBI later denied). Reno also claimed that the one-woman militia was on the way to Waco to aid Koresh. I cant remember her name but I remember the one woman militia.

Basically I think the FBI set the fire accidentally when they ran the pipes in to inject the gas. Also CS gas will badly burn kids so why was it approved for use? I remember Sonny Bono hammering Reno over it. It was a rush to end it and then whitewashed.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 10:42 PM

Paranoia runs deep in some quarters..-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 10:16 PM

You abolish a government by electing people to it? Strange warped view I think.

And of course George Washington was extremely paranoid when he (and thousands of others) collectively overthrew their government - Britain - through a war. They wrote that statement to prevent America from becoming a country ruled by self-serving elitists. Ooops. We're already there.

The Obama's came into office worth $1.3 Million. Source: CNN

Michelle Obama doesn't hold a job and Barack Obama makes at most $569,000 with expenses and salary.

The Obama's are now worth over $10.1 Million. Source: AP

How does that work? A man who talks about main street and being "fair" (spread the wealth around) accumulates far more wealth than his salary. He's now in the ruling class.

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 8:07 AM

"...collectively overthrew their government - Britain - through a war."

Paranoia is attempting to equate the American Revolution against a tyrannical "colonialist" monarchy with the re-election of President Obama.

You might be best served by seeking some adult guidance before tearing off on these rants, or as a minimum put your brain in gear, before clicking on "save comment."

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 8:17 AM

If you haven't read the Federalist Papers I encourage you to do so, it tells quite a bit about the debates and reasons for protecting the pre existing natural rights to own firearms.

-- Posted by 356 on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 8:18 AM

"I would expect that you did read the dissenting opinions in your link..."

I read them.

The dissenters were in the minority.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 8:31 AM

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 8:17 AM

Still smarting from your many Rush Limbaugh quotes and references?

You're simple minded approach (works very well with Obama supporters) is to ignore that the leaders of the revolution wrote and signed the declaration of independence and the constitution - including the 2nd amendment.

I guess you were taught in some school by an Obama supporter that Barack Obama wrote the 2nd amendment? Comprehension is work weak suit.

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 8:34 AM

"Had today's weapons existed in 1775, it is highly probable that the second amendment might have been worded differently."

Cannons, bombs, and explosives existed in the founders day. Where did they prohibit them in the Constitution?

"Another consideration is that in the 18th century the need for firearms was based on subsistence hunting and protection against native Americans."

Funny that they didn't mention that when drafting the Constitition. But thank you for pointing out that the presence of Native Americans would point towards the right to keep and bear arms supporting self defense. That would put you at odds with Mr. Breyer's dissent, wouldn't it?

As for the right to keep and bear sporting goods, that is a favourite myth of 'the left', who seek to divide firearms owners between sportsmen and non-sportsmen, hoping they can enforce gun control as long as they convince sportsmen no one is after their hunting arms. The Constitution says nothing about hunting, and a hunting rifle is functionally no different than a defensive one.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 8:37 AM

Comprehension is your weak suit.-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 8:34 AM

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 8:40 AM

"Most Americans understand that "alter or abolish" means to do so by electing others to office."

That was written in the Declaration of Independence. Are you saying the Declaration of Independence was about electing a new king?

Methinks you need to change your non de plume.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 8:41 AM

Sorry, that was supposed to be 'nom de plume'. My eyesight is particularly bad this morning.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 8:42 AM

"Feb. , 1864 , the first sub-marine ever invented , by the Confederate Army -- HL Huntley --- broke the Union block-aide at ports in South and North Carolina ..."

Actually, the Turtle of the Revolutionary War era predated the Huntley by nearly 100 years.

http://www.history.navy.mil/library/onli...

There had been non-combat submarines that predated even the Turtle.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 8:45 AM

Cornelius Drebbel's 1620 Submarine was built and successfully tested on the River Thames, but was not militarized.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 9:11 AM

"I have no idea what the Society of 1776 understandings of "alter or abolish" were like , I did not survive during this time era."

It's not that difficult to fathom. In the past decade we have aided in 'altering or abolishing' the governments of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, to name a few, because the prior governments were deemed to be destructive to the rights of free men. In Egypt we cheered them on as they did so.

Now, we also recognize that men are free to establish new governments which they hope is supportive of those ends. That is not always the case. In fact, it is seldom the case. Few revolutions result in governments which permit the people to be more free than the one before them, as men frequently merely trade one tyranny for another (see Egypt for an example). Yet, it is ever the hope of man that he can break that cycle.

It is the folly of those who put their faith in government rather than in themselves that such experiments are doomed to failure. In America, our founders put their faith in the people, not in the government, and that faith, in humble opinion, has provided our nation with the success it has thus far known. Yet, always have we struggled against those who seek to invest ever more power in the government and to wrest ever more power from the people, thus opening the door for a new tyranny to replace the old.

Time, alone, will tell whether this American experiment can succeed. Those who think they can water down the military and call it the 'militia', investing in it alone the power to bear arms for the purposes of the people are fools. Those arms will eventually be turned against the people they serve, as they have been in the past. (The 'Bonus Army', Kent State, etc.)

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 10:10 AM

"Semi-automatic assault rifle bans would likely pass constitutional muster with the current supreme court."

It may well. After the 'Borking' of the late Robert Bork, the Supreme Court has been forced to leftward...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 10:12 AM

Checking several forums people report .223/5.56 ammo is getting scarce and Brownells' one of the biggest dealers of gun parts report 3 1/2 years supply of magazines sold in the last few days with them selling out of many. AR style rifles are also becoming scarce and prices have risen considerably.

-- Posted by 356 on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 10:30 AM

http://janmorganmedia.com/2012/12/the-do...

-- Posted by mobushwhacker on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 10:43 AM

"...HL Huntley --- broke the Union block-aide at ports in South and North Carolina ..."

Purely in the interests of historical accuracy, the Hunley did not break blockades in North and South Carloina. It did sink one ship off the Charleston Harbor area, and then sank with all hands, disappearing outside the same harbor for the next 131 years.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 11:04 AM

"The dissenters were in the minority."

That does not alter the fact that they presented Constitutional arguements in their favor. The court has been known to swing in different directions over time.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 11:07 AM

"Cannons, bombs, and explosives existed in the founders day. Where did they prohibit them in the Constitution?"

They did not prohibit knives or bows and arrows either. More dangerous non-civilian arms such as your examples were not protected either, which supports my position that had more dangerous firearms been available in the 1770's the framers might have worded the amendment more carefully so as to not confuse people in the 21st century.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 11:14 AM

As I have posted before , I am dumb as a box of rocks

-- Posted by .Rick Lately on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 11:25 AM

Rick, no one is buying that one. You may be many things, but dumb certainly isn't one of them.

-- Posted by 356 on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 11:30 AM

"That was written in the Declaration of Independence. Are you saying the Declaration of Independence was about electing a new king?"

Of course not, why would anyone think that? If the "alter and abolish" phrase is read in context, it is clear that it is reference to the British King's rule over these colonies with no intent of crowning a new "king" thanks in large part to George Washington turning down the position.

"-- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. -- Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."

Check the phrase, "consent of the governed" which is what just happened on the 6th of November.

And unless one is really paranoid, attention would be paid to what's gone on for over 235 years...

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes..."

I maintain that the whining and complaining about the current administration fall into the "light and transient" category. All of us will have a chance to vote again in 4 years.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 11:35 AM

"Check the phrase, "consent of the governed" which is what just happened on the 6th of November."

I've not said anything about the events of November 6th. We are discussing firearms ownership in a free society, and their intended purpose in preserving the peoples free from tyranny.

If you can show me where Mr. Obama ran on a platform of gun control, I will entertain the idea that the election of November 2012 may have represented a popular referendum against the second amendment. Not that it matters, popular opinion on the rights of citizens does not alter the meaning of the Constitution, unless it is sufficient to result in the passage of an amendment or the convening of a constitutional convention.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 12:00 PM

"I maintain that the whining and complaining about the current administration fall into the "light and transient" category. All of us will have a chance to vote again in 4 years."

The efforts of a faction of the people to disarm the other faction is not the sole proprietorship of this administration. It is a battle that has been waged here since before the 1930s, when the first significant federal gun control measures were passed.

You seem to think every issue is a direct reflection upon the current occupant of the White House. That is hardly the case. He is the current voice for gun control, but he is merely an echo of a voice that has been sounding for decades. That his mouth is the current one that demands that the the right of the people be curtailed does not make this an issue about him, nor does it make his administration the tyranny to be opposed.

Try to look at the bigger picture. It's not all about Mr. Obama, no matter how great you think he may be.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 12:04 PM

Nor do I believe that the founding fathers concerned themselves much with the thought that Barack Obama might be elected some 200 plus years hence. They were concerned with tyrannies, and the rights of the people to repel them, to oppose them, and to shake them off if they gain a foothold.

I have no idea whether Mr. Obama would seek to rule as a tyrant were conditions such that he could overrule our republican form of government. This is not about him. It's about not permitting our emotional reaction to an act of wanton violence result in a lessening of our ability to renounce tyranny, now or in the future.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 12:08 PM

"Leftward? On the 2nd? Perhaps you need to review Heller vs DC again. Scalia's opinion was very clear on the extent of permissible gun regulation."

Leftward because, while the Democrats have been emboldened to more and more brazen liberals forward as justices, the right has been timid about presenting any quite so rightward.

Scalia clearly explains that the militia requirement dictates that it would be unconstitutional to ban semi-automatics, since

they meet the test of weapons in current usage. If Miller had a competent lawyer, he might have been able to present the case that sawed-off shotguns were issued as 'trench guns' in the Great War because of their usefullness in close-quarters fighting. Thus, they would have met the common usage requirement, and not been banned.

As it is, however, semi-automatics 'assault-style weapons' are in common usage and are not only suitable for militia purposes, they are the most preferred type of weapon for the purpose. Thus, by Scalia's argument, the ban would not likely be upheld.

The big question mark, of course, would be Justice Roberts and his distaste for using the Constitution to overturn laws.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 2:03 PM

"...firearms ownership in a free society, and their intended purpose in preserving the peoples free from tyranny."

This represents a major deviation in Constitutional understanding. Per the 2nd Amendment's express purpose of the armed militia being "necessary to the security of a free State" means to me that the militia is there to protect the country. Claiming that this really means that the ultimate danger is tyranny of an elected government is a strange explanation of those same words.

If I recall correctly, the US military oath is to "protect and defend the Constitution of the US." I would trust the military to defend me from tyranny much more that I would trust a gaggle of armed citizens that have their own interpretation of "tyranny."

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 2:24 PM

"Claiming that this really means that the ultimate danger is tyranny of an elected government is a strange explanation of those same words."

Only strange to you. The call to defend the Constitution 'against all enemies, foreign and domestic' implies that there is as much danger within as without.

"If I recall correctly, the US military oath is to "protect and defend the Constitution of the US." I would trust the military to defend me from tyranny much more that I would trust a gaggle of armed citizens that have their own interpretation of "tyranny"."

That you would trust the military to do so is evidence enough that you do not understand the Constitution. The Constitution does not authorize a standing army except in times of war, while specifying that the militia is to be called upon to repel invasions To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

Since Roman times, the people have understood the threat posed by a powerful military, whose loyalty is generally to the government that pays it. Rome would not permit the Army to enter the city walls, for fear it would overthrow the Senate and take to ruling for itself. The Posse Comitatus Act provides some measure of similar prohibition in our own nation.

As often as not, it is the military itself that imposes tyranny, as is now the case in the land we used to call Burma. That you would trust them as your sole defense against tyranny is troubling.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 2:49 PM

Semi-automatic assault rifle bans would likely pass constitutional muster with the current supreme court. -- Posted by Spaniard on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 9:53 AM

Doubtful. Do you hunt? Many, many hunting rifles are semi-automatic.

You left out semi-automatic shot guns. Do you know the difference? Do they matter?

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 2:57 PM

"The efforts of a faction of the people to disarm the other faction is not the sole proprietorship of this administration."

Who is trying disarm who? The only measure having been mentioned recently was banning semi-automatic assault weapons with associated high capacity magazines. Claiming they are "in common usage" is a circular argument, as they are "in use" only because they are for sale and people buy them. Were they not available, they would not be "in use."

In any case I do not believe that the current administration is trying to disarm anyone. No one has put forth a valid and logical position that justifies the ability to fire 30 rounds in a matter of seconds.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 3:00 PM

"Who is trying disarm who? The only measure having been mentioned recently was banning semi-automatic assault weapons with associated high capacity magazines. Claiming they are "in common usage" is a circular argument, as they are "in use" only because they are for sale and people buy them. Were they not available, they would not be "in use"."

In common use refers to the common use by military and militia units, I would suppose. Otherwise, our militia would find itself at a tactical disadvantage when called upon to enforce the laws of the United States, to repel invasions, and to suppress insurrections. That may be all well and good for you, who trusts the military to come in and save the day, but it's not what the Constitution prescribes, and it's not in the best interests of a free society.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 3:04 PM

No one has put forth a valid and logical position that justifies the ability to fire 30 rounds in a matter of seconds. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 3:00 PM

You still don't get it. The 2nd amendment is not for hunting. It is to support a WELL ARMED militia. "Well armed" to me is not with a single shot black powder rifle as you contend the 2nd amendment was referring to.

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

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." At least my version says the Militia is to secure the state. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 3:20 PM

What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" do you not understand?

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 3:08 PM

"In any case I do not believe that the current administration is trying to disarm anyone. No one has put forth a valid and logical position that justifies the ability to fire 30 rounds in a matter of seconds."

To disarm is to remove _or reduce_ the capabilities to attack or defend.

If there are 30 people attacking, it might make sense to be able to expend 30 rounds in a matter of seconds. If there are 15 people attacking, it might make sense to be able to expend 30 rounds in a matter of seconds, if you are not a crack shot. If there are 10 people attacking, it might make sense to be able to expend 30 rounds in a matter of seconds given that you likely will not have the time to take aim between shots.

I thought you were in the military? You should know that.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 3:08 PM

"At least my version says the Militia is to secure the state"

I notice that you keep leaving out the adjective 'free' when describing your state. That, to me, is rather telling.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 3:10 PM

"The Constitution does not authorize a standing army except in times of war..."

I understand the Constitutional reading with respect to a standing Army. And I will assume that you understand that the US military will not be disbanded based on that interpretation. It is not going to change.

"That you would trust them as your sole defense against tyranny is troubling."

As mentioned previously, I trust the military far more than the majority of contributors who have their own interpretation of what "tyranny" is. If someone truly believes that the current US government is "tyrannical" and needs to be violently overthrown, it is those individuals that are sorely troubled and in need of help.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 3:10 PM

"I would trust the military to defend me from tyranny much more that I would trust a gaggle of armed citizens that have their own interpretation of "tyranny"."

That, too, is telling, though I expect nothing less from you. You have indicated again and again that you trust the government more than you trust the citizenry.

Perhaps you need a refresher course in freedom.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 3:12 PM

"f someone truly believes that the current US government is "tyrannical" and needs to be violently overthrown, it is those individuals that are sorely troubled and in need of help."

Once again, you seem to think everything centers around Mr. Obama and the current election cycle.

Most of us are talking about why firearms are needed, and why the Constitution recognizes that need. You, apparently, think that because there is no tyranny now, there is no need to safeguard against one. That's a very narrow view.

"And I will assume that you understand that the US military will not be disbanded based on that interpretation. It is not going to change."

So, you're in favour of ignoring those parts of the Constitution that don't suit your own interpretation of the state of the world.

Perhaps you need a refresher course in tyranny.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 3:16 PM

If someone truly believes that the current US government is "tyrannical" and needs to be violently overthrown, it is those individuals that are sorely troubled and in need of help. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 3:10 PM

And who has called for a violent overthrow? No one posting here recently has. Are you paranoid? I think so.

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 3:20 PM

"...again that you trust the government more than you trust the citizenry."

That is flat incorrect. It is not a matter of "trusting" government. To protect us from "tyranny" I am inclined to trust the military first, and I trust the majority of citizens. The citizenry I distrust are those that claim to believe that armed insurrection is only immediate answer to imaginary problems.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 3:20 PM

The military, unlike the militia, is an arm of the government. It is the very reason the founding fathers were so distrustful of having one permantly quartered in their midst.

"The citizenry I distrust are those that claim to believe that armed insurrection is only immediate answer to imaginary problems."|

And the ones I distrust are those who believe the loss of freedom is an imaginary problem, and the threat of tyranny an imaginary threat.

"There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him."

Robert A. Heinlein -

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."

James Madison -

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

Thomas Jefferson -

"Rebellion to tyranny is obedience to God."

