Here it is, folks, and it is bad news. The framework for legislation is always laid, and the Democrats have the votes to pass anything they want to impose upon us. They really do not believe you need anything more than a brick to defend your home and family. Look at the list and see how many you own. Remember, it is registration, then confiscation. It has happened in the UK, in Australia, in Europe, in China, and what they have found is that for some reason the criminals do not turn in their weapons, but will know that you did.
Remember, the first step in establishing a dictatorship is to disarm the citizens.
Gun-ban list proposed. Slipping below the radar (or under the short-term memory cap), the Democrats have already leaked a gun-ban list, even under the Bush administration when they knew full well it had no chance of passage (HR 1022, 110th Congress). It serves as a framework for the new list the Brady’s plan to introduce shortly. I have an outline of the Brady’s current plans and targets of opportunity. It’s horrific. They’re going after the courts, regulatory agencies, firearms dealers and statutes in an all out effort to restrict we the people. They’ve made little mention of criminals. Now more than ever, attention to the entire Bill of Rights is critical. Gun bans will impact our freedoms under search and seizure, due process, confiscated property, states’ rights, free speech, right to assemble and more, in addition to the Second Amendment. The Democrats current gun-ban-list proposal (final list will be worse):
Rifles (or copies or duplicates):
M1 Carbine,
Sturm Ruger Mini-14,
AR-15,
Bushmaster XM15,
Armalite M15,
AR-10,
Thompson 1927,
Thompson M1;
AK,
AKM,
AKS,
AK-47,
AK-74,
ARM,
MAK90,
NHM 90,
NHM 91,
SA 85,
SA 93,
VEPR;
Olympic Arms PCR;
AR70,
Calico Liberty ,
Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU,
Fabrique National FN/FAL,
FN/LAR, or FNC,
Hi-Point20Carbine,
HK-91,
HK-93,
HK-94,
HK-PSG-1,
Thompson 1927 Commando,
Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;
Saiga,
SAR-8,
SAR-4800,
SKS with detachable magazine,
SLG 95,
SLR 95 or 96,
Steyr AU,
Tavor,
Uzi,
Galil and Uzi Sporter,
Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle ( Galatz ).
Pistols (or copies or duplicates):
Calico M-110,
MAC-10,
MAC-11, or MPA3,
Olympic Arms OA,
TEC-9,
TEC-DC9,
TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10,
Uzi.
Shotguns (or copies or duplicates):
Armscor 30 BG,
SPAS 12 or LAW 12,
Striker 12,
Streetsweeper. Catch-all category (for anything missed or new designs):
A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a pistol grip (which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip, see
below),
(iv) a forward grip; or a barrel shroud.
Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than
10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rim fire rifles).
A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a
detachable magazine, and has:
(i) a second pistol grip,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a barrel shroud or
(iv) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip, and
(v) a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10
rounds.
A semiautomatic shotgun with:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a pistol grip (see definition below),
(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine capacity
of more than 5 rounds, and
(iv) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
Frames or receivers for the above are included, along with conversion kits.
Attorney General gets carte blanche to ban guns at will: Under the proposal, the U.S. Attorney General can add any “semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General.”
Note that Obama’s pick for this office, Eric Holder, wrote a brief in the Heller case supporting the position that you have no right to have a working firearm in your own home. In making this determination, the bill says, “there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.” In plain English this means that ANY firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military is not suitable for the public.
The last part is particularly clever, stating that a firearm doesn’t have a sporting purpose just because it can be used for sporting purpose — is that devious or what? And of course, “sporting purpose” is a rights infringement with no constitutional or historical support whatsoever, invented by domestic enemies of the right to keep and bear arms to further their cause of disarming the innocent.
Respectfully submitted, Alan Korwin, Author Gun Laws of America http://www.gunlaws.com/gloa.htm
Forward or send to every gun owner you know…
Watch This, If You Want More Proof:
YouTube – CNN- Obama To BAN Guns SPREAD THIS FOLKS, PLZ!
A partial list of gun rights groups:
Gun Owners of America
http://gunowners.org/
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
http://www.jpfo.org/
FREEDOM=GUNS
http://www.tcsn.net/doncicci/freedom.htm
National Rifle Association
http://www.nra.org/
Second Amendment Committee
http://www.libertygunrights.com/
Second Amendment Foundation
http://www.saf.org/
Second Amendment Sisters
http://www.2asisters.org/
Women Against Gun Control
http://www.wagc.com/
WELL I HAVE MOST AND IF YOU COMMI FUKS WANT EM COME GET EM … YOU WILL HAVE TO TAKE MY AMMO FIRST AS IT FLIES AT YOUR ASSES
[Reply]
Steven Reply:
March 13th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Amen!
[Reply]
Michael Reply:
January 11th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
why are they doing this?! they are taking away our fucking right
[Reply]
billy Reply:
March 18th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
i fully agree
[Reply]
Roger Reply:
March 30th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
well I own must of those too and I fully agree
[Reply]
This does not impress me in the least.
It’s 1775 all over again, and the Red coats are going through the Colonials’ armories and taking what they will.
What are we supposed to do? Lie down and let them roll all over us? This is absolute insanity not only for them to do this, but also for our letting them do it. The playground bully will keep taking your lunch money until you kick him hard. DO you understand this America? DO YOU?!
[Reply]
MOLON LABE MUTHERFUKKAS
i’ll be waiting!
[Reply]
Just make sure you know who the enemy is.
“Out of my cold dead hands” No, not even then.
[Reply]
Listen up People the 2nd Ammendmant has NOTHING to do with Sporting Purposes!It has everything to do with protecting we the people from rogue government! Hmmmm I wonder why the Government keeps trying to whittle it down if they are legitimate.As for this Bill they have been trying to pass it ever the origional Assault Weapons Ban , but the Real Assault Weapons were Banned when the Banned Machine guns a Long time ago.
[Reply]
It’s about time…I wonder where all you tough guys were when they started abortion (or since), or how about when they took prayer out of the schools or the ten comandments…what about when the preachers of amerika got incorporated, and watered down there own littl e doctrine, what did you say to that?…..or when they started pipen in porn into the households where were you, or what about that casino going up, what did you do?…how about them puting the children on drugs in the public schools (riddlin ect.), I recon you were about to pop the top off another beer, as you order some more viagra hoping to saduce some young thing a local bar…………….Sorry to pop your bubble, but we as a people do not deserve freedom, we missed our chance to stand for something (thou there has been a voice out there, but we all did not join in)…..It’s time to sell your guns get on your face and repent to the living God for being the hypocrites that we are..
[Reply]
chiefosage Reply:
March 14th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
You definately have a point there brother. But if you knew what I know you would not be so hard on those who have been lied to since they were born. For this reason God will have mercy on his beloved and when he sees the right time coming things will change in a way that will show the world who is really boss. America will probably go through a lot of sadness before our redeemer takes a hand and yes you and all Americans should repent. Then what? Only the wise know. Do you?
[Reply]
Christian conservative Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 7:25 am
Well put Jeff L
[Reply]
Hopes to get more guns before its too late Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 9:26 am
Jeff, leave abortion out of the argument, and leave God out of the argument. The Leftists’ primary argument against people like us who give a sh*t about our country and our constitution is that we’re religious zealots like the Taliban. If you leave God out of the [immediate] argument/situation, and demand our second amendment rights to be held true, they won’t have the “OH ITS A RELIGIOUS NUT WITH HIS GUNS” excuse. No. They’ll have to accept the truth. We’re f*cking Americans, Damnit. Take my guns away from me, and we’ll f*cking see what happens.
[Reply]
Sheridan Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Rodger that Jeff. Funny how it takes something like this to get folks pissed. I agree with most if not all of which you said. Unfortunately most “sunshine patriots” don’t give a crap about anything that does not directly affect them. They don’t care that the teachers in our public schools are grooming their children to subservience either as long as the teachers unions (bought and paid for) guarantee high salaries for those advancing their own liberal agenda.
[Reply]
Now how does obama expect me to protect my family. We already had 3 home invasion this month.
[Reply]
buck Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 5:07 am
Obama does’nt expect you to defend your family. He expects you to die.
[Reply]
billy Reply:
March 18th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
he wants his “bros” to be able to rob your house without being shot at
[Reply]
I can’t believe someone hasn’t slit the throats of the traitors trying to do this to us.
[Reply]
This is exactly what the NAZIS did before they threw the Jewish people in the concentration camps! That way they were defenseless! Our so called “government” & offshore bankers have bankrupted us. They continue to bankrupt us further, take all our rights away, & take our souls too. No liberties, no travel, (papers please), no talk radio, no internet, no fun, etc. Keep informed by listening to Patriot Radio shows like this one, Alex Jones, Katherine Albrecht, Jack McLamb Coast to Coast & many others. We must all be prepared to defend our selves againt these treasonist terriorists! Keep informed!
[Reply]
I am 81 years young, just bought my first AK 47 an 1000 rounds also a concel permit so come yuo anti gunners!!!
[Reply]
Steven Reply:
March 13th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
God Bless You Calvin!
[Reply]
The next list I want to see is a list of every politician supporting any bill to ban these weapons. Those commie fucks will be charged with treason and tried by the people when we take this country back!
[Reply]
Blaine Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 11:08 am
They aren’t trying to ban weapons, they are trying to ban weapons that serve no purpose but to kill other humans. You are DENSE if you don’t see this. I don’t see .22 rifles on the ban. I don’t see NORMAL 12 gauges on the ban. I only see violent weapons, to be used by violent people. These guns never should’ve been invented in the first place. We LOST our right to bear arms like AK-47’s when they started ending up on the streets.
[Reply]
Toecutter Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
The government is criminal. If you take the guns from the people only the criminals will have guns. Contrary to popular opinion this is not a democracy. It is a limited (government) Constitutional Republic. The majority has no right or authority to vote away the rights of the minority. So no matter how much you dislike guns or free speech, liberty, freedom, and all the other values and principles the Constitution enumerates and secures. You should acknowledge that others besides yourself have rights also. You will find that those right s will not be surrendered easily to fascist such as yourself and your left wing socialist agenda.
You are a coward.
[Reply]
Blaine Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
I’m not a fascist OR a coward OR a socialist. I believe in free speech, liberty, and the right to bear arms. I don’t see the point in any person owning an AK-47 for ANY reason. Just because it was invented doesn’t mean it’s right. You can say all you want, but until you see the problem of gun violence face to face, you won’t understand. I don’t understand how standing up against a gun loving douche-bag like yourself makes me a coward. You think you have the ‘right’ to own a cannon. I think it’s SCARY that you have that right.
Sheridan Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
What the hell is wrong with you Blaine? The fact is these weapons HAVE been invented. The reason they end up on the streets is because CRIMINALS have gotten them too. They usually get them from stealing from others – which will not stop until the lawyers and judges that let these crazy worthless f&*ks back on the streets. The Judges and lawyers need “tending” to – yes, and that will come, people take notice of who they are and where they live. The second amendment is
in place to ensure the “average joe” can protect his family from criminals and if need be the government. It would be a bit difficult to fight aggressors with machine guns with .22’s.
[Reply]
Blaine Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
SERIOUSLY, how many times has someone attacked your house with a machine gun????? The fact that you have an internet connection means you PROBABLY don’t live in the ghetto. You don’t need a machine gun for protection, you need it because it makes you feel adequate. My family has and uses PLENTY of guns. Not one of us believes it is necessary for anyone to own a fucking machine gun. The invention of these weapons IS an issue. No one was scared of nukes until nukes were invented. Now everyone feels they have a “right” to have nukes to protect themselves from other nukes. This is a ridiculous way of thinking. Why don’t we spend our efforts and energy funding schools and helping do something POSITIVE in this world, instead of developing weapons that are meant for nothing but killing. If you really think this government wants us all to live in concentration camps so they can rule the world with an iron fist. Then i need to ask… What the hell is wrong with you Sheridan???
Guy Fawkes Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Wow! Let me explain something BLAINE. A .22 caliber rifle is great for plinking cans but the 2nd amendment was not meant for target shooting or hunting. You say the guns on the list serve no purpose other than to kill humans. I agree with you and if any “human” thinks they can take away my birthright as a freeborn citizen and violate the Constitution by trying to break down my door and seize the tools that protect my family’s life, I WILL KILL THEM or die trying! Perhaps you feel you can trust the government but I on the other hand trust no government that has built 600+ FEMA detention camps across the country, has federalized the local police and has declared all “Patriots” as terrorist. Wake the hell up Blaine!
[Reply]
Blaine Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
That was CONSERVATIVES that did that dumb-fuck. Not the current administration. GUN VIOLENCE IS A HUUUUUUGE PROBLEM IN THIS COUNTRY. You wake the hell up!!!!! Open your fucking eyes. KIDS ARE GETTING KILLED WITH THESE THINGS. THEIR LIVES ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOUR ‘RIGHTS’.
I too own a gun Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
‘…but the 2nd amendment was not meant for target shooting or hunting’
The purpose of the Second Amendment is to guarantee the states’ ability to maintain independent militias composed of state residents available to be called upon to defend the country should its security be threatened. I think you misunderstood what the amendment implied.
Joe Reply:
March 16th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
“People who give up a little freedom, in exchange for a little safety, deserve neither and will lose both.”
-Benjamin Franklin
zerk durkin Reply:
March 17th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Blaine you can cry like the little bitch that you are take your bleeding hart and go hug a tree.The bulk of the kids you are talking about are little street thugs who are in gangs and will never change this is how they want to live look at the money spent on them over the years and what has it done ZERO!!Last no one will take my guns ever!!!!!!As i see it if i have no rights i have no life FU!!!!!
[Reply]
The beginning of the last harvest is upon us when the wheat shall be separated from the chaff and the sheep from the goats. Believers are constantly badgered by both the Christian and secular media regarding the approaching apocalypse. But the tired, old ‘rabble-rousing’ without any clear direction leaves most without any hope, not realizing that the same decision America’s Founding Fathers made to escape government persecution by separating themselves can be made again today.
Sound too far-fetched? Can’t see how Christians could separate themselves to a start a new nation? Don’t want to believe the government can take away any more of our freedom to worship God? Those who ignore history are destined to repeat it but the prudent man foresees the evil and hides, but the simple pass on and are punished.
Headlines label Christians as intolerant and courts outlaw God in public places! For Love of Liberty depicts the future of Christianity in America. Gary Smalley, best selling author, calls it “…a romantic and intriguing novel – a must read if you enjoy the drama of pitting the Christian life against present day evil”.
For Love of Liberty… a contemporary Christian novel, the first in the five book SEPARATE series reads like a prequel to the popular Left Behind series. (Jerry Jenkins judged a chapter in the SEPARATE series, placing it in the top five percent of the 2003 Writer’s Digest Inspirational contest.) E. Ray Moore, Jr., Chaplain (Lt.Col.) USAR Ret, Director and founder of Exodusmandate.org, acknowledged the plot’s timeliness. “James Godson’s stories relate to unique cultural and moral situations in which modern American Christians could find themselves in the decade ahead if there is not a recovery of our Judeo-Christian heritage. Godson’s book, For Love of Liberty, describes social and cultural issues neglected in other Christian fiction that deserve a hearing in the body of Christ.”
For Love of Liberty and Finally Free plus the rest of the SEPARATE series continue in the same vein with a gentle ‘what-if’ twist. Picture a small mid-western town abolishing property taxes thereby closing the public schools to end humanistic indoctrination of their children. Regional business leaders create a gold-backed monetary system to stabilize their economy. The local Christian community seeks to form a new nation inside the boundary of the Untied States based on the principles and precedence that authorizes the existing Native-American/Indian Nations to legislate themselves.