Thomas Jefferson -

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

Samuel Adams -

"No one is an unjust villain in his own mind. Even - perhaps even especially - those who are the worst of us. Some of the cruelest tyrants in history were motivated by noble ideals, or made choices that they would call 'hard but necessary steps' for the good of their nation. We're all the hero of our own story."

Jim Butcher -

"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."

Jeff Cooper -

"For somehow this is tyranny's disease, to trust no friends."

Aeschylus -

"Whatever crushes individuality is despotism."

John Stuart Mill -

"Experience hath shown, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."

Thomas Jefferson -

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 3:34 PM

Excellent quotes Shapley. Thanks. Especially those from the "founding fathers" of this nation.

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 3:37 PM

Robert Heinlein was one of those radical paranoids, apparently, that did not understand that democratic tyranny (tyranny of the masses) is not to be confused with despotic tyranny.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 3:45 PM

I would trust the military to defend me from tyranny much more that I would trust a gaggle of armed citizens that have their own interpretation of "tyranny."

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 2:24 PM

Like you have?

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 4:10 PM

"It is the very reason the founding fathers were so distrustful of having one permantly quartered in their midst."

The quartering of troops appears to have been a hangover from the Revolutionary War.

Per the 3rd Amendment...

"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

This simply says that Congress must authorize the quartering of the Militia.

I would suggest that the need for a standing army was negated by the Atlantic Ocean and the distance from potential enemies.

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

As far as the quotations, I agree with all of them.

One caution on Jefferson's quote that was listed last. The "tyranny" that was predicted over time, was based on Jefferson's experience with governments that existed up to 1775. Were he alive today, he might have a different opinion.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 4:20 PM

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 4:20 PM

Tyranny - like confiscating 4 months of person's labor as "taxation"? Are as Jefferson's other quote says "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine".

We are definitely in or headed toward "mob rule" according to Jefferson.

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 4:33 PM

Ted Nugent schools Piers Morgan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMso12zeY...

-- Posted by mobushwhacker on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 4:43 PM

I like what TJ said about Shay's Rebellion: God help us all if we don't have one every 10 years.

-- Posted by Simon Jester on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 5:20 PM

"Would not the military be a tool or arm of the tyranny and oppression ??"

No, why should it be? The US military takes an oath the protect and defend the Constitution, not the government.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 6:38 PM

When someone mentions the ability to fire 30 rounds in a matter of seconds, I think of fully automatic weapons. When someone uses the term semi-automatic assault weapons, I wonder about single shot assault weapons. [What constitutes the "assault" adjective?] I wasn't in the military but I think I understand the difference in a semi-automatic and a fully automatic weapon better than Common. I also understand the left's strategy of falsely defining the difference in the two into hunting and military catagories. And high capacity magazines, give me a break, next you will want to ban BB guns that hold a hole wad of BBs.

Common, Were Jefferson alive today, he might have the same opinion and say "I told you so" referring to several tyrants starting with Hitler, Hussain, Stalin and many others.

-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 11:37 PM

"The quartering of troops appears to have been a hangover from the Revolutionary War."

By 'quartered among us' I mean simply living in our midst. The founders were fearful of having a full-time army in the government's employ. They have to be paid, even in peacetime, and thus the need arises to justify their cost. As

a result, we tend to find ourselves embroiled more and more often in conflicts that are not of our interest. They have to be kept busy 'keeping peace' abroad lest they begin to think it their duty to keep peace at home.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Dec 22, 2012, at 8:01 AM

"The "tyranny" that was predicted over time, was based on Jefferson's experience with governments that existed up to 1775. Were he alive today, he might have a different opinion."

Why, because there are no tyrannies today?

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Dec 22, 2012, at 8:02 AM

"No, why should it be? The US military takes an oath the protect and defend the Constitution, not the government."

Politicians take the same oath, so we must have nothing to fear, eh?

Of course, they swear to uphold the Constitution as they are told it exists. That poses probiem for those schooled in state schools and fed a steady stream of 'interpretation' of the Constitution based on the idea that, among other things, it gives near unlimited power to government...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Dec 22, 2012, at 8:07 AM

"Experience hath shown, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."

Thomas Jefferson -

Were Jefferson able to have seen all of the tyrannies that have existed since 1775, he would have justifiable hope for the government of the United States. Compared to the Stalins, Hitlers, Maos, Pol Pot's of the world our government has been remarkedly free of "tyrannical" tendancies.

I suggest that Jefferson would have laughed at those today who equate Constitutional taxation with tyranny.

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

By 'quartered among us' I mean simply living in our midst.

You may mean that, but the founders were undoubtedly referring to past British practice of forcing homeowners to give up their living spaces so troops could move in to private houses.

- - - - - - - - - -

"That poses problem for those schooled in state schools and fed a steady stream of 'interpretation' of the Constitution based on the idea that, among other things, it gives near unlimited power to government..."

Having been educated in a public or state school, I received a excellent education to include a clear understanding of the Constitution and the significant limitations it places on government power. Why would anyone claim that the power of government is nearly unlimited?

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Dec 22, 2012, at 9:04 AM

Why would anyone claim that the power of government is nearly unlimited?-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Dec 22, 2012, at 9:04 AM

What can the government not do? Warrentless taps? Drones above cities? Cameras on every corner? Force purchase of commercial products or get fined? Ignore laws? Indebt a citizenry beyond their means?

Are you aware that every keystroke you make and every phone call you take is recorded? Is this news to you?

Prohibit or stop farming on privately owned land based on no facts at all? Confiscate personal property for COMMERCIAL development in the name of "eminent domain"?

Double jeopardy in the name of "civil rights" like the policemen in the Rodney King prosecutions?

-- Posted by Dug on Sat, Dec 22, 2012, at 9:40 AM

You really need to get a grip on reality. I'm sure that paranoia can be treated.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Dec 22, 2012, at 11:07 AM

"Having been educated in a public or state school,..."

I think mine was a better education, for it taught me to realize later the ignorance I was left with upon graduating a public school.

Common is still stuck on what they taught him.

-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Dec 22, 2012, at 11:15 AM

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Dec 22, 2012, at 11:07 AM

As usual more style and no substance. What have I posted above that isn't true? When you can't answer the question - which is very often with you - you go to the paranoia word. Your favorite.

"Paranoia is just having the right information." ― William S. Burroughs

Looks like you're wrong again...

-- Posted by Dug on Sat, Dec 22, 2012, at 11:40 AM

Per guncite.com

And yet another bogus Washington quote:

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government

The actual quote:

A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies.

---George Washington's First Annual Message to Congress (January 8, 1790)

As you can see, no mention of a paranoid fear of government.

For those with an aversion to the term "paranoid," simply substitute the phrase "mental state characterized by unfounded fears and delusions of persecution."

This condition is frequently displayed by individuals that create for themselves baseless and unproven suspicions of government agencies.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Dec 22, 2012, at 9:10 PM

This condition is frequently displayed by individuals that create for themselves baseless and unproven suspicions of government agencies. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Dec 22, 2012, at 9:10 PM

That thought often comes to mind when I think of you. Paranoid that people who don't like Obama are scary. Get a grip son.

What does quoting Washington do? So what? What don't you get about ""the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"?

You avoid the hard, constitutional points and go to quoting something from Washington. You're losing the argument again.

-- Posted by Dug on Sat, Dec 22, 2012, at 9:57 PM

Here the quote militias:

"First, the constitution ought to secure a genuine and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always by kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms; and that all regulations tending to render this general militia useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments in the community to be avoided." Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, January 25, 1788.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sat, Dec 22, 2012, at 10:35 PM

Should be... Here is the quote I have been looking for about militias.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sat, Dec 22, 2012, at 10:38 PM

Petition to deport Piers Morgan:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitio...

-- Posted by mobushwhacker on Sun, Dec 23, 2012, at 1:59 AM

"You may mean that, but the founders were undoubtedly referring to past British practice of forcing homeowners to give up their living spaces so troops could move in to private houses."

I'm aware of that, but I was not quoting the third amendment.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Dec 23, 2012, at 7:59 AM

"Why would anyone claim that the power of government is nearly unlimited?"

Perhaps because we now have those in government who believe our Constitution empowers the government to require the people to purchase things they may not want, to take monies from one group of citizens to pay the lawful bills of others, and that has blurred the line between general welfare and individual welfare.

Because we have a government that believe 'regulation of commerce' includes the authority to regulate anything that may have been somehow acquired through commerce, directly or inderectly, or may somehow influence commerce, directly or indirectly.

Because we have those in government that now seek to require citizens to permit needles to be stuck in them so the government may extract a portion of their blood, against their wishes, in order to require their own body to testify against their selfs.

I somehow don't believe Mr. Jefferson would be laughing at those who oppose such measures.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Dec 23, 2012, at 8:08 AM

"Who was educated in those socialist state schools?"

Where did I use the word 'socialist'?

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Dec 23, 2012, at 8:10 AM

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/man-atte...

An off-duty police officer, standing guard at a movie theatre, shot down a gunman that had entered the theatre, apparently intent upon killing a number of people after breaking up with his girlfriend.

The shooter first entered a restaurant and attempted to open fire, but the gun jammed. He apparenlty chased the restaurant workers into the parking lot before entering the theatre.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Dec 23, 2012, at 8:48 AM

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Dec 23, 2012, at 8:48 AM

And the media put it on the back burner.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Dec 23, 2012, at 12:21 PM

Mo Bush

Poor ole Piers

http://weaselzippers.us/2012/12/23/cry-m...

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Dec 23, 2012, at 2:52 PM

The petition only lacked 359 votes at 4:30 to send him on his way.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Dec 23, 2012, at 4:30 PM

"...require the people to purchase things they may not want..."

Are you suggesting that people may not want treatment for illnesses or accidents. Health care is a totally different category of "product." it is not as if the government is requiring the purchase of broccoli or big screen TV's.

Why is this different that government provided fire or police protection which the government requires you to "purchase" through the expenditure of tax receipts?

I would consider this another case of making a mountain out of an anthill.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Dec 23, 2012, at 4:43 PM

"And if you opt out of buying it and cannot pay for your treatment... I would put that under the TS category."

Possibly you would, but hospitals cannot say TS and refuse to treat people in an emergency room.

That is also the reason for all individuals to have insurance, and the vast majority already do. I would guess that all of the complainers that contribute here have sufficent insurance.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Dec 23, 2012, at 7:20 PM

I would guess that all of the complainers that contribute here have sufficent insurance.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Dec 23, 2012, at 7:20 PM

And have all of my adult life. I paid insurance before any luxuries were bought. Now after all the years of doing so healthcare is gonna get worse and it will still cost me the same after I pay for your's also.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Dec 23, 2012, at 8:10 PM

Possibly you would, but hospitals cannot say TS and refuse to treat people in an emergency room. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Dec 23, 2012, at 7:20 PM

Finally you admit you were completely wrong in your claim that "everyone will be forced to pay under obamacare". As we all knew then 30 million new people would be added to "free" health care and illegals will continue to get free treatment - as I pointed out to you many times in the past before you went into spin control.

Your entire fire/police argument is bogus. If I pay for my own fire protection - out of my pocket - then you come along and FORCE me to pay for those who won't pay their own way then you would have a correct analogy. I did have health insurance and I pay for it. Why should I pay for yours or anyone elses?

-- Posted by Dug on Sun, Dec 23, 2012, at 9:08 PM

http://www.kusi.com/story/20412438/polic...

So much for 'paranoia'.

"SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - Police say that the man killed in the home invasion robbery in Sacramento was 1 of the intruders, and the homeowner was among the three people wounded.

"Sacramento police spokesman Officer Doug Morse says when officers were called to a home around 3:30 a.m. Saturday they found that four people had been shot in an exchange of gunfire between the homeowner and the intruders.

"1 of the robbery suspects died at the scene, while the homeowner and two other suspects were hospitalized with non-life threatening wounds.

"Police say 1 of the two suspects - 21-year-old Thomas Ordonaz -has been arrested and charged with assault with a deadly weapon. No other names have been released.

"Morse says the robbery attempt took place while a number of young people were in the home during a sleepover, but that none were injured in the shooting."

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Dec 23, 2012, at 9:22 PM

http://www.kusi.com/story/20412438/polic...

So much for 'paranoia'.

"SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - Police say that the man killed in the home invasion robbery in Sacramento was 1 of the intruders, and the homeowner was among the three people wounded.

"Sacramento police spokesman Officer Doug Morse says when officers were called to a home around 3:30 a.m. Saturday they found that four people had been shot in an exchange of gunfire between the homeowner and the intruders.

"1 of the robbery suspects died at the scene, while the homeowner and two other suspects were hospitalized with non-life threatening wounds.

"Police say 1 of the two suspects - 21-year-old Thomas Ordonaz -has been arrested and charged with assault with a deadly weapon. No other names have been released.

"Morse says the robbery attempt took place while a number of young people were in the home during a sleepover, but that none were injured in the shooting."

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Dec 23, 2012, at 9:22 PM

"Why is this different that government provided fire or police protection which the government requires you to "purchase" through the expenditure of tax receipts?"

Do I really have to explain this to you, again?

Police and Fire Protection are provided, not by the Federal government but by local government. They are not a requirement, and individuals are not required to purchase police or fire protection policies - they are provided as a means of serving the general welfare, not the individual welfare of certain citizens.

"I would consider this another case of making a mountain out of an anthill."

Of course you would, because you like the idea of having the other people, through the power of government, paying the bills of individual citizens.

I would consider it another case of willful blindness. The truth is laid before you, but you don't want to see it because it contradicts what you want to believe the government should have the power to do.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Dec 23, 2012, at 9:27 PM

'Paranoia' has become the new buzzword of 'the left'. It seems to have replaced 'teabagger' as the word being spread routinely about the blogosphere by the minions of the Democratic Party.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Dec 23, 2012, at 9:29 PM

"Are you suggesting that people may not want treatment for illnesses or accidents. Health care is a totally different category of "product."

Health care is not the same as health coverage. The government has not compelled the purchase of health care. Health coverage is not the same as treatment for illnesses or accidents. You can receive treatment for illnesses or accidents sans health coverage.

Health coverage is a financial service offered by financial service companies. It is a product. It is as different from health care as a mortgage is different from a home or an auto loan is different from an automobile.

The government sought to make health care more affordable by providing it 'free' to certain classes of people, and financing for other classes. Now, the government has found that 'free' health care is too expensive, and is seeking avenues to reduce the burden it has assumed upon itself. The solution they arrived it is to compel people to purchase a financial service from financial service companies in order to have those financial service companies shoulder an increased share of the burden. The companies are thus guaranteed customers courtesy of the mandate, in exchange for an increase in the share of the costs they shoulder.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Dec 23, 2012, at 9:38 PM

'Paranoia' has become the new buzzword of 'the left'. It seems to have replaced 'teabagger' as the word being spread routinely about the blogosphere by the minions of the Democratic Party.-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Dec 23, 2012, at 9:29 PM

Or to quote another poster earlier this year...

It's always funny to watch these gentlemen when the recognize they're on the losing side of a discussion, they invariably start name calling. We can laugh about it, but it's pretty sad. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Aug 30, 2012, at 8:22 AM

-- Posted by Dug on Sun, Dec 23, 2012, at 10:21 PM

"Of course you would, because you like the idea of having the other people, through the power of government, paying the bills of individual citizens."

Allowing individuals to obtain treatment without having insurance is what drives the need for all to have health insurance. This prohibits other people from receiving free treatmant paid for by others, which seems to be what you object to.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Dec 23, 2012, at 10:45 PM

This prohibits other people from receiving free treatmant paid for by others, which seems to be what you object to.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Dec 23, 2012, at 10:45 PM

to cover them

So if we paying $65 to cover them how is it not paid for by others?

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Dec 23, 2012, at 11:00 PM

So far no one has said I have to buy police insurance. Don't give them any ideas!

I still think the goal is to end up with a people's department of life services that will include present day medicare, medicade, all medical and general welfare-social services as a single department of the federal government.

All we need is passage of the Fair Income Distribution act to get it rolling.

-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Dec 23, 2012, at 11:38 PM

Don't give them any ideas.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Dec 24, 2012, at 8:51 AM

More FACTS for the gun hysteria. Read and LEARN. From Fox News today:

"In the wake of the Connecticut elementary school massacre, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., already has vowed to introduce such a bill at the start of the session. President Obama is voicing support.

Data published earlier this year showed that while the ban was in place, from 1994 to 2004, the number of mass shootings actually rose slightly during that period.".

Those **** facts!

-- Posted by Dug on Mon, Dec 24, 2012, at 1:10 PM

Piers Morgan's Get the **** out of here petition has a overrun of 25000 votes.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Dec 24, 2012, at 8:29 PM

"Allowing individuals to obtain treatment without having insurance is what drives the need for all to have health insurance. This prohibits other people from receiving free treatmant paid for by others, which seems to be what you object to."

So you favour using the government to force people to pay their bills, whether they incur them or not, before the fact?

I don't think the govenment should be in the payment-enforcment business.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Dec 25, 2012, at 9:11 AM

Momentum Grows for Gun Buyback Programs, Confiscation

103 1 1064

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

Email ArticlePrint Article

Send a Tip by Ben Shapiro 25 Dec 2012, 6:35 AM PDT 422post a comment

A letter from 40 members of Congress and directed toward House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) demanded a national gun buyback program yesterday. The letter was penned by Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) and Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL). "Gun buybacks have proven successful in communities across the nation," the open letter to House colleagues reads. "Adding $200 million to the final compromise on the fiscal cliff could remove as many as one million guns from our streets." Such a step, said the Congressmen, would be a "simple, immediate step we can take to assure the public we are committed to taking meaningful action."

The Democrats also argued that the gun buyback program would be a form of stimulus: "Distributing funding to the states to run buyback programs using prepaid debit cards with a three-month expiration date could provide a jolt to local economies that have stagnated in the wake of the recession and concerns over the fiscal cliff."

Democrats want to ban guns, that's nothing new. The democrat in chief has indicated we need to do it for the children while his children's school has armed security officers, [Sidwell Friends School] not secret service but routine operation.

In my opinion gun buy back programs are stupid but what's really wrong headed is the thinking in the last part. How can buying guns and then destroying them be a stimulus for the economy? I though they would have learned something with the Cash for Clunkers program where they paid borrowed money for cars that had value and then wasted the potential resale to Mexico. Or at least they could have got some good cigars if they traded them to Cuba.

-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Dec 25, 2012, at 11:55 PM

Reading through some of the comments posted on this issue reminds me of what it was 31 years ago that prompted me to move away from Southeast Missouri.

-- Posted by RevPatos on Wed, Dec 26, 2012, at 12:45 PM

Reading through some of the comments posted on this issue reminds me of what it was 31 years ago that prompted me to move away from Southeast Missouri. -- Posted by RevPatos on Wed, Dec 26, 2012, at 12:45 PM

Great. What are you reading the local news for? How are things in NY? Or Chicago? Or St. Louis? Where crime is rampant, murders are high, welfare is "the rule" and the environment is destroyed? You know, those cities run by people that think like you...

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Dec 26, 2012, at 2:42 PM

I read this the other day. The utter stupidity of a newspaper looking for an increase in circulation. As the article finally points out now criminals know which homes are defended with guns and which homes are "gun free zones" as liberals like to call them.

If I were deciding where to break into a house I'd want to know where all the "gun free zones" were. Easy pickins.

It's amazing the liberal mind set that a person next door who owns a gun is a vital, scary threat to you personally. According to this article liberals sit around scared for their life because the family next door has a shot gun or a pistol. This is how Obama got elected. Simpletons that vote democrat based on a campaign of fear. Or as Obama's advisor once said "never let a good crisis go to waste".

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Dec 27, 2012, at 9:57 AM

Gun owners published the article's author's home address on facebook, along with a photo of his house.

I can't imagine that he would have any reason to be concerned about it, given that he had no qualms about publishing the address of the firearms owners.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 27, 2012, at 10:14 AM

Yet another reason to oppose licensing.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Dec 27, 2012, at 11:35 AM

http://www.infowars.com/firearm-confisca...

-- Posted by mobushwhacker on Fri, Dec 28, 2012, at 12:40 AM

Wow, is Illinois/Chicago great or what!!!???

CHICAGO !!!!

Perhaps the U.S. should pull out of Chicago?

Body count: In the last six months 292 killed (murdered) in Chicago .

221 killed in Iraq AND Chicago has one of the strictest gun laws in the entire US.

Does THAT tell you anything ???

President:--Barack Hussein Obama

Senator: Dick Durbin

House Representative: Jesse Jackson Jr.

Governor: Pat Quinn

House leader: Mike Madigan

Atty. Gen.: Lisa Madigan (daughter of Mike)

Mayor: Rahm Emanuel

The leadership in Illinois - all Democrats.

Thank you for the combat zone in Chicago .

Of course, they're all blaming each other.

Can't blame Republicans; there aren't any!

Chicago school system rated one of the worst in the country.

State pension fund $78 Billion in debt, worst in country.

CookCounty ( Chicago ) sales tax 10.25% highest in country.

(Look 'em up if you want).

This is the political culture that Obama comes from in Illinois .

And...... he is gonna 'fix' Washington politics for us???

-- Posted by dab1969 on Fri, Dec 28, 2012, at 12:14 PM

What better incentive for a thief to steal guns than a no questions asked place to fence the loot?

-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Dec 28, 2012, at 12:22 PM

Actually, Jesse Jackson, Jr. resigned in November, shortly after being re-elected, citing his health but acknowledging that he is being investigated for several instances of misuse of monies.

The leading contender to be his replacement is vehemently anti-gun, but was caught trying to carry one through the airport.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Dec 28, 2012, at 12:26 PM

L.A.'s gun 'buyback' program produced two rocket launchers

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/12/28/...

"A gun buyback program hosted by the Los Angeles Police Department on Wednesday was so successful, it yielded thousands of firearms -- including two antiquated rocket launchers.

"The rocket launchers were likely from wars of the past and once belonged to veterans, police told LA Weekly."

________

No questions asked means no questions asked. Thus, I reckon, we'll never know for sure where they got them.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Dec 28, 2012, at 2:21 PM

What is an "illegal knife"? Didn't know such a thing existed.

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Dec 28, 2012, at 3:54 PM

I was wondering that myself. I know there are certain knives that illegal to sell in Illinois, but I did not believe they were illegal to own, at least not on your own property.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Dec 28, 2012, at 3:58 PM

I tell you what. Thank god Il has the strongest gun laws. God knows how many would be shot by law abiding people.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Dec 28, 2012, at 4:00 PM

http://pweb.netcom.com/~brlevine/sta-law...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Dec 28, 2012, at 4:03 PM

Learn something new everyday. I never imagined that any kind of knife would be illegal. Interesting.

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Dec 28, 2012, at 5:06 PM

Ill just stick with my little 380 auto.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Dec 28, 2012, at 5:10 PM

It's not illegal to make your own knife, even if it is crudely made.

Apparently switchblades are illegal in many states and in many cities. Many knife catalogues identify certain knives as 'cannot be shipped to' various states, including Illinois. As I've said, however, it was my understanding those restrictions applied to sales of the knives, not to ownership. The law I posted identifies knives as illegal only when they are brandished in a threatening manner.

I saw a group of immigrants harvesting wild grapevine a few years back. Several of them had crudely-made machetes which appeared to be made of sheet metal with duct tape wound around the stem to form a handle. To the best of my understanding, there is nothing illegal about that. Such machetes were common in Vietnam, I understand.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Dec 28, 2012, at 10:01 PM

It's not illegal to make your own knife, even if it is crudely made.

Apparently switchblades are illegal in many states and in many cities. Many knife catalogues identify certain knives as 'cannot be shipped to' various states, including Illinois. As I've said, however, it was my understanding those restrictions applied to sales of the knives, not to ownership. The law I posted identifies knives as illegal only when they are brandished in a threatening manner.

I saw a group of immigrants harvesting wild grapevine a few years back. Several of them had crudely-made machetes which appeared to be made of sheet metal with duct tape wound around the stem to form a handle. To the best of my understanding, there is nothing illegal about that. Such machetes were common in Vietnam, I understand.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Dec 28, 2012, at 10:01 PM

At one time a knife with a certian length blade that could be opened with one hand or a knife of a certian length concealed was illegal, or at least that is what a sheriff told me.

I have a very functional home made knife in my kitchen drawer. Some of the old crosscut and hand saws had some good steel for such.

-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Dec 28, 2012, at 11:30 PM

It used to be a locking knife with a blade of 5.5 inches. Then it was changed to if it were used as a weapon. I think there is no law in Missouri against them now if they are classified as on journey the same as guns.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sat, Dec 29, 2012, at 12:30 AM

A facebook account was suspended because the account owners posted this *true* comment from Gandhi:

"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." - Mohandas Gandhi

Gandhi - a nobel peace prize winner

The story: http://www.naturalnews.com/038484_Gandhi...

-- Posted by Dug on Sat, Dec 29, 2012, at 9:27 AM

Per gandhism.net --

"The following are all direct quotes from Mohandas Gandhi, with the occasional commentary added only in order to inform the reader of the context. These are the stated and verified opinions of Gandhi."

Here is another...

To the British during WWII: "This manslaughter must be stopped. You are losing; if you persist, it will only result in greater bloodshed. Hitler is not a bad man." ~ G.D. Birla's "In the Shadow of the Mahatma," p. 276

Just because a quote is attributable to Gandhi, does make it logical. Even he was wrong at times....

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Dec 29, 2012, at 10:34 AM

Also here's the rest of the "blackest" misdeed quote. Context makes a difference, as does the fact that Indians were subjugated to British rule, not a free people.

"If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn."

"From a leaflet urging Indians to serve with the British Army in World War I, Part V, Chapter 27, Recruiting Campaign"

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Dec 29, 2012, at 10:41 AM

If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn." -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Dec 29, 2012, at 10:41 AM

And that is the exact reason we have the 2nd amendment in the United States - not for hunting squirrels but mistrust of any government.

Still, the Gandhi quote stands on it's own. I've seen you spin Obama's direct quotes about being OK with $5/gallon gas or dissing the Cambridge police or telling business owners they didn't build that.

-- Posted by Dug on Sat, Dec 29, 2012, at 11:01 AM

Gun deaths and injuries have dropped sharply in California, even as the number of guns sold in the state has risen, according to new state data.

Dealers sold 600,000 guns in California last year, up from 350,000 in 2002, according to records of sale tallied by the California Attorney General's office.

During that same period, the number of California hospitalizations due to gun injuries declined from about 4,000 annually to 2,800, a roughly 25 percent drop, according to hospital records collected by the California Department of Public Health.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/27/5079151...

-- Posted by mobushwhacker on Sat, Dec 29, 2012, at 11:14 AM

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sat, Dec 29, 2012, at 12:30 AM

http://www.moga.mo.gov/htmlpages/Indexne...

http://www.moga.mo.gov/htmlpages/Indexne...

http://www.moga.mo.gov/htmlpages/Indexne...

-- Posted by 356 on Sat, Dec 29, 2012, at 11:24 AM

He does not.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Dec 29, 2012, at 3:35 PM

Rick, Hitler dreamed of Germany being the greatest country in the world. I don't think that is Obama's dream for America, although some of Obama's economic policies are beginning to look akin to that of the Weimar republic.

I'm beginning to think Obama and his bunch don't have a clue or they are very smart with a very bad adgenda for us. Either way, it's going to get worse before it gets better IMO.

-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Dec 29, 2012, at 11:24 PM

Wheels, You fixin to turn into something or somewhere?

-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Dec 29, 2012, at 11:57 PM

Wheels, Don't forget to check your tank for Glugite damage before you shove off. Remember to release the park brake and when you get safely away from the threat of bad weather, get that St. Charles the 14th stuff washed off your roof.

-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Dec 30, 2012, at 12:15 AM

"Warm" and best wishes of a happy new year to you and all my fellow idio=+ fine posters!

-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Dec 30, 2012, at 12:34 AM

Oops, Disregard the idio=+ :)

-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Dec 30, 2012, at 12:35 AM

Media remains silent as off duty police officer shoots would be theater killer in San Antonio

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/201...

-- Posted by mobushwhacker on Sun, Dec 30, 2012, at 10:38 AM

-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Dec 30, 2012, at 12:36 AM

Run Forest Run.......

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Dec 30, 2012, at 11:37 AM

Wheels - have you eaten any "reds" yet?

-- Posted by Dug on Mon, Dec 31, 2012, at 8:51 AM

In the wake of the tragedy in CT, I looked at the city profile for Cape. Rate of crime over the last 10 years ranged rated from 360-430. National average rate of crime: 319. Cape's crime rate is higher than any of the other places I've lived: Austin, Denver &, this year, it's higher than Los Angeles. Wow, so much for small town safety.

With a crime rate of 72 per 1,000 residents, Cape has one of the highest crime rates in Am. compared to all communities of all sizes - from the smallest towns to the very largest cities. One's chance of becoming a victim of either violent or property crime here is 1 in 14. Within MO., more than 96% of the communities have a lower crime rate than Cape.

Separately, it's always important to compare a city's crime rate with those of similarly sized communities - a fair comparison as larger cities tend to have more crime. NeighborhoodScout has done just that. With a population of 38,402, Cape G has a combined rate of violent/property crime that is very high compared to other places of similar population size. Regardless of whether Cape does well or poorly compared to all other towns in the US of all sizes, compared to places with a similar population, it fares BADLY. Few other communities of this size have a crime rate as high as Cape.

The crime data that NeighborhoodScout used for this analysis are the 7 offenses from the uniform crime reports, collected by the FBI from 17,000 local law enforcement agencies.

Cape's violent crime rate is one of the HIGHEST in the NATION. Violent offenses: forcible rape, murder and non-negligent manslaughter, armed robbery, and aggravated assault, including assault with a deadly weapon. Your chance of becoming a victim of a VIOLENT crime in Cape: is 1 in 151.

NeighborhoodScout found Cape to have a lot of property crime (burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, and arson). Your chance of becoming a victim of a property crime in Cape: 1 in 15.

Private citizens should have the right to protect themselves by any means possible. Need more police and better judges.

-- Posted by commonsenz on Mon, Dec 31, 2012, at 9:38 AM

Diane Feinstein circa 1995 "Mr and Mrs America turn in your guns"

http://www.infowars.com/video-dianne-fei...

-- Posted by mobushwhacker on Mon, Dec 31, 2012, at 11:43 AM

Remember it's only ok when THEY do it

http://youtu.be/jrJjlPH1dqo

-- Posted by mobushwhacker on Mon, Dec 31, 2012, at 12:21 PM

-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Dec 31, 2012, at 1:30 PM

Awesome. Pecan pie... Enjoy the trip and have a safe one!

-- Posted by Dug on Mon, Dec 31, 2012, at 4:41 PM

Did have a World Class piece of Pecan Pie for lunch though.

-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Dec 31, 2012, at 1:30 PM

Did they have a good pecan year?

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Dec 31, 2012, at 6:08 PM

Man they were high this year. I guess it is Obamanomics.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Dec 31, 2012, at 8:02 PM

'Man they were high this year"

Regret, those trees get a taller each year but if you wait a while the pecans will fall off and you don't have to climb up there.

:):)

-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Dec 31, 2012, at 11:01 PM

When you fall out of the tree it is amazing how many come down with you.

I paid about 30% more for 20 pounds of shelled pecans this year for my famous cinnamon pecans

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Jan 1, 2013, at 1:31 AM

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columni...

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Jan 1, 2013, at 2:06 AM

Regret, Good article.

-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jan 1, 2013, at 4:40 PM

"I know Rick.... that's me, I love Pecan Pie. Pronounced P Can where my sister lives in Georgia and P Con in Missouri."

...and Per Lean (spelled 'Praline') in Louisiana...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 2, 2013, at 8:19 AM

For Wheels: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhfK98f5...

-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Jan 2, 2013, at 6:18 PM

How to destroy school shooting evidence. Proof "assault weapon" was not used in Newtown shooting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl...!

-- Posted by mobushwhacker on Wed, Jan 2, 2013, at 10:16 PM

A great 6 minute video about guns and gun bans.

Did you know that the Colorado movie theater shooter passed a number of closer movie theaters and went to the ONLY movie theater out of 7 that had a sign on it's entrance that said "No Guns Allowed"?

Did you know that every single multiple gun massacre since 1950 - except 1 - occurred in a "gun free" zone?

Did you know that the columbine massacre happened when we had a ban on assault weapons? And there were guards at the school?

The liberal argument on gun control is so weak it's almost like an attempt to re-elect Barack Obama to a second term based on the facts of his failed administration. Oh wait - he did get re-elected didn't he? Facts don't matter to the media or liberals.

The 6 minute video is here:

http://realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/...

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Jan 4, 2013, at 4:09 PM

Rick:

Maybe if we established gun control in Washington DC only, we could round up..........well you get my drift.

-- Posted by left turn on Sat, Jan 5, 2013, at 11:06 AM

From Obama himself in 2008: "I will not take your guns away, I will not take your shotgun, I will not take your rifle, I will not take your handgun away - I believe in the 2nd amendment".

Here is the video:

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-wil...