The SEPARATE series predicts future reality for believers in America by combining a current topic, a villain to scorn, lovable down-home characters with a cause to cheer, and enough romance and action all the way to the surprise endings.
I will gladly send an e-copy of For Love of Liberty for your review and Finally Free if further interested. Serving the Savior
James Godson jamesgodson@praize.com
[Reply]
The US Supreme Court recently ruled that the responsibility for your personal safety is you, not your police officer. You cannot sue your police officer for failing to protect you, you are responsible for your own self defense. The fact that so many Americans own guns means that people who want to break into your home wait until no one is home. Once they disarm us, the criminals will still have guns and will break in anytime they want, to rob, rape or kill us. Obama wants these things to happen to the American people. This is what’s happening here in the UK now that we cannot have guns to protect ourselves.
[Reply]
Sonny Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 4:41 am
Please go back to the beginning of this article. It was on the table in the Bush admin. , too.
[Reply]
Yes, it is indeed insane that the men around Hussein who are actively trying to use legal ruses, exectuive orders, new “progressive” agendas, and political pressure groups to end-run, reinterperate, play word games with, and subverte the Consititution of the U.S.. to overcome the Will of the People and THE Spirit of the Constitution….all these one-worlders need to please get a grip….if you and your Government Men would put a play on all the illegals and gang-members who out-gun our constabulary….make a real issure of it, then they might have prima fasia cause to REQUEST for a look at bans on some weapons…until that time….they need to accept the fact that they are going to get the middle-fringer from law abiding gun-owners, bigtime.
[Reply]
William, get a fookun grip
all guns wont evaporate, you ignorant git.
the stasi will still shoot your family down like the dogs they are.
and your neighbor will cut your throat with an old soup can lid to get your last potato peelings
[Reply]
William says: “I cannot possibly imagine why any reasonable human would need any of those weapons. If we get rid of all the guns, there will be no more gun deaths.
It’s that simple, friends.”
Well WIlliam, you must live somewhere very safe and comfortable, probably a gated community. And you might even sip on a latte as you head for work. But you know not everyone lives like this, William. Some have to protect themselves against intruders that try and steal the little things that we do own. Imagine that, a reasonable human being protecting his right to life liberty and property. Who woulda thunk it?
[Reply]
chiefosage Reply:
March 14th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Well, Tom, so you think no one should have guns? In a perfect world only sir! You going to safeguard all of us? Your kind of analogy only foments more people at the top to think our rights are not God given. This statement of yours tells me you are an athiest. I don’t think you need to be in this conversation except for your inalienable rights. Your fear of the underlings is all to obvious.
[Reply]
EvenifTheZionistsTakeTheGuns Reply:
March 14th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
Tom, conservatives/liberals and everyone else is grateful that schmucks like you did not get into control over all levers of Government.
Idiotic ideas like yours, of disarming the people would lead to mass lynching mobs & detention camps like Kuwait where there is no rule of law.
The right to bear arms is not a debate, it’s based on fact and law. It shall “NOT BE” infringed!!!!!
NO other clause stated there. It’s not for whackos who go shooting people on killing sprees, prodded on by the mass media.
It is for the people of the U.S.A to keep out bad government, criminals, and/or terrorists & also keep abuse in check.
[Reply]
zerk durkin Reply:
March 17th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
William the thing they don’t think about is if you take a hardworking tax paying good guy and make him a felon then a felon is what you will get. More people are killed by drunk drivers then guns in the USA so should we ban cars? They will make a grave mistake if they start this fight and they will not win this will tare the country in two and i still will have my guns so when you run from house to house after the looters brake in to your house and are raping your wife don’t ask for help from us you can just wait for the UN security force to get there to help you.Grow some balls you cowering little wimp brake all your Elton john CD’s and burn all your Tom Cruse DVD s and you might have a chance!!
[Reply]
Guy Fawkes Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
William says that if no one had guns, no one would get shot….. I am almost speechless at how stupid this statement is. You see William, if no one had guns, then only the military and police would have guns and that my friend is called a Police State. Stalin and Hitler sold your philosophy to the masses and well…enough said.
[Reply]
Pass out dvd’s to military personel and FireFighters (FireFighters will share with their police friends). We need the armed persons sworn to uphold the Constitution on our side, not against us when the fit hits the shan.
[Reply]
Uh, huh, huh. The jokes on yu Osama. I alredy done GOT all the guns recomended in the Gun Magazins at the grocery stor.
[Reply]
Blaine Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 11:16 am
his name is Barack OBAMA, and he is your president. He’s trying to save the lives of young innocent people. NO ONE deserves to own an AK, you don’t need it. Just use a hunting rifle or a pistol. I really don’t want an Uzi in the hands of a guy who can’t spell the word store or magazine. Obama isn’t the terrorist. Maybe you are, I’m still not sure.
[Reply]
Guy Fawkes Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
I know of a nice FEMA getaway camp for you Blaine. It has lots of armed guards to keep you safe.
[Reply]
Shain Reply:
March 16th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
[He’s trying to save the lives of young innocent people. NO ONE deserves to own an AK, you don’t need it. Just use a hunting rifle or a pistol.]
There is a lot of problems with your statement.
First, to save our young ones. The majority of ‘young ones’ who are shot, are gang members with drug related lifestyles.
Second, More (over 4x) ‘young ones’ die from medical complications, in hospitals, then by firearms. medical complications can be literally translated to negligent homicide, because it was someone’s screw up that killed that person.
Please ban hospitals and AMA certified doctors first, because there are over 300 million guns in America, which accounts for only a minuscule fraction of deaths. Doctors cause over four times as many ‘accidental deaths’ and there are far-far-far less doctors then gun owners.
Last, the right to keep and bear arms, isn’t about sports, hunting or target plinking targets. It is about self protection from other humans and keeping all nine other amendments from being taken away.
[Reply]
zerk durkin Reply:
March 17th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
Obama will go down in history as one of the worst leaders in history!!Do you really think if you take guns away from law abiding people crime will go down?What dream world do you live in?If i want to kill someone i will kill them i don’t need a gun in fact a gun would be very low on my list look at the Nicole Simpson Ron Goldman killings who ever killed them used stalk and surprise to kill. it was a quite slice dice and slip away.What you need to realize is a killer will kill and that person will use any tool to achieve his or her objective.Most violent crime is committed by felons in and out of the system i think if you are convicted of a violent crime you should get one in the back of the head after you trial Game over.
[Reply]
Bruder Schweinzig Reply:
April 9th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
When you say no one deserves an AK47 what you don’t seem to understand is that fully automatic AK’s are ILLEGAL. Machine guns have been ILLEGAL since 1934. The “Assault Weapons” ban only applies to semi-automatic weapons. AK’s in order to be legal need to be modified so that they are semi-automatic and a percentage of the parts must be made in America. This makes it very hard unless you are a gunsmith to convert it back. I live in California. We have some of the most draconian gun laws in the country. I am fine dealing with all the BS they put us through but you give the government a cookie and it will ask for milk. Little by little the government strips your 2nd amendment rights until one day you won’t have rights whatsoever. The only legitimate way to ban guns is to also ban the government from owning those guns which will never happen. If it were up to me I would add a clause in the 2nd Amendment saying any weaponry that the domestic enforcement owns shall also be the right for the individual to own.
[Reply]
Lets get this thing on, and take these mother HARLOTS down with the Federal Reserve!!!!!!
http://www.endthefed.us
SUPREME COURT & State rights over-writes the AG……..Always has!!!
[Reply]
The government lies. If they say it’s good for you run for the hills.
- Read my lips – No new taxes
- I did not have sexual relations with that woman
- there are WMD’s in Iraq
- The Taliban are responsible for 9/11
- We have to bailout the banks…
- We need you to turn in your weapons..