I expect no response from the kool-aid democrats on here. They have bought every lie this guy has ever told. Thank God there are some of us that know he is lying about every time he opens his mouth. A majority of his followers are bought-and-paid-for entitlement crowd and the rest are simpletons that will vote for him because of the (D) behind his name.

-- Posted by Dug on Sun, Jan 6, 2013, at 11:42 AM

"I believe in the 2nd amendment".

And most reasonable Americans agree, unfortunately some are less than reasonable.

Usually I can ignore these crazy claims made by some. At other times they are so outlandish that no one believes them anyhow, but I can't resist the urge to point out absurdities.

So the President says that he has no intention to " take your shotgun... take your rifle... take your handgun away," and there is nothing proposed to do anything of that sort. If Congress does what they should, and place the sale of semi-automatic "assault style" weapons with high capacity clips into the same category as automatic weapons, whose weapon is being confiscated? If Congress passes such a law, prohibiting future sales how is this construed as President Obama, "taking away" weapons?

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jan 6, 2013, at 12:58 PM

"If that wasn't clear.... we don't trust him!"

Whether you and two or three like-minded characters do not, makes very little difference to the rest of the nation. Frankly, we don't care.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jan 6, 2013, at 3:04 PM

"He has to sign the Bill ...."

In truth, he does not. Per Senate.gov.

"The Constitution grants the President 10 days to review a measure passed by the Congress. If the President has not signed the bill after 10 days, it becomes law without his signature."

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jan 6, 2013, at 4:44 PM

"When the military VETs refuse to turn over their privately owned weapons/guns to the Government..."

Perhaps you have not noticed, no one has asked anyone to "turn over weapons." The entire letter is needless.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jan 6, 2013, at 4:48 PM

So the President says that he has no intention to " take your shotgun... take your rifle... take your handgun away," and there is nothing proposed to do anything of that sort.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jan 6, 2013, at 12:58 PM

As usual Obama will let others be the bad guys and then sign it.

You evidently don't know what Dianne Feinstein is wanting.

Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:

Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:

120 specifically-named firearms;

Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and

Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.

Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:

Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test;

Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test; and

Banning firearms with "thumbhole stocks" and "bullet buttons" to address attempts to "work around" prior bans.

Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:

Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;

Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes; and

Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.

Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:

Background check of owner and any transferee;

Type and serial number of the firearm;

Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;

Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and

Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Jan 6, 2013, at 5:49 PM

"...more than me and two or three like-minded characters..."

How about the more than 50% of voters that are not "like-minded."

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jan 6, 2013, at 7:18 PM

Usually I can ignore these crazy claims made by some. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jan 6, 2013, at 12:58 PM

Your spin used to be annoying. Now it's fun to watch - real entertainment.

I especially like it when videos are posted with Obama talking and you take his words and spin it back as "crazy claims made by some". He says he doesn't want to take them away then pushes an agenda to remove them.

You clearly don't hunt either. Semi-automatic is not military. Many hunting rifles are semi-automatic.

And of course the point you keep dodging is this. The 2nd amendment is NOT about giving Americans "hunting" rifles or guns. It's about letting us stay armed to protect the citizens from an unjust dictatorial government, period. Our troops swear under oath a loyalty to the constitution of the United States, not the people who work in the government. And that includes your president.

-- Posted by Dug on Sun, Jan 6, 2013, at 8:07 PM

An editorial writer for the Des Moines Register recently wrote a piece suggesting that Mr. Boehner and other Congressmen who refuse to 'see the light' on gun control be dragged behind the bumper of a pickup truck until they agree with the current swell of opinion on the matter.

As often happens when writers who propose violence as means of quelling violence write their nonsense, he was flooded with calls, letters, and emails.

Also as often happens, he falls back on the line that he was employing satire, comparing himself to Jonathan Swift, and chiding his readers for not being smart enough to comprehend the satirical nature of his writing.

It never seems to occur to them that they ain't Jonathan Swift, and that perhaps it is their writing that lacks intelligence, not their readers...

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jan 7, 2013, at 12:21 PM

The week I've been preoccupied with some things plus hopefully survived the flu going around so this may have been posted before. http://www.infowars.com/obama-signs-bill...

Kind of reminds me of the big mouth Kmart personality that said anyone with a gun should go to prison while her armed body guard stood behind her.

-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jan 12, 2013, at 12:12 AM

Wheels

I have a feeling Doom and gloom disappeared after his post made him look like the next nut case for the media to exploit.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sat, Jan 12, 2013, at 12:31 AM

Wounded Knee.

"THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN PEOPLE ARE STRIPPED OF THEIR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.

December 29, 2012 marks the 122nd Anniversary of the murder of 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. These 297 people, in their winter camp, were murdered by federal agents and members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms "for their own safety and protection". The slaughter began after the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms. The Calvary began shooting, and managed to wipe out the entire camp. 200 of the 297 victims were women and children. About 40 members of the 7th Cavalry were killed, but over half of them were victims of fratricide from the Hotchkiss guns of their overzealous comrades-in-arms. Twenty members of the 7th Cavalry's death squad, were deemed "National Heroes" and were awarded the Medal of Honor for their acts of [cowardice] heroism.

We hear very little of Wounded Knee today. It is usually not mentioned in our history classes or books. What little that does exist about Wounded Knee is normally a sanitized "Official Government Explanation". And there are several historically inaccurate depictions of the events leading up to the massacre, which appear in movie scripts and are not the least bit representative of the actual events that took place that day.

Wounded Knee was among the first federally backed gun confiscation attempts in United States history. It ended in the senseless murder of 297 people.

Before you jump on the emotionally charged bandwagon for gun-control, take a moment to reflect on the real purpose of the Second Amendment, the right of the people to take up arms in defense of themselves, their families, and property in the face of invading armies or an oppressive government. The argument that the Second Amendment only applies to hunting and target shooting is asinine. When the United States Constitution was drafted, "hunting" was an everyday chore carried out by men and women to put meat on the table each night, and "target shooting" was an unheard of concept. Musket balls were a precious commodity and were certainly not wasted on "target shooting". The Second Amendment was written by people who fled oppressive and tyrannical regimes in Europe, and it refers to the right of American citizens to be armed for defensive purposes, should such tyranny arise in the United States.

As time goes forward, the average citizen in the United States continually loses little chunks of personal freedom or "liberty". Far too many times, unjust gun control bills were passed and signed into law under the guise of "for your safety" or "for protection". The Patriot Act signed into law by G.W. Bush, was expanded and continues under Barack Obama. It is just one of many examples of American citizens being stripped of their rights and privacy for "safety". Now, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is on the table, and will, most likely be attacked to facilitate the path for the removal of our firearms, all in the name of "our safety".

Before any American citizen blindly accepts whatever new firearms legislation that is about to be doled out, they should stop and think about something for just one minute-

Evil does exist in our world. It always has and always will. Throughout history evil people have committed evil acts. In the Bible one of the first stories is that of Cain killing Abel. We can not legislate "evil" into extinction. Good people will abide by the law, and the criminal element will always find a way around it.

Evil exists all around us, but looking back at the historical record of the past 200 years, across the globe, where is "evil" and "malevolence" most often found? In the hands of those with the power, the governments. That greatest human tragedies on record and the largest loss of innocent human life can be attributed to governments. Who do the governments always target? "Scapegoats" and "enemies" within their own borders...but only after they have been disarmed to the point where they are no longer a threat. Ask any Native American, and they will tell you it was inferior technology and lack of arms that contributed to their demise. Ask any Armenian why it was so easy for the Turks to exterminate millions of them, and they will answer "We were disarmed before it happened". Ask any Jew what Hitler's first step prior to the mass murders of the Holocaust was- confiscation of firearms from the people.

Wounded Knee is the prime example of why the Second Amendment exists, and why we should vehemently resist any attempts to infringe on our Rights to Bear Arms. Without the Second Amendment we will be totally stripped of any ability to defend ourselves and our families. Jeffrey E."

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Jan 13, 2013, at 7:26 PM

"yes, they need to ban the assault weapons. one does not need to shoot off a hundred rounds to kill any kind of wild gamegame. '

The Second Amendment is not about sporting goods.

"Those kind of weapons are only used for one thing.....and that is killingpeople."

That's what the Second Amendment is about - the right to be able to kill people when it is necessary to do so.

Do you not find it odd that Mr. Obama sees the need for weapons in the hands of the citizens of those nations that are overthowing their dicators? Why would he support arming Syrians while simultaneously try to disarm Americans?

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 15, 2013, at 2:02 PM

so ban the assault weapons. it will stop a lot of this dumb **** tjat occurs

-- Posted by kcknown on Tue, Jan 15, 2013, at 11:45 AM

Assault weapons aren't the problem. White kids are. Ban white kids.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Jan 15, 2013, at 2:24 PM

"...while simultaneously try to disarm Americans?"

The only organization that continually talks about "disarming" Americans is the NRA.

Placing semi-automatic "assault" type weapons with high capacity clips into the same catagory as automatic weapons is not disarming anyone.

How is it that America was not "disarmed" when automatic weapons were banned?

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jan 15, 2013, at 4:38 PM

"Placing semi-automatic "assault" type weapons with high capacity clips into the same catagory as automatic weapons is not disarming anyone."

It disarms everyone who wanted to buy one but is unable to do so lack of availability.

"How is it that America was not "disarmed" when automatic weapons were banned?"

They were, to a limited degree. With an semi-automatic ban, they will be to an even greater degree. Given that semi-automatics include the vast majority of long guns commonly owned by individual citizens, it will be a major reduction in the availability of them, and a major infringement on the citizen's right to own them.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 15, 2013, at 4:51 PM

"The only organization that continually talks about "disarming" Americans is the NRA."

No. China has called for it. The United Nations has pressed for it.

The NRA may be the only one you hear, but that doesn't make them the only one talking.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 15, 2013, at 4:59 PM

"...semi-automatics include the vast majority of long guns commonly owned by individual citizens..."

Those with standard magazines with 6 to 10 rounds would not be effected, so those individual citizens would not be "dis-armed."

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jan 15, 2013, at 6:07 PM

"But , they must re-register their weapons."

Another ex post facto law...

"Those with standard magazines with 6 to 10 rounds would not be effected, so those individual citizens would not be "dis-armed."

Firearms with detachable magazine can generally accommodate larger magazines. That's a lot of generally-available firearms.

There is no federal gun registration, so how is that they can be re-registered?

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 15, 2013, at 8:36 PM

"But , they must re-register their weapons."

Another ex post facto law...

"Those with standard magazines with 6 to 10 rounds would not be effected, so those individual citizens would not be "dis-armed."

Firearms with detachable magazine can generally accommodate larger magazines. That's a lot of generally-available firearms.

There is no federal gun registration, so how is that they can be re-registered?

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 15, 2013, at 8:36 PM

kcklown - you're about as racist a person as I've seen on here. And of course you support Obama. Most racists vote for Obama as we know. Thanks for confirming that.

Commonsense - what part of "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" don't you understand?

-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Jan 15, 2013, at 8:37 PM

Registration is a prelude to confiscation.

Just look at Sikeston's recent 'pit bull roundup'...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 15, 2013, at 8:39 PM

".until it happens again , and it will ...what has happened before will happened again..just like War , it will not stop"

And it will happen again registration or not.

It is funny how the video game makers and the movie industry just said, "it's not our fault" and then were given a pass and forgotten.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Jan 15, 2013, at 10:22 PM

Rick: What do you mean by your 5:40 pm post?

-- Posted by left turn on Wed, Jan 16, 2013, at 5:47 PM

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-s...

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Jan 16, 2013, at 7:46 PM

Hang on to them quietly and when the next whacko goes to shooting up you can be confident and smug that those gun bans and confiscations didn't work.

-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jan 17, 2013, at 12:00 AM

Testimony from Dr. Susan Gratia

http://patriotaction.net/video/dr-susan-...

-- Posted by 356 on Thu, Jan 17, 2013, at 7:08 AM

356

What would she know compared to the anti gun liberals? She should have never been allowed to speak. One thing we do know is the last time this happened gun violence did not drop.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Jan 17, 2013, at 8:18 AM

"What would she know compared to the anti gun liberals?""

Dr. Gratia lived through the Luby's Cafeteria Massacre. Her parents were both shot and killed there. She had left her firearm in her vehicle, in compliance with then-extant firearms laws, preventing her from returning fire against the gunman. She has since served in the Texas Legislature and been an advocate of expanding concealed-carry laws.

I think she is well qualified to testify.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jan 17, 2013, at 9:57 AM

Missouri Law Makers propose nullification of federal gun control laws:

http://www.ktrs.com/news/local-news/item...

I hope this passes.

-- Posted by mobushwhacker on Thu, Jan 17, 2013, at 6:57 PM

Ah and now the real reason for gun control comes out. The South is an area of values, conservative ideals, and the belief in self-defense, maybe that's why New York Congressman Charlie Rangel has stated that Southern areas have a culture we must overcome, while being interviewed about gun control. The same Northern politicians that repeatedly state the war is over, are the same ones that continually interfere with the rights of Southerners.

http://southernnationalist.com/blog/2013...

-- Posted by mobushwhacker on Thu, Jan 17, 2013, at 7:01 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl...!

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Jan 17, 2013, at 9:21 PM

I think she is well qualified to testify.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jan 17, 2013, at 9:57

I was kidding Shap.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Jan 17, 2013, at 9:39 PM

Mobush, Regret, Good posts.

-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jan 17, 2013, at 9:42 PM

Claims by various state and local officials that they will refuse to recognize possible Congressional action to ban the future sale of semi-automatic "assault-style" firearms with high capacity magazines, such as the .223 Bushmaster "Child-Killer" is falsely being touted as "protecting the Constitution" when in actuality it is violating the supremacy clause of the Constitution.

The majority of Americans recognize that these type of publicity grabbing stunts are silly, juvenile, and futile. When Congress acts, this whining will fall by the wayside.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 10:42 AM

New York has banned the standard clip issued with police service weapons. :)

-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 11:34 AM

"...when in actuality it is violating the supremacy clause of the Constitution."

The supremacy clause does not give the federal government the power to violate the rights of her citizens.

State and local officials, like federal officials, have an obligation to preserve and protect the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That includes an overzealous federal government that tries to overstep its bounds and violate the rights enumerated in the Constitution.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 11:36 AM

Commonsens said: "Claims by various state and local officials that they will refuse to recognize possible Congressional action to ban the future sale of semi-automatic "assault-style" firearms with high capacity magazines, such as the .223 Bushmaster "Child-Killer" is falsely being touted as "protecting the Constitution"

Would this be the .224 Bushmaster "Child Killer" that they found in the trunk of the shooters car AFTER the shooting?

And what of the man that was arrested by the police in the woods near Sandy Hook?

Over 10,000,000 people have viewed this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl...

-- Posted by mobushwhacker on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 1:00 PM

* .223

-- Posted by mobushwhacker on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 1:02 PM

This is very good for gun shops. Sales are up. Went to 3 different places in the St. Louis area today. Crowded and low on inventory. Just like in '08

-- Posted by scared of the future on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 3:17 PM

-- Posted by mobushwhacker on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 1:00 PM

The 24/7 Media blew so much garbage out trying to be the first one to have the big scoop that it had everyone confused about the real story. I likened them to the gossip rags that you see at the grocery store checkout.

In the good ol days we would have seen a more responsible reporting from them. Ive been so turned off by this and the political crapola they spew I rarely watch any of them anymore.

The shooting was what it was. A sick kid getting Mom's guns and committing a senseless tragedy. The story said he was a retarded kid that had no training. That was wrong. He did go to the range with his mom. When the original post that was started by Mel said he was sent to a militia training camp I knew what track this thing was taking.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 5:30 PM

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-a...

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 6:00 PM

And what would Alex Jones' agenda be Rick?

-- Posted by mobushwhacker on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 8:23 PM

The funny thing about Rick is this... he likes to get on here and play "Sad" indian. He has talked about how the government has slaughtered "his" people in the past, but then defends the same government and belittles others who question it. I'm sorry Rick you are not the only one "allowed" to ask questions.

-- Posted by mobushwhacker on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 8:26 PM

Rick

I like the football lip reading. Its in the mail.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 10:22 PM

NBC Today Show December 15, 2012. No assault rifle used in shooting. 4 handguns found.

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/30208-nb...

-- Posted by mobushwhacker on Sat, Jan 19, 2013, at 8:35 AM

From a legislator in Virginia this week during a debate on gun control:

"Those who put the Second Amendment into the fabric of our nation understood that a government that is formed and instituted by free people trust its citizens with the right to defend themselves with arms".

That about sums it up for me. Why would a government elected by the people to SERVE the people be afraid of arming them?

-- Posted by Dug on Sat, Jan 19, 2013, at 9:13 AM

New Proposal Will Force Gun Owners to Store Assault Weapons At Government Authorized Storage Depots

http://www.infowars.com/new-proposal-wil...

-- Posted by mobushwhacker on Sun, Jan 20, 2013, at 2:38 AM

Video: Florida Professor Attacked For Questioning Sandy Hook

http://www.infowars.com/video-were-crisi...

-- Posted by mobushwhacker on Sun, Jan 20, 2013, at 2:42 AM

"Those who put the Second Amendment into the fabric of our nation..."

The questions really are what did they really mean and what does that signify today?

What they wrote was...

"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."

Literally, the first half says states (i.e. the former colonies, now free) need a well regulated militia, and to man that militia, the people shall have an un-infringed right to bear arms. The interpretation for the past hundred years or so has been that membership in a militia is not needed and the right applies to "the people" not to the states. The current Supreme Court has upheld this, but has stipulated that the right is not totally without controls.

Note that the Constitution refers only to "the people" and does not clarify this to mean the "law-abiding people" or the "mentally competent people." Even the NRA accepts these limitations on the Second Amendment.

Furthermore the Founders did not clarify what types of arms they were referring to. In all probability they did not intend for each individual to bear his own cannon or bombshells. In those days of flintlock pistols and muskets, further amplification appeared not to be necessary. So today, even the NRA, however reluctantly, concedes that fully automatic weapons, grenade launchers, etc. are too dangerous for general population use. Now it is recognized that most classes of semi-automatic weapons should go into the same category.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jan 20, 2013, at 8:40 AM

Good demonstration for the uneducated gun haters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl...!

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Jan 20, 2013, at 11:17 AM

Good demonstration for the uneducated gun haters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl...!

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Jan 20, 2013, at 11:17 AM

Maybe more gun shows is the answer...

Per CNN

Five people were injured yesterday in accidental shootings at three separate gun shows, reports CNN. A man unpacking a shotgun he intended to sell accidentally discharged the weapon, injuring three people with birdshot at the Dixie Gun and Knife Show in North Carolina. The incident closed down the gun show, but it was set to reopen today. "I'm sure there isn't anybody who hates this more than the guy who owned this weapon," says the local police chief, who added that they were looking into whether it's legal to bring a loaded weapon to state property.

Elsewhere, a man at an Ohio gun show accidentally shot off a semiautomatic weapon, shooting his business partner. And a man at an Indiana gun show accidentally shot himself in the hand as he was loading a .45 caliber semiautomatic. "The investigation determined the shooting to be accidental, and no charges will be filed," says a police official.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jan 20, 2013, at 12:22 PM

In spite of the fact that a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the founders recognized that if the people's right to bear arms was infringed, that militia could be a threat to the free people of such state.

Arms, short for armament does not indicate muskets only.

-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Jan 20, 2013, at 12:32 PM

"...3 out of this varible is minute."

It's still ironic, and funny...

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jan 20, 2013, at 1:17 PM

"...if the people's right to bear arms was infringed, that militia could be a threat to the free people of such state."

The militia was an arm of the state. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was still to provide the individual states a measure of insurance against the federal government.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jan 20, 2013, at 1:24 PM

"..."law-abiding people" or the "mentally competent people."

At one time, criminals deemed to be a threat were locked up, or killed. Only in today's society has been deemed logical to permit those deemed dangerous to walk among us, and to permit the government to disarm those not deemed dangerous in order to protect them from those deemed to be so...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Jan 20, 2013, at 1:42 PM

"The militia was an arm of the state."

What do you mean 'was'?

The Constitution recognized our government as establishing not a nation but rather a union of states, each state maintaining a soverign identity, and each citizen first a citizen of his state and, by extension, a citizen of the United States.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Jan 20, 2013, at 1:46 PM

"It's still ironic, and funny..."

You find injury funny?

I find it suspicious...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Jan 20, 2013, at 1:48 PM

"...each state maintaining a soverign identity..."

How individuals want to be considered is up to them, however all "soverignty" of a state is subordinate to the soverignty of the Federal government.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

As you recall, the Articles of Confederation did not work. You may consider yourself as a state citizen first, but I consider myself a citizen of the US first and Missouri second.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jan 20, 2013, at 2:06 PM

"...that other than another gun haters opinion?"

I have no objection whatsoever about people having guns. It is their perfect right. I don't feel it's necessary and I think that semi-automatic weapons should be controlled.

Other than that, you're welcome to do what you want. My neighbors have guns, friends of mine have guns, my daughter has one, there is no reason at all for me to "hate guns."

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jan 20, 2013, at 3:44 PM

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jan 20, 2013, at 3:44 PM

Wow. Isn't it amazing how you've learned from Mel and others. Have my post removed because I ask if it would be funny if someone accidentally killed one of your family members (exposing you sick sense of humor about the gun show accident) and then post this lame reply. I guess that is the liberal way.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Jan 20, 2013, at 6:12 PM

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;"

Only laws which fall within the narrow scope of federal powers are 'made in Pursuance thereof'...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Jan 20, 2013, at 7:48 PM

"...narrow scope of federal powers..."

As defined by the Supreme Court, rather than anyone that just happens to have an opinion.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jan 20, 2013, at 8:11 PM

For those who invoke the Superceding Clause of the Constitution:

http://www.answers.com/topic/virginia-an...

-- Posted by mobushwhacker on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 1:06 AM

http://www.wnd.com/wnd_video/school-shoo...

-- Posted by mobushwhacker on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 1:12 AM

Per your link...

"The Virginia Resolution of December 24, 1798, claimed that the states "have the right and are in duty bound to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil."

It would seem that the "progress of evil" that the State of Virginia was trying to "arrest" might have been the abolition of slavery. It's good they failed.

Determinations of Constitutionality have been made by the Supreme Court for over 200 years. Nullification by states has never been accepted by the general public, or the nation.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 8:29 AM

"As defined by the Supreme Court, rather than anyone that just happens to have an opinion."

No. As defined by the Constitution, and interpreted by the Supreme Court. That is an important distinction.

The Supreme Court is comprised of men, subject to bias. The President that appoints them and the Senate the confirms them work dillegently to ensure that justices will not sit on the bench which will work against growing the power of the government. That does not mean that growing the power of the government is constitutional.

The justices, after all, call their decisions 'opinions'.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 9:07 AM

"Determinations of Constitutionality have been made by the Supreme Court for over 200 years. Nullification by states has never been accepted by the general public, or the nation."

Congresses tend to delay legislative action until they determine the court is on their side. Leftist presidents tend to appoint justices who will side with growing federal power. Conservative justices strive to appoint justices who will retain the limits as they are seen to exist. Neither side appears willing to try to impose a justice who might actually argue that the limits have been exceeded, at least not since Robert Bork was defeated more or less on the fear that he might do just that.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 9:11 AM

common sense stated: "It would seem that the "progress of evil" that the State of Virginia was trying to "arrest" might have been the abolition of slavery. It's good they failed."

No, it was written to protect the citizens from the Alien and Sedition Act and cited the 10 Amendment which said "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

-- Posted by mobushwhacker on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 3:29 PM

"...the citizens from the Alien and Sedition Act..."

These acts expired on their own and the few people effected were pardoned by Jefferson. The acts were also never brought before the Supreme Court at the time, but opinion was that they would have been declared unconstitutional.

Therefore the attempt at state nullification by Virginia was unnecessary, just as it is today.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 3:59 PM

Judge Napolitano on Nullification:

http://www.dailypaul.com/253313/judge-na...

Common Sense:

The portion of the Kentucky Resolution that I cited was from the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which as you know, still exists, therefore it doesn't matter who Jefferson pardoned or not.

The 10th Amendment protects us (the citizens) from Unconstitutional laws.

-- Posted by mobushwhacker on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 4:15 PM

Shock claim: Obama only wants military leaders who 'will fire on U.S. citizens'

http://www.examiner.com/article/shock-cl...

-- Posted by mobushwhacker on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 9:52 PM

"I don't know how accurate the piece is."

Simple, it is by no means accurate or even close. It's pure BS.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 11:13 PM

Rick

Marlboro and McDonald's? Never thought about that.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 11:35 PM

"There are just laws and there are unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that an unjust law is no law at all... One who breaks an unjust law must do it openly, lovingly...I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law."

- Martin Luther King -

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 8:03 AM

"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."

- Martin Luther King -

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 8:04 AM

"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."

- Martin Luther King -

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 8:04 AM

"...unjust laws."

That's clearly the problem. Who decides which law is just and which is unjust? Different people will likely have different opinions.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 8:35 AM

As in Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in a case involving the DC gun ban, where he recognized that the government has the right to restrict ownership of "dangerous and unusual" weapons. And Justice Scalia is probably the most conservative member of the court.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 9:17 AM

"That's clearly the problem. Who decides which law is just and which is unjust? Different people will likely have different opinions."

I would suspect the jails are full of people who thought certain laws unjust. Society agrees with some, over time, though that agreement may not occur in their lifetime. St. Paul, Dr. King, Nelson Mandela, etc., all went to jail opposing unjust laws. Society, eventually, saw their viewpoint.

In China, in Burma, and elswhere, men and women rot in prisons for taking stands against injustice. Are they right? Are they wrong? The majority of the people there are not taking such a stand. Thus, if popular opinion is the guiding principle, they are wrong. My heart tells me otherwise.

It is thus up to the individual to take such a stand, and to face the consequences of doing so.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 9:38 AM

There is nothing either dangerous nor unusual about semi-automatic firearms.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 9:40 AM

CNN host Piers Morgan has built his case for gun control on an apparent concern for victims of gun violence. However, that concern was not evident when he told an interviewer of his desire to see his critics taken out with machine guns.

http://www.infowars.com/piers-morgan-use...

-- Posted by mobushwhacker on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 11:31 AM

"..the pro-gun control people are way paranoid..."

With over 30,000 deaths by gun fire per year...

It's not paranoia if it's fact.

Whoops, add 3 or 4 for Lone Star College near Houston Texas.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 1:48 PM

Whoops, add 3 or 4 for Lone Star College near Houston Texas. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 1:48 PM

Another "Gun Free" zone?

-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 2:58 PM

Here is one of your Democrat anti-gun specialist at their best. Just one more link that shows guns aren't the problem. Idiots are.

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/anti-gun-d...

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 6:34 PM

Surely this article is spoof. Everyone knows DC lawmakers are of the upmost in character. It's all a right wing conspiracy to tarnish the reputations of the patriotic lawmakers trying to make a difference. These brave souls from the government care about you and only want to help.

:)

-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 6:52 PM

Rick, That concept would surely raise a few eyebrows.

-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 7:36 PM

Rick

I liked the way they all got a punch or kick in before they took him out back to hang him. Liberals think the bad guy is being treated bad.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 9:18 PM

http://www.infowars.com/new-yorks-charli...

-- Posted by mobushwhacker on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 11:11 PM

"The rate of suicides is higher then the rate of homicides ."

The 'gun violence' figures always include the gun suicide figures, which account for over half the gun deaths.

Methinks the idea of 'our bodies, ourselves' and the 'right to choose' would entail a right to perpetrate violence against one's own body, whether that is a right to tattoo it, pierce it, drug it, or destroy it.

From a religious standpoint, I am compelled to oppose suicide, but from a purely legal side, I am compelled to argue that it is not only permissible, but it cannot justifiably be forbidden.

Certainly, if one has the 'right' to destroy the life within one's body, that would not stop at a fetus, would it?

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 23, 2013, at 9:18 AM

Dems target hand guns / rifles

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-r...

-- Posted by mobushwhacker on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 11:56 AM

So, are you saying there was no fear from 'the left' that Judge Bork would interpret the Constitution with an eye towards imposing limits on the power of the federal government?

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 3:49 PM

That argument is not inconsistent with many conservative views. Note the words 'state militia'. Since the Supreme Court has ruled that militia members, which the founding fathers noted as comprising the whole of the able-bodied male population, excepting some government officials, are obligated to arrive for service bearing their own weapons, of the type in general use at the time, would not be inconsistent with private ownership.

The NRA's view is often misrepresented as being that the second amendment is about sporting goods. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Is that from Wikipedia?

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 4:02 PM

"...which the founding fathers noted as comprising the whole of the able-bodied male population..."

Which is clearly not the case anymore. The closest thing to a militia is the National Guard in which weapons are supplied. The only other related action is that all males are required to register for the draft, but they are not required to have their own flintlocks, or any other weapon.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 4:22 PM

"...own weapons, of the type in general use at the time..."

My copy of the Constitution does not say anything of the kind.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 4:24 PM

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 4:22 PM

Where does the constitution mention "flintlocks"? You keep trying to insinuate that the constitution limits weapons by name. Why?

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 4:27 PM

"My copy of the Constitution does not say anything of the kind."

I didn't say that it did. I said the Supreme Court said so.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 4:27 PM

"Which is clearly not the case anymore."

That's correct. It now also includes women.

"The closest thing to a militia is the National Guard in which weapons are supplied."

You need to brush up on the law:

10 USC 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are--

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 4:30 PM

The leader of the unorganzied militia at the local level is the county Sheriff. He/she organizes militia units from time to time, which used to be called 'posses' but are more often referred to as 'search parties' or 'volunteer groups' used to aid in law enforcement.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 4:33 PM

"The only other related action is that all males are required to register for the draft, but they are not required to have their own flintlocks, or any other weapon."

That requirement is for the military. A military is quite distinct from a militia. The government has the authority raise armies in time of war, and to maintain a Navy. The selective service requirement is in response to those authorities.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 4:44 PM

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

UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 4:55 PM

"The leader of the unorganzied militia at the local level is the county Sheriff. He/she organizes militia units from time to time, which used to be called 'posses' but are more often referred to as 'search parties' or 'volunteer groups' used to aid in law enforcement."

Where is it written that this is the case. I've lived in Bollinger County for about 14 years and have never been told that I am part of the "militia."

My contention is that it does not exist, by definition it is "unorganized." I'd say "10 USC 311" is overcome by events.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 4:59 PM

CommonSense what branch of law enforcement are you a member of?

-- Posted by mobushwhacker on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 6:20 PM

"Where is it written that this is the case. I've lived in Bollinger County for about 14 years and have never been told that I am part of the "militia"."

Oh. Well, if you weren't told about it, it must not be true.

"My contention is that it does not exist, by definition it is "unorganized." I'd say "10 USC 311" is overcome by events."

What events would those be?

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 8:08 PM

"Where is it written that this is the case."

It varies by state. In Missouri, the organization of the militia can be found here:

Missouri Revised Statutes

Title V

Chapter 41

Military Forces

Sections 41.030,41.050,41.060,41.070,41.720

August 28, 2005

Section 41.490

updated August 28, 2009

Definitions.

41.030. 1. The word "militia" as used in this code means all the active and potential military forces of the state, whether organized or unorganized.

2. Whenever reference is made in the articles of Uniform Code of Military Justice to the "military service" or to the "armed forces" of the United States the reference is deemed to include the military service and militia of this state.

(L. 1951 p. 654 3, 4, A.L. 1961 p. 479)

State militia, members.

41.050. The militia of the state shall include all able-bodied citizens and all other able-bodied residents, who, in the case of the unorganized militia and the Missouri reserve military force, shall be more than seventeen years of age and not more than sixty-four, and such other persons as may upon their own application be enrolled or commissioned therein, and who, in the case of the organized militia, shall be within the age limits and possess the physical and mental qualifications prescribed by law or regulations for the reserve components of the armed forces of the United States, except that this section shall not be construed to require militia service of any persons specifically exempted by the laws of the United States or the state of Missouri.

(L. 1951 p. 654 7)

Militia service, persons exempt.

41.060. The following persons shall be exempt from militia service:

(1) Persons exempt from militia service by the laws of the United States;

(2) Regular or duly ordained ministers of religion, or duly elected church officials regularly conducting church services, or those recognized by their church as devoting the major portion of their time to the practice of religion;

(3) Students preparing for the ministry in recognized theological or divinity schools.

(L. 1951 p. 654 8)

Organized and unorganized militia.

41.070. 1. The militia of the state is divided into two classes, the organized militia and the unorganized militia.

2. The organized militia shall consist of the following:

(1) Such elements of the land and air forces of the National Guard of the United States as are allocated to the state by the President or the Secretary of Army or Air, and accepted by the state, hereinafter to be known as the national guard and the air national guard;

(2) Such elements of the reserve naval forces of the United States as are allocated to the state by the President or the Secretary of the Navy, and accepted by the state, hereinafter called the naval militia; and the

(3) Missouri reserve military force, when organized.

3. The unorganized militia shall consist of all persons liable to serve in the militia but not commissioned or enlisted in the organized militia.

(L. 1951 p. 654 6)

Reserve military force--powers of governor.