- We need you to report to the local internment center for processing..
Most problems can be directly tracked back to the government. Wake up!!!
Whatever they say believe the opposite!
[Reply]
Come and take them.
I’ll give the bullets first.
[Reply]
Shain Reply:
March 16th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Love that line. I want it!
[Reply]
This list is the same exact one from the 1994 so-called “Assault Weapons” ban. Many of these guns are no longer being manufactured. Even if this passes, it will be quickly brought to the Supreme Court, where it has a big chance of being declared unconstitutional in light of the D.C. v. Heller decision. Buy your guns. Stock up on extended magazines and ammo… just in case.
[Reply]
Even if the Zionists take the guns, we’ll just take them back……
The Supreme Court will **NEVER** uphold any of AG Holder’s opinions, and even if they did, we’d just over-throw the court & after the bloodbath the Court Justices would help *US* re-instate the constitution.
This is nothing but embryonic fear tactics by the establishment, nothing more and nothing less.
They have no army, if they did, we already would have *SLAUGHTERED* them because I had 5-6 commandos at the door to my LIVING QUARTERS and was prepared to kill them all.
Even if some of the military join on their side for a full sweeping confiscation, at the end of the day they won’t shoot us or enough of us.
They’ll just say “Screw this obscene little game” and arrest Washington D.C. like they did before Obama was getting elected.
The Federal Reserve can run, but it CAN NOT hide behind the law.
The Federal Reserve is unconstitutional and can go quietly like Ron Paul said or go down in flames!
Look at Ireland, its all anarchy there now.
Does the powers that be actually want that many bullets flying here!?!?
Everyone knows!!!!
If they are idiots, they will try to put down this revolution otherwise they will see the light of our firing arms & cast off this den of vicious hell known as the Federal Reserve by putting it under permanent audit and ARREST the traitors who shot bullets at us!
[Reply]
Guy Fawkes Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Well said Evenif… It really is quite simple. When the jack booted thugs realize that with every door they approach, there is a good possibility they wont be going home alive to their families, the confiscations and abuse will cease.
[Reply]
Shain Reply:
March 16th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Even better when you have friends across the street that have a good vantage point with their own fire arms, which will help you out for that very same reason.
Cross fire can be a real problem, especially when the cross fire has near to no danger of harming any of the ‘friends’ involved.
[Reply]
[...] RepublicBroadcasting.com [...]
I’ll quote Article Two of the Bill of Rights first, then present my simple realization and perhaps, God willing, this ludicrous issue can be resolved once and for all. (Yea, right …) Here goes: ‘A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ (!) As far as I can tell, that’s one sentence. This issue doesn’t need to be debated by constitutional lawyers. This whole debate could be cleared up by my first grade English teacher. Article Two says, essentially, that: ‘In order to maintain a free state a well regulated militia (the National Guard) is necessary, and to that end only (at least according to the grammatic content of the sentence) people (the National Guard) have the ‘right’ to bear arms’. If you reverse the two parts of the sentence it becomes even more crystal clear: ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, in order to maintain a well-regulated militia.’
This sentence, this one idea, this complete thought in and of itself does not say every Floyd, Clem, or Burl has the right to bear arms. It does not say every psychopathic yahoo in the country should be able to own a gun. It doesn’t say that at all, and anyone with an education higher than the first grade should be able to comprehend this. Again, I believe people should be able to glean the true meaning of a simple sentence before we even begin to discuss their owning automatic weapons for ‘hunting purposes.’
I can’t help but wonder why the simple and obvious meaning of this sentence has never been mentioned before. Perhaps this is old news to the gun control debaters, but that still doesn’t change the meaning of the sentence. Are gun rights advocates arguing that roving gangs of young people shooting innocent bystanders constitutes a ’well regulated militia’? Or that Clem shooting Burl because he mistook him in the dark for a ‘nigra’ constitutes a ‘secure and free state’? What, exactly, is their argument based on? Because it is not based on any ‘guaranteed right’ in the constitution. A child could explain this to you is he or she wasn’t ducking for cover, or being strip-searched on the way into their grade school.
Here is the problem as I see it – a lot of very fearful and confused people in this world are heading towards realizing their own self-fulfilling prophesy. They are advocating a right that does not exist (at least constitutionally, as we’ve seen) to arm themselves to the teeth and ‘protect’ themselves from unnamed predators who, they believe, want nothing more than to break into their homes, rape their fat wives, then steal all their bowling trophies.
They want to ‘defend’ themselves against some giant social war that appears to them to be breaking out everywhere, threatening their very existence itself. And just who are these poor twisted souls that flap helplessly in the winds of change like a klansmans sheet rustling against his legs as he chases a ‘nigra child’ in the night? They are … you guessed it! … Republicans!
[Reply]
chiefosage Reply:
March 14th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Well, Adam, let me give you an oversimplication. The word militia does not mean “National Guard” So, how’s your blood pressure now? You must be an athiest also. Probably a “G” man. In any case, not a true American!! When you see the hordes of foreigners from the north and south of the U.S. coming after you and yours, you are going to scream bloody murder while trying to find a gun to defend your family. Its already been ordered by your government. The United States is going to become a nuclear sacrifice for the New World Order. That will probably get you too.
[Reply]
Guy Fawkes Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
‘A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,…….
Our state militias (national guard, as you claim) are now serving overseas and they are now 100% Federalized. So who is left to protect each state’s citizens? The 2nd Amendment guarantees them all!
[Reply]
Wayne Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
The National Guard did not exist when the Constitution was written.
A “well-regulated” militia may well refer to a self-regulated miltia: the language of the amendment does not in any way impose the idea of a Federal or central authority militia.
One may argue, very rightly I personally believe, that a “free state” can’t even possibly exist if it has a central authority in charge of a miltia.
[Reply]
Shain Reply:
March 16th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
[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.]
Let us define Militia. It does not mean a federal or even state ‘run’ military force. The militia at the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, was every able-bodied male adult (from 13-50 I believe) who could defend their lands and rights.
States are charged with the requirement to make sure that the militia is well regulated. Translation of the times, well trained and armed.
[Reply]
zerk durkin Reply:
March 17th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
This is my constitution You the government shell never take my rights or my ability to protect my family AND IF YOU TRY IT IS MY DUTY TO FIGHT YOU TILL MY LAST BREATH OR MY LAST SHELL.I am not a nut job and i know that’s what you will think of me but there are millions of us out there we teach your kids,we fix your cars,we are bankers and store owners and if you force us we will fight and if they under estimate us they will pay a high price.
[Reply]
William, I called you by the wrong name above. Sorry about that, but in any case, William, it was meant for you. This above statement again shows me a lot about someone that believes in his government for everything. It’s called worshiping the beast. You sir, above all I’ve seen on these pages need to repent of your idol worship and then you will have a life in the real world. This country has never given any of us a thing yet without demanding more of us because of it. Why do you think most of the states are now declaring their sovreignty from the Federal Government? Our country needs to throw off this diabolical despotic bunch and put on new safeguards. You sir are a communist and the more you talk the more I see the face of depravity!!!!!!!
[Reply]
EvenifTheZionistsTakeTheGuns Reply:
March 14th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
William, shut your mouth and stop being so blind.
The Government has also been extremely bad sometimes, and its indicated in the 2nd amendment:
“The right to bear arms shall NOT BE infringed.”
And the quislings in D.C. understand this just not AG “Holder”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/us/politics/14web-hulse.html?_r=1&ref=us
You seem to not be able to interpret the words “Infringed” correctly so let me clarify it for you.
Police officers, civil servants and citizens were bestowed the right to keep a well “regulated militia” for the safeguards of themselves and the constitution of the U.S.A.
“…under any accordance, that right shall not be infringed.”