41.490. The governor shall have the power to organize from the unorganized militia of Missouri a reserve military force for duty within or without the state to supplement the Missouri national guard or replace it when it is mobilized in federal service. The Missouri reserve military force may be used to execute the laws, suppress insurrections, repel invasion, suppress lawlessness, and provide emergency relief to distressed areas in the event of earthquake, flood, tornado, or actual or threatened enemy attack or public catastrophe creating conditions of distress or hazard to public health and safety beyond the capacity of local or established agencies. The force shall consist of such organized troops, auxiliary troops, staff corps and departments as the governor deems necessary. The governor shall prescribe the strength and composition of the various units of the same, uniform and insignia and the qualifications of its members, and shall have the power to grant a discharge therefrom for any reason deemed by him sufficient.

(RSMo 1939 15019, A.L. 1951 p. 654 89, A.L. 1953 p. 561, A.L. 1961 p. 479)

Resisting militia--penalty.

41.720. After the proclamation by the governor as authorized by section 41.480, any person who resists or aids in resisting the execution of process in any area declared to be in a state of actual or threatened insurrection, or who aids or attempts the rescue or escape of another from lawful custody or confinement or who resists or aids in resisting any force ordered out by the governor to execute the laws, to suppress actual and prevent threatened insurrection or to repel invasion shall be guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a term not less than two years.

(L. 1951 p. 654 16)

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 8:14 PM

"Where is it written that this is the case."

Posse Comitatus.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 8:37 PM

"(Newser) -- This week's shooting on a Houston-area college campus began after two men bumped into each other, court papers say."

There's another argument for everyone to carry guns all the time. God forbid, what if you accidently bumped into someone and were unable to shoot back.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jan 25, 2013, at 7:03 AM

They were in a gun-free zone, and the shooting is thought to be gang related.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jan 25, 2013, at 7:09 AM

Wheels: Maybe we should ban dumb arses such as yourself that don't know you don't vote against someone. You either vote for someone or don't vote at all. I look forward to some sort of stupid rebuttal

-- Posted by howdydoody on Fri, Jan 25, 2013, at 12:05 PM

Not voting equals laziness and giving up one's right to voice an opinion.

-- Posted by franchisee on Fri, Jan 25, 2013, at 12:12 PM

"Missouri Revised Statutes Title V Chapter 41"

Interesting, evidently this is something I was unaware of, and perhaps many others are also, or maybe I am the only one. (In any case I am over 64, but would volunteer under necessary circumstances.)

The law does say...

"The governor shall have the power to organize from the unorganized militia of Missouri a reserve military force..."

So this seems to upon being called up the "unorganized" militia becomes "organized" and under control of the "government." Furthermore there appears to be no stated requirement for members of the "unorganized" militia to provide their own weapons. It only implies that the Governor will figure it out, as in "The Missouri reserve military force, when organized, shall be armed, uniformed and equipped as prescribed by the governor."

What's also interesting is that the militia, which is the basis of 2nd Amendment rights, becomes a government force which tends to fly in the face of those who insist that the right to bear arms is to "protect themselves from the government."

I'd be inclined to expect that the code, which dates back to 1939 and 1951, could be looked at as one of those "blue laws" that are still on the books but not readily enforceable today. Were the Missouri Guard to be 100% deployed, and the Governor to start drafting people to replace them, he might have a lawsuit or two on his hands.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jan 25, 2013, at 12:50 PM

When you voted, you were willing to accept the outcome of that election. -- Posted by BCStoned on Fri, Jan 25, 2013, at 12:30 PM

So you will never vote again until libertarians control the outcome? How will libertarians ever control the outcome if you don't vote to get them in office?

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Jan 25, 2013, at 1:36 PM

"So this seems to upon being called up the "unorganized" militia becomes "organized" and under control of the "government"."

That would be the State government, which is a critical distinction when addressing the militia, as opposed to the military, which owes it allegience to the federal government. The founding fathers understood this distinction. You should, too.

If called up by the Sheriff, they are still under the control of the "government", albeit the local one. Again, an important distinction.

The United States is rather unique in that the County Sheriffs are elected, rather than appointed. Many states, such as Texas, specifically designate the Sheriffs as head of the local militia. Except where specifically denied by law, the Sheriff is designated as such by the principle of Posse Comitatus.

"Furthermore there appears to be no stated requirement for members of the "unorganized" militia to provide their own weapons."

I provided the source for that in Miller vs. United States, in which the opinion cites several sources from the states' founding documents.

"What's also interesting is that the militia, which is the basis of 2nd Amendment rights, becomes a government force which tends to fly in the face of those who insist that the right to bear arms is to "protect themselves from the government"."

Again, the distinction between state and federal law, and between local and state and/or federal law. Read Mack vs. U.S. and Printz vs. U.S.

You might also want to consider the American Civil War. A trip to Vicksburg, MS (or a shorter trip to Shiloh, TN) will provide ample evidence of the militia being called in on both sides. On the federal side, they were called in to 'suppress insurrection', whereas on the Confederate Side, they were employed by the states to enforce the States' rights to secede.

"I'd be inclined to expect that the code, which dates back to 1939 and 1951, could be looked at as one of those "blue laws" that are still on the books but not readily enforceable today."

I"d be inclined to say you are wrong, but you are entitled to your opinion.

http://www.missourimilitia.com/

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jan 25, 2013, at 2:47 PM

"Were the Missouri Guard to be 100% deployed, and the Governor to start drafting people to replace them, he might have a lawsuit or two on his hands."

I don't believe it authorizes a 'draft' or a resurrection of the old 'Press Gangs'. Typically, the unorganized militia is a voluntary organization, as is the National Guard. Typically, however, if the National Guard is deployed elsewhere and the brigands are threatening your village, your farm, or you home you're in the militia if you try to defend it, whether you want to admit it or not.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jan 25, 2013, at 2:55 PM

I know, Let's take away the guns of Americans, borrow some money from China to build fighter jets and tanks and give them to Egypt so we can sell some more to Israel while China and Russia sell some stuff to N Korea, Iran and others to aim at us and Israel.

A balanced foriegn policy the Obama way. Remember he said he would talk to our enemies, bring them to the table for peacable negotiation and then went on the apology tour. The man is brilliant, we just don't know it yet!

-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jan 26, 2013, at 1:30 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sat, Jan 26, 2013, at 6:03 PM

Gun Buyers Outbid Cops At Detroit Gun Buyback:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/30...

""Save the Guns" might sound like a catchy bumper sticker, but it's also the sentiment that led a group of gun enthusiasts to turn up at a Detroit gun buyback event hoping to prevent firearms from being melted down by police.

"The buyback, which took place Thursday at St. Cecilia's church on the city's west side, was organized by the Detroit Police Department in cooperation with the Archdiocese of Detroit and the nonprofit group Crime Stoppers. Those who brought in guns could receive cash in exchange, no questions asked. Payments depended on the type and condition of the weapon. An assault weapon, for example, could have brought a seller up to $100.

"Rick Ector is a 44-year-old gun rights activist who lives in Detroit and runs a firearm safety training service. When he got wind of the buyback, he put a call out to fellow gun lovers interested in buying firearms and asked them to show up at the event with cash, proper forms, and a large sign advertising their intentions to individuals intending to turn their guns in to police.

"Selling it at a gun buyback isn't really in your best interest," he said, "because you can sell it on the secondary market or take it to a gun shop and get at least two or three times more than what the police department is offering."

"Ector told The Huffington Post his purpose for coming out wasn't to purchase a weapon, but to show his opposition to gun buyback programs.

"Gun buybacks are evil and there are a lot of interested citizens out here that believe that gun buybacks are a waste of time -- they're a waste of public resources," he said.

"He claims the programs don't reduce crime and said destroying guns deprive citizens of an important means of protecting themselves. Several studies, including a 1994 analysis of a Seattle effort, have failed to find significant links between buybacks and reductions in crime."

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jan 28, 2013, at 11:33 AM

I wonder if they buy back BB guns and water pistols.

-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Jan 28, 2013, at 1:14 PM

They don't all get destroyed, fortunately:

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/val...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jan 28, 2013, at 2:01 PM

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jan 28, 2013, at 11:33 AM

Just last night I was looking at a picture of tables with hundreds of guns stacked up and thought about the same thing. There were some fine old shotguns in those piles. On top of the first table was a Browning white lightning over and under. It looked like it was just out of the box.

By the way I think many of the turn ins are like the one the lady brought in. They have no idea what they have.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Jan 29, 2013, at 10:22 AM

No questions asked by the police is better than sharing the proceeds of the loot with a good fence.

-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jan 29, 2013, at 12:58 PM

Shannon County sheriff declares unconstitional gun laws will not be enforced in letter to Obama.

http://mhconstitution.com/2013/01/30/sha...

-- Posted by mobushwhacker on Tue, Jan 29, 2013, at 11:36 PM

I saw a video yesterday of an armed school guard that was keeping a shooter at bay. THen the cops arrived 10 minutes later and shot and killed the gunman. Best deterrent there is.

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Jan 31, 2013, at 9:40 PM

http://www.newstribune.com/news/2013/feb...

Another school shooting prempted.

-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Feb 2, 2013, at 12:58 AM

I found this interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhXPlCjr0...

-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Feb 6, 2013, at 10:22 PM

More food for thought:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/...

-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Feb 6, 2013, at 10:40 PM

"More food for thought:"

Good for the 72 year old...

But what does that have to do with the current issues?

No one is objecting to law-abiding citizens possessing legal weapons for self-defense. It is a non-problem.

The problem is criminal and mentally unstable individuals walking into gunshows, not being subject to a background check and walking out with semi-automatic assault type weapons with high capacity magazines.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Feb 7, 2013, at 10:03 AM

"The problem is criminal and mentally unstable individuals walking into gunshows, not being subject to a background check and walking out with semi-automatic assault type weapons with high capacity magazines."

And where is the evidence that there has been a major problem with this occurring?

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Feb 7, 2013, at 10:20 AM

If gun dealers conduct required background checks, it is unlikely that criminals, knowing they will not pass a background investigation, don't go there. They do have the alternative of going to a gun show to acquire arms. According to some figures up to 40% of sales are conducted without checks.

With over 30,000 gun deaths per year, it is fairly obvious that many guns are getting into the wrong hands.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Feb 7, 2013, at 10:46 AM

"If gun dealers conduct required background checks, it is unlikely that criminals, knowing they will not pass a background investigation, don't go there."

Criminals don't frequent gun shows, either, because there are usually lots of law enforcement officers there. They tend, rather, to send in 'straw buyers' with clean records to make their purchases for them, or so it is reported. Thus, record checks or no record checks, the criminals won't be caught.

"With over 30,000 gun deaths per year, it is fairly obvious that many guns are getting into the wrong hands."

About 60% of those are suicides, the victims of whom likely do not have a criminal or a mental-health history that would prevent them from buying firearms.

Nor is it 'fairly obvious' that the remainder are buying them at gun shows. Being criminals, as they are, they are as likely as not stealing them or buying them from people who have stolen them.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Feb 7, 2013, at 11:15 AM

Many years ago, in Chicago, a doctor's home was broken into and his collection of fine firearms was stolen.

One of the firearms, an Italian-made shotgun valued somewhere around $8,000, was found sawed off and selling for about $100 on the streets shortly thereafter.

Criminals ain't usually the sharpest tools in the tool shed, but they usually manage to be smarter than the politiicians that try to thwart them...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Feb 7, 2013, at 11:18 AM

"...victims of whom likely do not have a criminal or a mental-health history..."

Having over 18,000 suicides by firearm would strongly suggest that many of these people were possibly not mentally stable enough to pass a backgrouknd check.

Universal background checks could prevent many suicides in addition to some criminal activities.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Feb 7, 2013, at 12:13 PM

What argues against expanding background checks to gun shows?

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Feb 7, 2013, at 12:15 PM

"What argues against expanding background checks to gun shows?"

Methinks the onus of proving necessity is on those who want to further restrictions, not on those who want to retain freedom.

"Universal background checks could prevent many suicides in addition to some criminal activities."

Actually helping those with mental health problems could prevent many suicides. Simply labeling them so they can't buy guns doesn't do much for them.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Feb 7, 2013, at 12:30 PM

"Having over 18,000 suicides by firearm would strongly suggest that many of these people were possibly not mentally stable enough to pass a backgrouknd check."

How does it 'strongly suggest' such a thing? We do not, and we should not, restrict the rights of every citizen whose ever felt depressed or lonely, or who might possibly at some time find the pain of living no longer preferable to death.

Isn't it odd that, in a society in which we have created a right for a mother to kill her unborn children, we still cling to the idea that one does not have the right to kill their own self? We've even argued for the right to have physicians 'assist' in suicides, yet we argue that unassisted ones should be stopped.

I'm not pro-suicide, but I do find the duplicity of our society in this matter extremely curious.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Feb 7, 2013, at 12:36 PM

"...those who want to further restrictions..."

It is not a case of wanting new or "further" restrictions. It is simply a case of applying the same requirement across the board.

About 90% of Americans agree that extending background checks is a fair and good step, as do most NRA menbers.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Feb 7, 2013, at 1:30 PM

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Feb 7, 2013, at 1:30 PM

So one background check and I'm good, right? Then I don't have to report any legal purchases of fire arms, just get a background check.

So you don't support registering or inventory/reporting of firearm ownership?

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Feb 7, 2013, at 1:58 PM

"It is not a case of wanting new or "further" restrictions. It is simply a case of applying the same requirement across the board."

It is a further restriction, as it expands the background check from those that involve licensed dealers to those that involve ordinary citizens who simply want to dispose of their own property.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Feb 7, 2013, at 2:02 PM

The reason the 'gun show loophole' exists is because it was believed, at the time the background check law was passed, that the government lacked the authority to regulate trade between individual citizens.

I'm not aware that the Constitution has been altered or amended since that time, so it would seem that it is simply a matter of the government now claiming it has authority it did not have, or which the public believed it did not have, a couple of decades ago.

Ergo, it seems to me, this is an imposition of further regulation, not merely applying the rules "across the board".

Proponents of closing the 'gun show loophole' now claim the rules will not apply to those who simply pass the firearm down from father to son, etc. Obviously, therefore, it is not to be applied "across the board" but merely expanded to include transactions that take place within the confines of gun shows.

I've asked for evidence from Commonsensematters that shows that there is a major problem with criminals and the mentally ill purchasing firearms at gun shows. He has provided none, but simply supports his position with claims of what is 'strongly suggested' and what is 'fairly obvious', as well as what it 'could prevent'. I take it from that he cannot support his claims with any factual data.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Feb 7, 2013, at 2:34 PM

"...that involve ordinary citizens who simply want to dispose of their own property."

Your definition clearly applies if I decide to buy a weapon from a neighbor or out of the Dollar Stretcher. The sale of firearms at a gun show is a mass market intended to sell large numbers of guns in a short time. It is totally different than "private sales."

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Feb 7, 2013, at 3:29 PM

"The sale of firearms at a gun show is a mass market intended to sell large numbers of guns in a short time. It is totally different than "private sales"."

Only as regards the entire operation, which includes many dealers, all of whom have to comply with the current law regarding background checks, etc.

However, 'gun shows' are also like 'swap meets' or even 'block sales', where private citizens take their own firearms and dispose of them by selling them to other private citizens or to gun dealers. Many of these firearms sell for little or nothing, and dealers who are willing to conduct the background checks often charge more than the value of the gun.

It is not "totally different" than private sales. They are still private sales, whether they are held in one's living room, the alley behind one's home, one's place of business, or a community center hosting a gun show.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Feb 7, 2013, at 3:42 PM

"It is totally different than "private sales"."

So, how many private sales have to occur within a given proximity before become "totally different"?

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Feb 7, 2013, at 3:43 PM

"So, how many private sales have to occur..."

The number is irrelevant. The "gun show" is an advertised event specifically designed to attract as many people as possible. Since they are held on fairgrounds or other facilities where the general population is invited to attend, they are public sales, not merely "private transactions."

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Feb 7, 2013, at 3:55 PM

"Since they are held on fairgrounds or other facilities where the general population is invited to attend, they are public sales, not merely "private transactions."

So, yard sales which are advertised and to which the population are invited to attend are not 'private transactions'?

You're stretching your credibility. A sale which occurs between two private citizens who are not regularly engaged in the business is a private sale, regardless of whether or not it occurs at a gun show. The show itself is an advertised event, the individual sale and the individual seller are not.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Feb 7, 2013, at 4:21 PM

You forgot to answer meg

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Feb 7, 2013, at 6:58 PM

When real estate is sold that is a transaction made public due to open court records. Shall we give each gun a certificate of origin and when sold a title like and automobile?

-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Feb 7, 2013, at 7:17 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl...!

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Feb 8, 2013, at 4:54 PM

I'm not aquainted with any Christian businessmen in Iraq. Explain it to me please.