Therefore the right stays, it is no debate as the right to bear arms is not for all the criminals.
It’s for the people to have protection against criminals, government criminals or any of the above during tougher times.
Most people are “RESPONSIBLE” with their guns, and only criminals would deny the right to arms so that they could loot & destroy without the people fighting back. Not happening.
[Reply]
oh god Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 12:22 am
guns suck.
[Reply]
Shain Reply:
March 16th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
[guns suck.]
Guns are the great equalizer.
Apparently you are not a 90 pound female who lives in fear of bodily or economic harm.
Because, with a gun, that 90 pound female can take out a 250 pound thug.
Stop with the fear mongering chiefosage. I’m not an Atheist like you wish all non-republicans were.
[Reply]
Militia
Main Entry:
mi·li·tia Listen to the pronunciation of militia
Pronunciation:
\mə-ˈli-shə\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Latin, military service, from milit-, miles
Date:
1625
1 a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b: a body of citizens organized for military service2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
[Reply]
aint no god damn negro gona take my guns…..make my grandaddy role in his grave,shiiiiiiiit
[Reply]
Blaine Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 11:19 am
Your ancestors are rolling in their graves right now based on your ignorant comments.
[Reply]
You racist turd. You are a waste of flesh.
[Reply]
The experts all agree…..
Hitler – Castro – Qaddafi – Stalin – Idi Amin – Mao Tse-tung – Pol Pot Kim Jong II – Etc….
Gun Control Works, Welcome to 3rd world Jewmerica….
I wasn’t aware of all these facts. Guess I’ll go and check my ammo supply.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews, Catholics and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million ‘educated’ people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
—————————–
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
——————————
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
The first year results are now in:
List of 7 items:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.
2 percent!
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.
6 percent!
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.
Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it’s too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are ‘citizens’. Without them, we are ’subjects’.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends.
The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental.
1. Don’t pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he’ll just kill you.
2. If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.
3. I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.
4. When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away.
5. A reporter did a human-interest piece on the Texas Rangers. The reporter recognized the Colt Model 1911 the Ranger was carrying and asked him ‘Why do you carry a 45?’ The Ranger responded, ‘Because they don’t make a 46.
‘
6. An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity.
7. The old sheriff was attending an awards dinner when a lady commented on his wearing his sidearm. ‘Sheriff, I see you have your pistol. Are you expecting trouble?’ ‘No Ma’am. If I were expecting trouble, I would have brought my rifle.
‘
8. Beware the man who only has one gun.
HE PROBABLY KNOWS HOW TO USE IT!!!
But wait, there’s more!
I was once asked by a lady visiting if I had a gun in the house. I said I did. She said ‘Well I certainly hope it isn’t loaded!’ To which I said, ‘Of course it is loaded, can’t work without bullets!’ She then asked, ‘Are you that afraid of someone evil coming into your house?’ My reply was, ‘No, not at all. I am not afraid of the house catching fire either, but I have fire extinguishers around, and they are all loaded too.
‘
To which I’ll add, having a gun in the house that isn’t loaded is like having a car in the garage without gas in the tank.
I’m a firm believer of the 2nd Amendment!
A hypenated American is “NOT” an American at all!
[Reply]
Jim DeTexas Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Asian-Americans as you and millions of others like to put it, should consider being AMERICANS of Asian decent. Ya see you are American first. Is that not why you fleed your country?
[Reply]
Jim DeTexas Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 8:49 am
I should finish, you see the powers that be have us as citizens devided by everything they can, think about it what is it exactly that unites us? It is only the land mass and nothing else. Every one misses the fact that we are all AMERICANS all of us. They are doing this not to Asians, not to blacks, not to Mexicans, not to Chinese, THEY ARE DOING THIS TO AMERICANS AND ONLY AMERICANS, get it?
[Reply]
“Isn’t that clear?”
It’s clear you don’t know the words in your own constitution. “MILITIA” means body of citizens, Thomas Jefferson was referring to the people.
When the clause was added there was no such thing as a “Military Complex”. It referred to just that, the citizens and militia.
“… a well regulated militia…..that the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed.” verbatim
A right ignored is a right denied, you just got clocked on history 101.
[Reply]
Jim DeTexas Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 8:55 am
Seems we argue over things that really don’t matter, see how devided we as a nation are. I think the point isn’t who is best at history here, I think the point is they are wanting to take away our rights and our nation.
[Reply]
chiefosage Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Hey, William, what is it about militia you don’t understand? Back when our nation was young we had no National Guard. It was referred to as the militia of different states. So, where the “Guard” comes in is because of your inclination to adopt the Fed. Listen up, You better put God before the Fed. You become a slave to that which you trust. Religion? That’s a National thing whether you want it or not this country was founded on Christianity. So, go ahead and tell off on yourself. You can’t be my brother and say I have not got the right to have a gun!!
[Reply]
Guy Fawkes Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Our National Guard is now serving the military industrial complex overseas.
[Reply]
William, you and Adam must be a couple of Marxist bolsheviks.
Although you do a nice job of regurgitating the arguments of Marxists and oligarchs, anyone who has good knowledge of Madison, Jefferson, and their contemporaries, would laugh you out of town.
Better that you work on the discovery of why the mass immigration of Jewish bolsheviks to the United States, along with the previously immigrated Frankfurt School, has made American society an increasingly dangerous people to live among.
The powerful Jews who would like to rule this country by decree will never do here as they did in Russia, as long as we have the right to keep and bear arms.
Howard Metzenbaum, Frank Lautenberg (see Lautenberg Amendment on US immigration), Charles Schumer, Diane Feinstein, Alan Dershowitz, Barbara Boxer, all Jews or Jewish, are not simply particpants but the leaders of the gun control movement.
Now, STFU!
[Reply]
HistorySuffersNoFools Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 2:36 am
It’s clear they are both twisting words in the wind to re-define the term “IS” and what “IS” actually stands for and are complete fools.
Here it is again:
“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. (ever)”
A well regulated militia in those days were colonists, city officials, citizens as there was no “CLEAR” Military whatsoever.
Your re-definition of history is absolutely borderline stupid. There was *NO MILITARY FORCE* only army cadet captains such as the British Army, the American Colonists, French Revolutionaries and so on.
Therefore the right to bear arms in that sentence is referring to th e people, and that right shall not be infringed.
If it’s so easy a 2nd grader can read it and understand that clearly, then you’re the ones who need to NOT bother opening your mouths.
Regulated weapons means they get registered under all local/state laws as they always have. That’s the way it is, and under no terms DID they ever say that means to ban weapons.
I can defend myself just fine with an extra long jack knife after the chaos I’ve seen. But I still carry a cattle prod.
And if any corrupt law officer, official or criminal enters the premises ILLEGALLY they will get shocked right up the kisser so there will be no hostile takeover of this neighborhood.
All charges will be thrown out as under opencarry law opencarry.org we “HAVE THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE” in all instances, if said right can reasonably be confirmed to have been excercised in direct defense to physical harm on person or direct violence against person or their property.
Any Jury, like the one who acquitted a man in Texas recently of violating firearms law when he shot on officials who were illegally stealing property – would laugh out of the court-room any criminal or outlaw bureaocrat who attempted to prosecute someone because they openly defended their land against tresspassing.
Repeatedly brought up before the Supreme Court many times, there is no defesne for those who shamelessly attack others or vandalize public property.
“….WHATEVER the circumstances.”
This implies, that no matter under what circumstances whether it be crazy guards trying to bring someone to a detention camp, a city official who stepped out of line raiding your house, or even an innocent person who *MISTAKENLY* invaded your property because they thought you were a convicted criminal….NO charges can be held as valid if you shot at or attacked them in self-defense to a threat of personal injury on your person which was beyond reasonable doubt. Where “Severe Injury” can be shown, the charges are even more serious & self defense in response to an extreme threat is always warranted.
And it happens……..MANY places, which is why we shall never lay down the 2nd amendment.
[Reply]
HistorySuffersNoFools Reply:
March 16th, 2009 at 10:04 am
“JEWS” is a red herring of baseless propaganda.
They aren’t all Jews many of them are Gentiles like John Haggee & all of them are insane.
The correct assumption is that Globalist Zionists are trying to take over the world, a political fascist movement.
And every member of the Zionist establishment, belongs to the same fraternity club regardless if that’s catholic, protestant, jewish or aethiest as the bolsheviks were.
[Reply]
HistorySuffersNoFools,
Here is the Merriam Webster definition for Militia in case you didn’t see it above.
Militia
Main Entry:
mi·li·tia
Pronunciation:
\mə-ˈli-shə\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Latin, military service, from milit-, miles
Date:
1625
1 a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b: a body of citizens organized for military service
2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
There is Militia in plain English.
Thomas,
Marxists? Hardly. I am a Libertarian and happy to be 100% American.
Marx was a brilliant analyst for his time but his theory of modern society was superficial. It overgeneralized from the situation of its time. His theory requires a periodization of history that does not correspond to historical reality.
Jim De Texas,
Only one of the countries listed in “The Experts Agree… Gun Control Works” site you posted are Democracies. Australia. The rest were brutal regimes.
In Australia, the ban/buyback cannot be blamed for the rise in crime since the rate was increasing at an even greater rate before the ban/buyback even began. However, it is also apparent that the ban/buyback did not have a definite beneficial effect on the assault rate.
You can see for yourself on the Australian Institute of Criminology’s website at http://www.aic.gov.au/
America will not round up it’s citizens and kill them if there is ever a total ban on guns. If you are so frightened that someone will break into your house, get a German Shepard. They are great at deterring break-in’s
William,
100% CLEAR!
[Reply]
Jim DeTexas Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 9:03 am
Statistics were and are not the point.
The point is, that it is a lot better to have a gun and not need it, then it is to need a gun and not have it.
When they come for the guns the bad guys never give thiers up. The ones they aren’t suppose to have in the first place.
[Reply]
The ruling elite have a pretty good game for themselves worked out. Put a supposed conservative in office to erode the liberties that liberals and leftists hold dear all the while conservatives snickering and gloating. Then put a supposed liberal in office to erode the liberties that conservatives hold dear all the while liberals snickering and gloating about it
Lather, Rinse, Repeat.
Do you think the people with enough money and power to have all the guns they want give a shit about your second amendment rights? Do you think they give a shit about abortions when they can fly anywhere in the world to have an inconvenient baby terminated in a clean facility? Do you think they care about your biochemical and cognitive freedom to injest whatever substance you see fit when they can afford to go to Bogota on a whim and sniff coke with drug lords?
Do you think they give a shit about arguments over socialism and capitalism when they already own ALMOST EVERYTHING?
The net result is less freedom for EVERYBODY, regardless of your political preferences – and yet we continue to bicker back and forth over petty bullshit. Soon we’ll be shedding each other’s blood over it while the people of the “elite club” (of which NONE of you are a part – don’t kid yourself) watch on the nightly news and laugh their asses off at our tribalism and stupidity.
Yeah stockpile your weapons and chant molon labe. They think it’s cute.
We deserve what we get. The stupid deserve to be ruled and we do not disappoint.
What a joke.
[Reply]
Blaine Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
I actually agree with this guy!
[Reply]
chiefosage Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
I won’t shed your blood if you don’t shed mine. That good enough?
[Reply]
http://www.infowars.com/police-trained-nationwide-that-informed-americans-are-domestic-terrorists/
And now we’re ALL terrorists.
Fuck fascists, fuck zionism, fuck the fed, fuck obama, fuck bush
[Reply]
Well, William, it’s not that simple. Taking all guns from honest citizens will not mean the disappearance of gun related deaths. Dream on. I have had to use a firearm for self protection before; the police cannot be everywhere and aware of a potential crime taking place.
You simply aren’t expanding your thinking. Most criminals will not turn in their handguns when the law requires it. The most dangerous cities are those with the most firearm restrictions. I’m not saying that having a firearm legally will stop crime, I’m saying that your conclusion is erroneous.
[Reply]
HistorySuffersNoFools Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 4:30 am
William is NOT a simpleton, he is a reckless idiot. He thinks that the definition of “IS” isn’t is.
I’m here to inform him that it is, regardless if he agrees or thinks otherwise because he is making a baseless argument NOT supported by the incremental statement.
“for the people, the right to bear arms shall NOT BE infringed.”
He’s the one who opened up the tinder box, and if the government falls, and if we all fall, it will be because of insufferable fools like him who never read the law at all. He glanced at it, that is not reading it
SHALL NOT BE, means never, the right to bear arms will always remain.
[Reply]
http://jya.com/ap.htm
[Reply]
Wow paranoiastrksdp. Sounds about right.
[Reply]
HistorySuffersNoFools
“A well regulated militia in those days were colonists, city officials, citizens as there was no “CLEAR” Military whatsoever.”
Bullshit. The ‘militias (which were a regular army established in 1775 – which appointed George Washington to be Commander In Chief)’ were, back then, The Continental Marines, The Continental Navy, and The Continental Army. The Bill of Rights had not even been written until December 15th 1791. So there had already been a military established for 16 years before the Second Amendment had even been written.
Your argument fails in denying there was a military when the Bill of Rights was passed. The argument further fails for all gun rights wackos who fail to understand the clear sentence the Second Amendment states. The right of our military and law enforcement to bear arms. A lot of people just cant comprehend this since logic is denied and fear is so driven into their soft heads. There must be a lot of family trees out there that are just stumps.
Today the ‘well regulated’ (yea, right) militias are The Marines, Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, National Guard, Police and so on.
“Your re-definition of history is absolutely borderline stupid. There was *NO MILITARY FORCE* only army cadet captains such as the British Army, the American Colonists, French Revolutionaries and so on.”
Again, you deny there was a military back then. Then you go on to say that army captains were the British army. You lost me there because Ive never heard of an army of only captains.
No one is redefining history. Just defining well regulated militias which are not Cletus in the tailor park or Merle in Sprawl-Mart buying a 12 Gauge.
[Reply]
Adam Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 5:17 am
Im sorry. I have to correct something. The Continental Congress appointed George Washington in 1775 whom created the regular army, on paper. The Congress created The Continental Marines in Philadelphia by a resolution on November 10th 1775.
[Reply]
We could, if we have the Balls, overthrow these people, kill them all, and forcibly repeal the 14, 16, and 17th amendments. Anyone disagree?
[Reply]
Toecutter Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Only the first 10a are valid.
[Reply]
In 1966 my goverment had the right to conscript me, put a m-16 in my arms and sent me off to the killing fields of vietnam, and now that they have trained me and fired the steel of the charter they (who have proablly never served) think they have the right to take away my right’s an abandon the RIGHT to bear arms as accored by the bill of right’s for over 200 years can come knocking on my door to do so; so long as THEY don’t bear arms while doing so. P.S. our family have been part of AMERICA since 1681 and I personnely have a top seceret clerance afforded to me by our gov.
[Reply]
Shain Reply:
March 18th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Dennis, next time they institute the draft, and they are seriously considering it now, Support the draft, but tell those that have been ‘drafted’ to not sign nor swear to any pledges or paperwork!
It’s interesting that every 3rd world city person up to middle class can be drafted, but sons of Congressmen and Senators wouldn’t be touched, or if they were, sent to the other side of the world fro the conflict.
If another draft comes, demand your Senators and Congressmen that their kids and grand-kids are sent into the same war, under the same conditions as everyone else!
[Reply]
How American of you D C.
You should start your own authoritarian dictatorship.