-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Feb 8, 2013, at 11:59 PM

Missouri Democrats Propose Bill Requiring Surrender Of 'Assault Weapons':

http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bil...

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 545

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES ELLINGER (Sponsor), SCHUPP, MCNEIL AND WALTON GRAY (Co-sponsors).

0776L.01I D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 571, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to the manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of any assault weapon or large capacity magazine, with a penalty provision.

...4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Feb 14, 2013, at 3:46 PM

As a democrat I must say that these people along with the republicans who are against back ground checks need to be admitted befire they actually harm someone. I don't think people need weapons equal to or more powerful than law enforcement. But, I don't think the govt needs to meddle in prohibiting ownership either.

-- Posted by left turn on Thu, Feb 14, 2013, at 5:14 PM

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Feb 14, 2013, at 3:46 PM

They are probably worried about the backlash that is imminent when the mess they created blows up.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Feb 14, 2013, at 5:43 PM

The thugs just use a surrogate to go buy the gun for them and give them a little extra for doing it. Now for the legit people we will just do it since we are not convicted felons. Nothing will change.

Banning rifles because they have pistol grips or those scary MILSPEC hand guards and stocks wont help either. Myself I think the politicians are the ones afraid of them.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Feb 14, 2013, at 8:54 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZo4hbGJj...

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Feb 14, 2013, at 9:20 PM

"...force criminals to submit to the current background checks."

More illogical and incongruous thinking, lack of thinking actually. Who is expecting criminals to undergo background checks?

The object is to apply background checks to the 40% of buyers at gun shows, where potential criminals and mentally unstable individuals are told by the NRA that they can safely buy the weapons of their choice.

Why should the NRA object to preventing mentally unstable individuals from having access to semi-automatic firearms with high capacity magazines?

Some have said that "mass killings are not that common." Then the question arises, how many can we tolerate? Is 1 per year OK, or 3 per year? Is 5 or 6 mass killings too many, even for the NRA?

If the number of mass killings gets to 1 per month, will the NRA support background checks? Of course by then, the number of ordinary, non-mass killings will have long exceeded the 1000 per month that we have now.

So we will most likely just kick the gun violence control "can" down the road, until the next mass school shooting takes place.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Feb 15, 2013, at 10:11 AM

The object is to apply background checks to the 40% of buyers at gun shows, where potential criminals and mentally unstable individuals are told by the NRA that they can safely buy the weapons of their choice. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Feb 15, 2013, at 10:11 AM

Common - we've been through this. THis would NOT have stopped the Sandy Hook murderer.

His mother bought a gun legally, registered, background checked and all.

He stole the gun from his mom and killed the victims. Nothing proposed - not a thing - would have stopped the Sandy Hook killer. Or the Columbine killers.

Why, then, are you pushing this?

Regret's video above says it all. You should view it.

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Feb 15, 2013, at 10:33 AM

"The object is to apply background checks to the 40% of buyers at gun shows, where potential criminals and mentally unstable individuals are told by the NRA that they can safely buy the weapons of their choice."

I must have missed that gun show where the NRA made that announcement to mentally unstable individuals.

-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Feb 15, 2013, at 12:46 PM

"If the number of mass killings gets to 1 per month, will the NRA support background checks?"

We have background checks, and the NRA has long supported the instantaneous check system.

They opposed the time-delayed check system, as they should. There is no reason it should take three to ten days to check a purchaser's record, and there is no logical reason to deny the purchase of a piece of equipment while they do so.

The instantaneous check system allows the transaction to be verified without recording of the data, and thus does not permit the creation of de-facto registration (though it leaves that door open, which is why many still oppose it). Records of the transaction are retained by the dealer, and are subject to inspection, but not recording, under current law.

The requirement to conduct a background check is a condition of license issue. Licensed dealers understand the requirement, and the cost of the check is included in the transaction. The license is needed for the transport and sale of firearms across state lines. In-state sales are subject to the same requirements when conducted by a licensed dealer.

You appear to be somewhat uneducated about the NRA's position on various issues, past and present. Methinks, as appears to be typical of the Democrats of late, you merely repeat the hype of the party blaming various entities (Fox News, Talk Radio, Wal-Mart, the NRA, Corporations, etc.) for the any oppostion to the Democrat's utopian plans for America. Your plans, you seem convinced, are so wonderful and so 'common sense' based that no one could possibly oppose them on merit, but must be brainwashed by some powerful entity who only has America's worst interests at heart.

The mere fact that these utopian plans appear to have failed everywhere they've been enacted is immaterial, it merely means that those self-same powerful interests must have undermined their effectiveness through devious means. Besides, you seem to surmise, the intent is good, so who cares if they're effective or not?

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Feb 15, 2013, at 3:19 PM

"Why should the NRA object to preventing mentally unstable individuals from having access to semi-automatic firearms with high capacity magazines?"

Who says they do? Why should we assume that background checks at gun shows will prevent that?

"Some have said that "mass killings are not that common." Then the question arises, how many can we tolerate? Is 1 per year OK, or 3 per year? Is 5 or 6 mass killings too many, even for the NRA?"

The question arises, what makes you so sure these measures will prevent them? Prove the validity of your position before you demand that someone give up their rights, their possessions, or their security in response to it.

"So we will most likely just kick the gun violence control "can" down the road, until the next mass school shooting takes place."

If we do, we do. It's not the government's place to try to cure every ill.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Feb 15, 2013, at 3:25 PM

"There were no "massacres" or "mass killings" at this time of America's history."

Methinks the Native Americans may disagree...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Feb 15, 2013, at 4:07 PM

Of course, the government had laws against Native Americans being armed, so the mass killings were made easier to commit.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Feb 15, 2013, at 4:08 PM

Wheels

"The Republicans are just trying to stand in the way, because the president is black."

Oh heck. They figured it out.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Feb 15, 2013, at 7:21 PM

Government teacher fail. They are really getting bad.

http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/story/211895...

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Feb 15, 2013, at 8:05 PM

"A couple thousand stampeding buffalo directed at an Army Camp in the middle of the night makes guns fairly well useless ."

Buffalo aren't always around when you need them, and they don't always go where you want them to go.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Feb 15, 2013, at 8:42 PM

I guess we will start seeing "Finger Free Zone" signs beside the "Gun Free Zone" signs next?

Wheels, That letter may have been written by the same guy that wrote home and ended with PS: I was going to send some money but I already had the envelope sealed when I remembered telling you I would.

-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Feb 15, 2013, at 11:49 PM

My brother sent me a $5 check for my birthday with a note saying he wrote it for for $20 over. I sent him a check for his change and added the $25 return charge.

-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Feb 16, 2013, at 1:58 AM

So we should do nothing , "...until the next mass school shooting takes place."

Per SK reply:

"If we do, we do. It's not the government's place to try to cure every ill."

Apparently neither we nor any portion of government should pay any attention to the 1000 plus Americans killed by guns every month.

It is much more important that the NRA be allowed to override public opinion and promote selling of guns to future criminals and mentally unstable people at gun shows because those individuals can thereby circumvent a rational background check.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Feb 16, 2013, at 8:28 AM

ST Louis of coarse.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/2118213998001...

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sat, Feb 16, 2013, at 9:29 AM

Wheels, I wonder if she herself is carrying while proposing this as was Feinstein was when offering her idea.

-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Feb 16, 2013, at 10:46 AM

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Feb 16, 2013, at 8:28 AM

I believe that public opinion is one of the very reasons constitutional guarantees to protect our rights are so important. Public opinion is too fickle and easily manipulate for me to have any faith in it when making laws or restricting freedoms.

-- Posted by 356 on Sat, Feb 16, 2013, at 11:03 AM

-- Posted by Dissident. on Sat, Feb 16, 2013, at 12:14 PM

I have that very firearm, it came with the folding stock. I thought I would like it, but have since taken it off and put a Hogue overmoulded stock on, much easier to use.

-- Posted by 356 on Sat, Feb 16, 2013, at 12:31 PM

"Public opinion is too fickle and easily manipulate for me to have any faith in it when making laws or restricting freedoms."

356, USA has a representative government, meaning elected officials should base their actions on "public opinion".

What you appear to be suggesting is that elected officials(200 years ago) know what is "better" for today's USA citizens.

-- Posted by franchisee on Sat, Feb 16, 2013, at 1:58 PM

-- Posted by js68520 on Sat, Feb 16, 2013, at 1:58 PM

What I am saying is that our constitution means something and some things simply should not change based on emotionalism.

Laws have been in effect promoting slavery, separate accommodations for the races, prohibiting interracial marriage and even the Supreme Court has upheld such laws.

I do not support mob rule which is what we get when laws are based on what the populations feels like at any given point in time.

-- Posted by 356 on Sat, Feb 16, 2013, at 6:54 PM

Wheels, I wonder if she herself is carrying while proposing this as was Feinstein was when offering her idea.

-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Feb 16, 2013, at 10:46 AM

She is a ruler. She cannot be in harms way while since we are the peasant class we should not be armed since the government will give us the security we deserve.

I think the politicians might be afraid of guns because of the huge problems they are creating.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sat, Feb 16, 2013, at 9:37 PM

"It is much more important that the NRA be allowed to override public opinion and promote selling of guns to future criminals and mentally unstable people at gun shows because those individuals can thereby circumvent a rational background check."

You've neither proven that these people are obtaining firearms at gun showns, nor proven that your proporsed background check is rational. You're merely pushing this proposal because you feel the need to 'do something' about the issue.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Feb 16, 2013, at 10:42 PM

"356, USA has a representative government, meaning elected officials should base their actions on "public opinion"."

Not entirely. We have a Constitutional government, which means our elected officials should base their actions on what is lawful.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Feb 16, 2013, at 10:53 PM

Wheel

We are the slaves to the politicians. We need to lay down out arms even to our own demise so they are able to rule without worrying that we might revolt. The tyrants can then move freely. Look how many people ththis this is ok. We must be wrong. I'll melt mine down tomorrow. I'm sure the criminals will do the same.

Dis

The liberals know the government wont do us wrong. Of coarse they told the Indians that too.

Shapely

The liberal way is to drain the swamp. Look at Obamacare.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sat, Feb 16, 2013, at 11:00 PM

"Shapely

The liberal way is to drain the swamp. Look at Obamacare."

The problem with draining the swamp is that you have to put the water you drain somewhere. As we've seen with the Mississippi floodway: if you build levees to keep the water out of one place, it tends to rise in other places, flooding land that was once high and dry.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Feb 17, 2013, at 8:21 AM

Lawmakers enjoy writing and rewriting laws to suit their purposes. Unfortunately, they sometimes run afoul of the laws of Physics, which laws they have no power to alter nor override.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Feb 17, 2013, at 8:24 AM

G.W.'s library is taking shape, never new he said this:

"A free people ought not only be armed and discipined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunitionto maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them"

-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Feb 19, 2013, at 11:30 PM

"-- you can't have guns -- so you need to give me yours."

While the post is easily seen as another case of someone being intentially obtuse, it brings up an interesting question.

The vast majority of Americans, gun owners included, and the NRA are in agreement that criminals and mentally unbalanced individuals should not possess guns. Why should we not do something about it, rather than moaning that "nothing can be done?"

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Feb 20, 2013, at 7:09 AM

Why should we not do something about it, rather than moaning that "nothing can be done?" -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Feb 20, 2013, at 7:09 AM

Obtuse? Try this. Nothing Obama did with all his gun "executive orders" would have prevented Sandy Hook.

The gun was purchased legally.

The gun was registered.

The owner had a background check - no issues (unbalanced, criminal, nothing).

The gun was stolen and then used to kill. With either a 10 clip or a 5 clip or a 30 clip - wouldn't have mattered. The police didn't arrive until it was too late.

That, to me, is the definition of obtuse. Nothing discussed or proposed would have prevented this and isn't this why we are talking about it?

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Feb 20, 2013, at 7:21 AM

"Why should we not do something about it, rather than moaning that "nothing can be done?"

There is a difference between doing something productive, and merely doing something. So far, the argument has been merely that we need to do something, which usually means doing the same that has been tried, and which has failed when it's been tried.

Provide us a valid 'something' to do, one that does not infringe upon the rights of law-abiding gun owners and does not limit access to commonplace firearms, and we can discuss that. To keep calling for bans, delays, and registration is not doing something productive.

How about addressing the issue of mentally unstable individuals by addressing it through mental health programmes? How about curtailing the use of the anti-depressants that appear to be a common thread among mass shooters? How about keeping violent criminals locked up so we don't have to worry about whether they are out on the street buying firearms? All of these seem rational, more so than reactively banning each class of firearms that ends up being used by one of these mass shooters.

I hardly think a mass shooter thinks "If I can't get an AR-15, I won't go on a killing spree". Rather, I think, they decide to go on a killing spree and then set out to find out what is available. If there were no AR-15s, they would select something else. Then, of course, the reaction would be that we need to ban those, also.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Feb 20, 2013, at 8:30 AM

Dis

This cant be true. He didn't have a assault weapon with a large clip.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Feb 20, 2013, at 10:38 AM

Curiously, Joe Biden advises homeowners that having firearms for protection is a good idea, but recommends buying a shotgun.

"http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/02/20/buy-a-shotgun-joe-biden-white-houses-point-man-on-gun-control-gives-advice-to-parent-worried-about-protection-from-criminals/"

""I said, 'Jill, if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here ... walk out and put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house,'" Biden said Tuesday in a Facebook town hall with Parents Magazine."

Why he recommends firing the shotgun outside the house is puzzling to me. It ain't a home invasion if they ain't in the home....

You don't need an AR-15 -- it's harder to aim, it's harder to use, and in fact you don't need 30 rounds to protect yourself," he said. "Buy a shotgun. Buy a shotgun!"

I do agree that a shotgun is a fine home-defense weapon, largely because it is less likely that a missed shot will penetrate a wall and strike a family member of innocent passer-by. However, the choice should be the homeowners, and should be based on their skill level and the type of threat one expects to encounter.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Feb 20, 2013, at 3:20 PM

Here is a direst hit on more than just gun rights in Washington.

No warrant to search a house.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013...

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Feb 20, 2013, at 5:50 PM

Obama is coming for your guns! Hide! -- Posted by Spaniard on Thu, Feb 21, 2013, at 8:59 AM

Obama will never come for anyones guns. He wouldn't know what one was if you handed it to him.

A golf club? He would recognize that in a heartbeat.

-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Feb 21, 2013, at 10:06 AM

Obama is coming for your guns! Hide!

-- Posted by duglies on Thu, Feb 21, 2013, at 8:59 AM

What guns? I melted mine down. I felt like it was the liberal thing to do.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Feb 21, 2013, at 2:37 PM

President Obama "...will never come for anyones guns."

That's exactly what you've been told all along and it's still true. Why are you and the NRA so panicky?

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Feb 22, 2013, at 10:37 AM

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Feb 22, 2013, at 10:37 AM

Why do you back presidential "executive orders" and gun bans that would not have prevented the Newtown massacre or the Columbine massacre?

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Feb 22, 2013, at 10:42 AM

"...some comments from you earlier, that indicated eventually they will eliminate assault rifles etc."

I am pretty sure that I only said that a ban should include the future sale, manufacture, and import of assault type weapons with large capacity magazines. Individuals that own one now will retain them as long as they want. Weapons used to commit a crime and recovered by police will be destroyed.

What weapon was used at Sandy Hook School is irrelevant. As of now some say assault weapons are essential because "criminals" might have one. So, eventually, if criminals can't get them, no one should need one.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Feb 22, 2013, at 12:25 PM

"What weapon was used at Sandy Hook School is irrelevant. As of now some say assault weapons are essential because "criminals" might have one. So, eventually, if criminals can't get them, no one should need one."

Recheck these posts. We've said that criminals _and_ potential invaders have them. Even if background checks and bans kept them out of the hands of criminals, we're still faced with the fact that potential invaders have them.

The role of the militia is to repel invasions and suppress insurrections, in case you've forgotten.

Also, if no one is going to take our weapons, how do you expect to get them away from the criminals that lready have them, or that steal them?

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Feb 22, 2013, at 4:25 PM

That's exactly what you've been told all along and it's still true. Why are you and the NRA so panicky?

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Feb 22, 2013, at 10:37 AM

Other countries were told the same thing. It didn't turn out well.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Feb 22, 2013, at 4:44 PM

"...NRA are suddenly the villians right now..."

They are not villains. The vast majority of NRA members support sensible gun control measures such as universal background checks, cracking down on straw purchases and trafficking, and closing gun show loopholes.

It appears to be the NRA leadership that is obsessed with a "do nothing at any cost" mentality.

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Feb 23, 2013, at 12:30 PM

"The vast majority of NRA members support...."