[Reply]
during the los angeles riots the cops fled and abanonded citizens to their own, if you had guns you could defend yourself and property like Korean merchants if you didnt people like “william” will end up like the truckdriver being beaten senseless, william dont expect others to come to your aid, we would want to violate your gun control sensibilities. This isnt switzerland its closer to Brazil;
[Reply]
Where is the fucking grammar on this message board?
[Reply]
Blaine Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Most of these people seem to be VERY uneducated and bat-shit-crazy. These people actually think the government is out to get them. Give peace a chance retards!!!!! it’s not about you and YOUR right’s to be a dumb ass and own an AK. it’s about the kids that get killed when guns end up in the hand’s of crazies. To think the end is coming because a black man is president is just proof of the ignorance on display here. it seems the only grammar any of these people have learned, they learned from Guns N Ammo.
[Reply]
chiefosage Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Guns don’t kill, bud, people do.
[Reply]
Blaine Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Then WHY do you NEED an AK-47??????
Toecutter Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
You an english teacher? Middle finger extended. Spell this.
[Reply]
Blaine Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
it is spelled I-G-N-O-R-A-N-T
[Reply]
You guys are nuts. i google searched most of these guns and they all seem to be super heavy duty firearms that really serve NO purpose but to end up in the hands of people who will use them for ill will. My family is FULL of hunters. My brother is a full-time hunting guide, my father has hunted for almost 60 years. I think they would agree that these weapons serve no purpose other than to kill other human beings. Sure some of you think they are cool and just like to have them in the house. But most of them will end up in the hands of gang-bangers and terrorists. You guys are crazy if you think that the killing of innocent people with these ridiculous weapons is ruining your second ammendment rights. You can still own guns. You just can’t own these guns that serve no purpose but to kill PEOPLE. This law has nothing to do with taking your rights away. It has everything to do with taking guns away from crazy-violent people. If you actually WANT TO OWN these guns and claim to want to kill people who come to take them from you. Then YOU are a CRAZY VIOLENT person. And YOU are part of the reason horrible things like the shooting at Columbine happened!!! We have the right to bear arms, but we also have WAAAAAAAY more gun violence than any country in the world. Waaaaay more! If you truly use guns for sport, you will be okay with your hunting rifles, shotguns, and pistols. If you are a just in this for your Uzi’s and 50′ cals, well you don’t deserve to have them, and never did in the first place. If you want to use weapons like that, join the military!!!!!
[Reply]
Steven Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Blaine, you are nuts.
[Reply]
Blaine Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Wow, amazing argument. Now, you’ve convinced me that it’s okay for idiots to have high powered weapons. Why don’t you ask my friend who’s a teacher at Columbine High School what he thinks about your “right”.
[Reply]
chiefosage Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
If you knew the real truth about Columbine, you would find a gun just to shoot yourself because people like you will never make it through what is about to happen in this country. You are afraid of everything. I need a gun to protect my family from people like you and an out-of-control gov’t.
Steven Reply:
March 18th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Blaine,
I don’t need to waste my time on lost sheeple like you. Why would I argue with someone that thinks they are right no matter what?
There is no point of wasting an ounce of wisdom on you.
We don’t need any gun control. We need an informed and armed population.
Toecutter Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Hey idiot learn the difference between right and privilege then come back and discuss it.
[Reply]
Blaine Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
I know the difference, I don’t think idiots like you should own AK’s. It’s my RIGHT to feel safe. The best way for me to feel safe is KNOWING my dumb-ass neighbors don’t have a cannon in their closet.
[Reply]
chiefosage Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
What I have in my closet is not a cannon, its a tool for the delivery of high speed sleeping pills. Learn about all the hundreds of foreign troops brought here in secret to take you down. S-o-o-n!!!!! That’s right you will not be safe either!!Repent Athiest, and you will have a home in heaven at least. Or are you the kind that will turn someone in to the Feds? In that case you are a traitor and a treasonist.
Guy Fawkes Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Please surrender your dual citizenship and return to Israel to Zionist ADL piece of shit
Shain Reply:
March 17th, 2009 at 10:34 am
[It’s my RIGHT to feel safe. ]
It is? Where in the Bill of rights or Constitution or any other government paper does it say you have the RIGHT to FEEL safe?
Actually, you don’t even have a right to BE safe, much less FEEL safe. That, as a right, does not exist.
What about every gun owners right to FEEL safe? Your rights are rights up to but do not include pushing over other people’s natural rights.
B.Franklin ” Those who give up Liberty for safety shall have nor deserve either”
Jim DeTexas Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
To anyone that believes our government is acting in our best interest, view these videos and answer the unanswered questions left from 9/11.
ZERO : An Investigation Into 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3kBn1usddI&feature=related
I also recomend a visit to …
http://www.realjewnews.com/
Take a trip into the rabbit hole that is the make up of the real America.
[Reply]
I would bet that there will always be more than,enough weapons easy to get, even the big stuff once people see the need for them(like they do in iraq),maybe the chinese will supply some “defence assistance” in this area for free.maybe the red dawn effect will kick in.
The overiding truth is that the harder the govnt squeezez the more slips thru their fingers.
[Reply]
Uh, folks, the reason the 2A was put in the Constitution was to enable the people to forcefully remove a tyrant govt., should it ever get to that point again.
At the time the 2A was written, there was no difference between a “para-military assault rifle” and a “hunting rifle.” The rifle the minuteman used to shoot Sunday’s dinner was the same one he shot at the redcoats with on Monday. The nation’s founding fathers knew this, and gave us the right to keep and bear arms anyway. There was no differentiation between military and civilian firearms. They meant for us to have the power and ability to forcefully remove a govt. run amok form power.
My greatest fear right now is that someone is going to exercise the 2A in the manner it was intended and remove Mr. O-More-of-the-Same-Only-Worse from office. It’ll give a hateful anti-American like Ms. Pelosi the “ammo” she needs to finish stripping the rest of us of our 2A rights. WE AS AMERICANS NEED TO DEFEND THAT SOB–as un-American as he is, until he gets voted out, as HIS FORCEFUL REMOVAL via the 2A could be DISASTROUS FOR US AS A NATION.
[Reply]
chiefosage Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
All elections are rigged, all poles are rigged, all census are rigged, where the hell does that put you.
[Reply]
Come get em coward. Youll send some other poor slob to do it because your a coward. If you really were what you think you are you would come to my door and tell me you demand I surrender my guns. I would respond by telling you why you are wrong , then I would shoot you in the face.
[Reply]
You (the people) gave them the money through confiscated tax dollars into a large pool. The bureaucrats take their payment/fee for making big decisions for you. Then they give it back. And people like you like the fool you are cant follow it, and understand. Are you stupid, retartded, smoking crack? WTF. Idiots like you are the problem.
[Reply]
All the whining about protecting oneself against foreighn or domestic aliens is moot. Nobody in their right mind would invade a polluted, selfish and self-promoting sewer of a country.
You can’t even control the excesses by your financial institutions, you are a country of greedy immoral assholes that don’t deserve any consideration worldwide.
[Reply]
Blaine Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
not all of us are greedy and immoral J.C.
[Reply]
J.C.Flint Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
agree, but these people control the country and only a revolution will change that.
[Reply]
The 2nd Amendment was never meant to guarantee the right to hunt, or shoot for sport. Hunting was assumed, as part of colonial life, just as much as farming was. So let’s just drop the “right to hunt” argument. That wasn’t the point of the 2nd Amendment.
Nor was the 2nd Amendment about preserving the right to self defense. This was also assumed.
The point, quite simply, was to guarantee the ability of the common citizen to fight off foreign invaders, or a tyrannical government, if such a thing came into being. The Founding Fathers had just fought off a tyrannical government… this was at the forefront of their minds.
The people who wrote the 2nd Amendment lived at a time when the common citizen already had access to small arms equal to those of professional soldiers… the exception, of course, being actual artillery. It is quite, quite clear that the 2nd Amendment, therefore, meant that common citizens were to be guaranteed the right to own personal weapons equal to those used by the military. This would be the only practical way to balance an enemy military’s capabilities on the battlefield.