How do you figure that? Is it what you suspect based on your definition of sensible gun control or did you or someone do a poll?

-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Feb 23, 2013, at 12:52 PM

LaPierre

-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Feb 23, 2013, at 1:48 PM

"cracking down on straw purchases"

What are you going to do. Democrats are too liberal to increase penalties. It should be life in prison to do that but they would be taking a swipe at there own voting base.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sat, Feb 23, 2013, at 4:24 PM

Pretty well tells the story....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T-F_zfoD...

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Feb 24, 2013, at 4:47 PM

So if a someone gets shot during the theft of a $20 pack of smokes in Chicago, who gets sued, the evil tobacco company or the gun manufacturer?

-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Mar 2, 2013, at 11:11 PM

who gets sued? -- Posted by Old John on Sat, Mar 2, 2013, at 11:11 PM

No democrat on here can answer that until it happens and Obama makes a comment on it. They can't think any further than what he says so we'll never know until "Obama says so". :-)

-- Posted by Dug on Sun, Mar 3, 2013, at 9:30 AM

Why would anyone get sued? -- Posted by StalkedByDug on Sun, Mar 3, 2013, at 9:47 AM

OJ - this mental midget doesn't recognize a joke when he sees it. Careful how you answer - he is very very sensitive right now. Needs some counseling and a group hug.

-- Posted by Dug on Sun, Mar 3, 2013, at 9:54 AM

Maybe I should have asked what is blamed.

-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Mar 3, 2013, at 10:16 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttZkUPV-m...

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Mar 5, 2013, at 9:25 PM

Excellent video Wheels!

-- Posted by Dug on Mon, Mar 18, 2013, at 8:15 PM

Wheels

That cant be right. The NRA is racist.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Mar 18, 2013, at 10:03 PM

I hate to keep repeating but that video seems to validate the wisdom or Frederick Douglas to the utmost. "The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they opress".

Remember, guns and God are not the only things tryants seek to take from us.

-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Mar 18, 2013, at 11:18 PM

This headline sounds ominous:

"Newtown gunman Adam Lanza 'had weapons arsenal"

My first thought, before reading it, was "Why did he have to steal his mother's weapons if he already had an arsenal.

Then, I read the contents of that arsenal:

"Meanwhile, in the gunman's home a bayonet, a gun safe in Lanza's bedroom and several swords were discovered by investigators, search warrants revealed."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canad...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Mar 28, 2013, at 10:43 AM

Reasoning and crew said I was wrong. It had to be those guns. Vidio game wont hurt kids.

"News' report on Sandy Hook gunman Adam Lanza's video-game-style slaughter score sheet inspires calls in D.C. to stiffen regulation of violent games"

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national...

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Mar 31, 2013, at 5:55 PM

Sorry

Video

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Mar 31, 2013, at 9:25 PM

Feds seize 3-D printed gun makers website:

http://www.infowars.com/april-fools-day-...

-- Posted by mobushwhacker on Mon, Apr 1, 2013, at 4:27 PM

BC, Without reading that article [I intend to later] I suspect it is about what I said before, both sides want this issue to go away or kick it up to the court to make law. Most if not all of them don't want to risk any loss of votes by being on the record for or against.

-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Apr 1, 2013, at 11:27 PM

The latest Democrat ploy - require gun owners to buy liability insurance or face a $10,000 fine.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/02/democr...

"A contingent of liberal Democrats in Congress is proposing a new federal gun control idea: mandatory liability insurance for gun owners.

"When New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney introduced the legislation last month with eight other Democrats, she boasted that it is "the first bill to require liability insurance of gun buyers nationwide."

"Maloney's "Firearm Risk Protection Act" requires gun buyers to have "a qualified liability insurance policy" before they are able to legally purchase a firearm.

"It also calls for the federal government to impose a fine as much as $10,000 if a gun owner doesn't have insurance on a firearm purchased after the bill goes into effect.

"It shall be unlawful for a person who owns a firearm purchased on or after the effective date of this subsection not to be covered by a qualified liability insurance policy," the bill text reads.

"The bill would also make it a federal crime to sell a firearm to anyone without insurance.

"For too long, gun victims and society at large have borne the brunt of the costs of gun violence," Maloney said as she introduced the legislation. "My bill would change that by shifting some of that cost back onto those who own the weapons."

"Chris Cox, the executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, told The Daily Caller that the bill is "ridiculous on its face, as it presumes law-abiding gun owners are guilty for merely exercising a fundamental, constitutional right."

""But it does reveal what Rep. McCarthy really thinks about honest people who believe in the right to keep and bear arms," Cox said.

"The bill defines "qualified liability insurance" as a policy that covers the "purchaser specifically for losses resulting from use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser." Buyers would have to obtain insurance from a company licensed or authorized by a state insurance regulatory authority.

"Exceptions would be made for law enforcement, military and employees of government departments and agencies."

_________

Of course, the fact that there is no such thing as gun-owner liability insurance doesn't seem to deter them from mandating it.

Notice, also, that the government exempts itself and its enforcers from the requirement. Why is the government not to be held resposible for the firearms in its possession? A curious omission, methinks.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Apr 2, 2013, at 11:40 AM

Actually, I was mistaken, it seems there is such a thing as gun liability coverage, but it's not available in all states:

http://www.xinsurance.com/insurance-opti...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Apr 2, 2013, at 11:48 AM

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/28/...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Apr 9, 2013, at 2:47 PM

The argument that people need no more than 10 rounds and don't need semi-automatic weapons for protection seems to be undermined by the fact that the dozens of Boston Police, in their pursuit of one man, all seem to be armed with more than that.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Apr 19, 2013, at 2:20 PM

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/67...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Apr 19, 2013, at 2:48 PM

I take it the FBI and the Boston Police did not get the memo that no one needs more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

They put, what, 20 to 30 rounds into that boat? The suspect still lived, and these were trained professionals, too.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Apr 20, 2013, at 8:50 AM

"no one needs more than 10 rounds of ammunition"

You are really stretching there Shapley. No one has debated law enforcement and military should not be afforded the tools they need to do their jobs.

It is the everyday Tom, Dick, Harry and Jane that have no reasonable purpose for magizines over 10 rounds or semi-automatic weapons.

-- Posted by Tribune on Sat, Apr 20, 2013, at 9:05 AM

"You are really stretching there Shapley. No one has debated law enforcement and military should not be afforded the tools they need to do their jobs.

"It is the everyday Tom, Dick, Harry and Jane that have no reasonable purpose for magizines over 10 rounds or semi-automatic weapons."

You misunderstand the nature of the Second Amendment. It is precisely because law enforcement and the military have more than 10 rounds that the everyman has the right to have the same.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Apr 29, 2013, at 8:42 AM

Gun violence in US has fallen dramatically over past 20 years, Justice Dept. report finds

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/...

"Gun violence in America has fallen dramatically over the past two decades, and the number of murders committed with a firearm is down too, though guns are still by far the leading type of crime weapon, according to a new report from the Justice Department.

"As for where crime guns came from, the study notes that less than two percent of convicted inmates reported buying their weapons at gun shows or flea markets. The highest number, 40 percent, said the guns came from a family member or a friend. About 37 percent said the weapons were stolen or obtained from an illegal source. The rest say the guns were bought at a retail store or pawn shop.

"Murders committed with a gun dropped 39 percent to 11,101 in 2011, from a high of 18,253 in 1993, according to the report.

"Other crimes committed with guns were down even more sharply -- from 1.53 million in 1993 to 467,300 in 2011, a drop of 70 percent, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

"The report is strictly factual and offers no analysis about the reasons for the decline in gun violence.

"

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, May 9, 2013, at 4:33 PM

You are Eight Times More Likely to be Killed by a Police Officer than a Terrorist

http://www.cato.org/blog/youre-eight-tim...

________

"Botched Paramilitary Police Raids"

An Epidemic of "Isolated Incidents"

"If a widespread pattern of [knock-and-announce] violations were shown . . . there would be reason for grave concern."

--Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, in Hudson v. Michigan, June 15, 2006.

An interactive map of botched SWAT and paramilitary police raids, released in conjunction with the Cato policy paper "Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids," by Radley Balko.

http://www.cato.org/raidmap

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, May 9, 2013, at 4:39 PM

Traffic Fatalities Increase For First Time In Seven Years.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-...

I guess we should blame the Sequester...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, May 9, 2013, at 4:54 PM

Global warming with improving economy increases traffic deaths? I'm wondering why the article left out cell phones and other distractions of today like people driving along and hearing on the radio what the polititions are up to. :)

-- Posted by Old John on Thu, May 9, 2013, at 5:53 PM

Diss, I saw a nice door mat the other day. Instead of Welcome it said "Come back with a warrant"

-- Posted by Old John on Sun, May 12, 2013, at 12:24 AM

http://home.myhughesnet.com/news/read/ca...

"The college student was being held in a headlock by a masked intruder with a loaded gun to her head, police said. Then the gunman took aim at an officer.

A moment later both Hofstra University junior Andrea Rebello and the intruder were dead -- killed after a split-second decision that is perhaps the most harrowing in law enforcement: when to pull the trigger.

"The big question is, how do you know, when someone's pointing a gun at you, whether you should keep talking to them, or shoot?" said Michele Galietta, a professor of psychology at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice who helps train police officers. "That's what makes the job of an officer amazingly difficult."

"She spoke Sunday as Hofstra University students honored Rebello, a popular 21-year-old public relations major, by wearing white ribbons at their graduation ceremony.

"Rebello's funeral is scheduled for Wednesday in Sleepy Hollow, north of New York City.

"The news that she died from a police bullet came as "a second shock" for the already devastated family, said Henry Santos, Rebello's godfather.

"Her life ended in the seconds that forced the veteran police officer to make a fatal decision, but the questions surrounding the student's death are just beginning, along with an internal investigation by the Nassau County Police Department.

"Rebello and the intruder, Dalton Smith, died early Friday when the officer fired eight shots, hitting him seven times and her once in the head, according to county homicide squad Lt. John Azzata.

"With a gun pointed at her, Smith "kept saying, 'I'm going to kill her,' and then he pointed the gun at the police officer," according to Azzata.

"The officer acted quickly, saying later that he believed his and Rebello's lives were in danger, according to authorities."

________

Naturally, we wish these things would end like the movies, withe the blood-spattered-but-unharmed hostage weeping in the oficer's arms after the assailant is shot, but it seldom turns out that way.

My sympathies both with the woman's family and the officer. No doubt he now will endure weeks or months of scrutiny and investigation, all the while haunted by the image of the innocent woman who died as he tried to save her.

A sad situation.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, May 20, 2013, at 9:16 AM

A sad situation.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, May 20, 2013, at 9:16 AM

It truly is.

-- Posted by 356 on Mon, May 20, 2013, at 4:02 PM

"6-Year-Old Given Detention, Forced to Apologize After Bringing Tiny Plastic Gun on School Bus"

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/...

"A 6-year-old kindergarten student in Massachusetts is accused of causing a "disturbance" and "traumatizing" other students by bringing a very tiny plastic toy gun on the school bus last week.

"The "gun" brandished by the young boy was barely bigger than a quarter.

"The child's mother, Mieke Crane, told WGGB-TV that school officials at Old Mill Pond Elementary in Palmer, Mass., seriously overreacted after another student saw the toy and told the bus driver on Friday.

"The driver said the 6-year-old "caused quite a disturbance" and left other children "traumatized," according to Crane.

"This is hardly the first instance of young students being taught that anything resembling a gun is bad.

"In April, TheBlaze first reported that a New York father had his pistol license revoked after his son and two of his classmates talked about going to a boy's house with a water gun, "paint gun" and a BB gun. School officials called police and apparently felt they had enough cause to revoke John Mayer's handgun license.

"In March, a 7-year-old boy was suspended from school for chewing a breakfast pastry into a shape that somewhat resembled a gun. The boy maintained he didn't mean to make his food look like a gun.

"In January, a Philadelphia fifth-grader was scolded and even searched in front of her entire class for pulling out a piece of paper that was torn into a gun-like shape. A school administrator reportedly yelled at her while other students called her a "murderer."

"Also in January, a 5-year-old girl was suspended for ten days and reportedly labeled a "terrorist threat" for threatening to shoot her friend with a toy bubble gun."

__________

We have surrendered all semblance of sanity. Small wonder a million people were able to be made to cower behind locked doors because of a nineteen-year-old armed with an empty pistol.

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, May 29, 2013, at 2:29 PM

"And when my Father fired off the old 12 gauge double barrel when a opossum or a fox was caught in the chicken house, I didn't run and cry to my Mother."

Obviously, you were traumatized and just don't realize it, yet. With proper counseling, socialogists will get to the root of your problem and explain why this single act of abusive behaviour by your father has left you a social miscreant... ;)

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, May 29, 2013, at 3:38 PM

"The work is plentiful and the laborers are few."

According to the lefties, the work is scarce and the labourers plentiful...

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, May 29, 2013, at 3:57 PM

"In April, TheBlaze first reported that a New York father had his pistol license revoked after his son and two of his classmates talked about going to a boy's house with a water gun, "paint gun" and a BB gun. School officials called police and apparently felt they had enough cause to revoke John Mayer's handgun license."

Geez...........

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, May 29, 2013, at 8:10 PM

I didn't run and cry to my Mother. -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, May 29, 2013, at 3:11 PM

Definitely no crying. Instead of running to mom I had to run and get the .410 when there was a snake eating eggs in the hen house. I always hated that feeling when you were 8 years old checking for eggs on the roost and had to reach up into the nest - just hoping there wasn't a snake in there...

As others have posted no one gave a second thought or even noticed if you pulled up in the school parking lot with a gun on the rack (or 2 or 3) and shells in the glove compartment. Or walked down town with a rifle and 1/2 dozen squirrels over your shoulder. Right in the middle of town. The city marshall would just wave and smile. Today you'd get a SWAT team and 5 years in jail for that in most places, but probably not in my home town even today.

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Jun 14, 2013, at 9:40 AM

Probably farther back in the woods! If you were in my home town you weren't on the way to anywhere. You were there. Nobody "passed through" my home town to get to somewhere else. :-)

I wouldn't trade those days for any amount of money or freebies. We were eligible for free school lunches and my mom said "NO WAY" are we taking government money.

There is very little self-pride or shame left in this country and no amount of government assistance, free health care or free cell phones will correct that.

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Jun 14, 2013, at 10:15 AM

Interesting about the assault heels. I used to own a pair of Assault Boots, as they were billed. They were a version of the Vietnam Combat Boot, but were black on black instead of the usual green or camoflauge canvas panels, which the Navy prohibited.

I wonder if a move will be afoot to ban those, now?

-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jun 14, 2013, at 10:40 AM

-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Jun 14, 2013, at 11:07 AM

I guess we may have met after all! When did I tell you that? :-)

-- Posted by Dug on Fri, Jun 14, 2013, at 11:58 AM

Banning drunk driving doesn't stop all drunk driving deaths, so should we rescind all laws that are not 100% effective even if they save lives?

My experiences with many, many lovers over the years leads me to the conclusion that the bigger the weapon, the smaller the unit down there if you get my drift.

-- Posted by boobjobbetty on Mon, Jul 15, 2013, at 4:34 PM

I wasn't aware that drunk driving was a right guaranteed in a constitutional amendment.

-- Posted by Dug on Mon, Jul 15, 2013, at 4:39 PM

Criminals and mentally ill people bearing arms is not a right guaranteed by the constitution either. But you "challenged down there" people hide behind big weapons and high capacity ammo magazines to compensate for your shortcomings. Just saying.

-- Posted by boobjobbetty on Mon, Jul 15, 2013, at 4:44 PM

Thank you Professor Rick.

-- Posted by left turn on Mon, Jul 15, 2013, at 5:12 PM

Who allows criminally and mentally ill people to bear arms? You? What are you compensating for? A boob job Betty?

-- Posted by Dug on Mon, Jul 15, 2013, at 5:13 PM

My experiences with many, many lovers over the years leads me to the conclusion that the bigger the weapon, the smaller the unit down there if you get my drift.

-- Posted by boobjobbetty on Mon, Jul 15, 2013, at 4:34 PM

I have lots of big weapons and am not lacking down there. You're probably a lesbian anyway.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Jul 15, 2013, at 5:40 PM

Regret - ROTFLMAO! Just spit up my sandwich with that one! :-)

-- Posted by Dug on Mon, Jul 15, 2013, at 5:49 PM


Respond to this thread

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account , enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


Want to comment?

In order to participate in semissourian.com's forums, you must be a registered member of the site. Once registered and logged in, you can post comments to existing threads or post new threads of your own. Click below to register now (it's free!). If you're already registered, just start commenting and posting threads.