All arguments against such an understanding of the 2nd Amendment must be weighed against the common life (the context) of the era. Did murders occur in colonial America? Certainly. Did some murderers use firearms, up to and including the small arms of professional soldiers? Certainly. Did some people die in firearm-related accidents? Certainly.
All of these arguments were considered weaker than the need for the common citizen to be the backbone of the Republic’s defense. Governments with standing armies aren’t any less dangerous now than they were back then.
Therefore, the Founding Fathers’ reasons for including the 2nd Amendment apply today.
[Reply]
chiefosage Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
All you know it alls get on youtube and watch the video about the Fema camps with millions of coffins for to bury guess who? Your friendly neighborhood gov’t and Fema have special plans for you. All you atheists need to think about whether you are worthy to escape all these things. Go ahead and watch the video. I dare you!!!!!!!!!!!
[Reply]
Adam Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Whoa! There’s another Adam here! Hi Adam!
[Reply]
Adam R Reply:
March 16th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Oh, hi! I guess I should have used my last initial. Sorry about that.
[Reply]
I have no interest in hunting. Sometimes I target practice but lately ammo is quite expensive.
So why do I believe in the 2nd Amendment?
TO KILL TYRANTS IF THE NEED ARISES!
[Reply]
chiefosage Reply:
March 15th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
I agree with you brother. This Adam and Blaine are not true Americans. Let show these fools how much we love the America we once knew. That is by holding up the Constitution high enough for the world to see it and possiblly laying down our lives to see that it lives on forever OK?!!!!!!!
[Reply]
Adam Reply:
March 16th, 2009 at 2:09 am
OK. I give in!!!
I’m not a true American?
I was born and raised AMERICAN you fool!!.
I hate the Constitution, right???
I need to take a shit.
Does it count that I have ancestors that go back to fisherman in Maine to the 1600’s?
Lobster with drawn butter and vinegar is tasty!
[Reply]
Guy Fawkes Reply:
March 16th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
I am sick of these liberal commie scumbags and I have no problem including them on our enemies list when the 2nd American Revolution starts. Time to tar and feather these modern Tories.
[Reply]
Our problem is the right to vote is taken too lightly. Just because two “illegals” or two “foreign nationals” drop a kid on American soil should not attach a right to vote. If we are destroying our right to bear arms then lets do it over correctly. The right to vote should be EARNED! Everyone should have the right to earn the right to vote. If you are 101 YOA and want that right then the government should find you a job for two years where the good of the country comes before your own PERSONAL good. Even if it means licking stamps in a hospital bed for two years then you do it.. Not many today care because they never tasted the true cost of freedom. Only people who have sacrificed their own personal time, freedom, lives and liberties can understand the power of THE VOTE! Only those people should lead. In other words, only those that care enough to put the welfare of other Americans first should have the power to change America and American lives.
[Reply]
Well, taking an Americans gun will be like taking a chocolate pie from a fat person..it wont happen!!
[Reply]
I’ve read thru some of the posts, and frankly they leave me wondering: what happened to the old adage, “the armed society is a polite society”?
[Reply]
My dad used to hunt with a M1 carbine. He was good with it. Guess he should have been as he was in Korea.
My family had fire arms just about in every corner of our house.
It was send at one time the “commies would have to take the U.S. one house at a time”. It was a secure way to say we had “defense”.
Iraq is a dress rehearsal. An “afgan” was something my mother used to knit. No anymore.
Read my comments on Russians in Cuba. No sense in going over plowed ground.
My Respect.
Lowell L Morse
[Reply]
After participating in this forum, it is so much more clear that ‘FEAR’ reigns supreme.
Thanks a lot fear mongers. Thanks for dumbing down the greatest nation in world history.
This is not only for those who believe what they hear instead of finding out for themselves.
[Reply]
“Guns don’t kill, bud, people do.”
The simple fact that where there are lots of guns – there are lots of people dying from guns, and where there aren’t a lot of guns – not many people die from guns, is an equation the bloodthirsty, hate mongering horde of gun freaks that maintain it is their constitutional right to bear arms’ don’t understand is more than a little frightening. Shouldn’t you be able to comprehend simple leaps of logic before being able to purchase a gun?
[Reply]
Shain Reply:
March 16th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
There is a flaw in your argument.
Per capita, there is a far higher percentage of people who own guns versus non-people who own guns in rural areas.
The highest violent crime rates are in cities where the _highest_ levels of gun control are kept. In general, in the places where the most violent crimes are committed successfully, it is difficult or impossible for a gun to be owned and carried legally.
Washington D.C. and Chicago had and have the most draconian gun laws. They also have the highest violent crime rates. A city, less then 100 miles from D.C. has a legal requirement for every head of household to own a firearm. It has one of the lowest violent crime rates int he country.
Observe the School and Church shootings. Schools are gun-free zones. Churches tend to have the idea of being a safe place to not have firearms.
The times that crazy gunmen went into a school or church, where a citizen was armed, the deaths were stopped almost immediately. Those places where there was not an armed civilian, the deaths kept coming.
India, recently had a series of mass shootings from well armed and trained terrorists. Over 100 people shot and killed in places from hotels to coffee shops within one hour. India as a country is unarmed to the civilians. The culprits were not stopped by the country’s service or civilians. They were contacted by their superiors, by cell phone, that they did enough damage.
It is a simple fact that more negligent homicides occur from a tiny minority of AMA certified doctors and nurses in hospitals then the case of the over 300 hundred million firearms.
[Reply]
“I cannot possibly imagine why any reasonable human would need any of those weapons. If we get rid of all the guns, there will be no more gun deaths.
It’s that simple, friends.”
Ummm, Auschwitz, helloo! Armed Jews would never have been stuffed into Nazi ovens. ‘Nuff said, ignoramus.
[Reply]
HistorySuffersNoFools Reply:
March 16th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Don’t bother with him, he’s such a moron it’s not even worth it.
No newsflash you over-pompous goon Adam.
The right to Arms was a non-negotiable right in order to overthrow tyrannical government should the need arise or protect from criminals.
Most people are not spreading fear mongering, they are telling you there are some VERY bad people in government up in Washington D.C.
If the people of Russia didn’t have their weapons, they could have been a massacred to a degree many can not even imagine during the Soviet Gulag takeover.
Say for instance, the IRS sends a heavily armed hit squad after someone for no reason.
You better be sure and positive that you’re armed to defend yourself, and keep those people out of there until it can be settled in court.
The I.R.S claims to be a part of the Federal Government but you look up the Federal Reserve act of 1913 > Similar to the enabling act by Hitler.
And you see that in this tyrannical piece of legislation a private bank cartel, of international foreign bankers are the Federal Reserve. A private company runs the Fed.
Lets say Federal Reserve gets really pissed, and sends armed batallions out into neighborhoods looking for people passing out suspected ‘hate’ literature or pamphlets against the Fed which they consider to be terrorist propaganda.
They could accidentally kill alot of people…..And the Israeli Mossad could certainly be out there too, that isn’t a joke.
Not all the International Bankers are European Israelis but, most of them are. All of the bankers are Zionists who see themselves as elite kings.
Therefore they have a very wide army, should it be required. And that army won’t hesitate killing patriots by the dozens, or arresting them unless those persons are armed that is.
Then they’ll think twice about that….
[Reply]
Quiet honestly, while the fervor that exists for unabated firearm ownership is heartening to see, however, the anger behind it only tends to feed into the stereotype that the uninitiated have of believers in the Constitution’s stance on the issue.
Conversely, the naivety, and ignorance of history and the proper context of the Second Amendment of those that believe in the ban is is somewhat frightening as well. Moreso, actually.
The founders of the country were all educated men, especially in history and law, and had thrown off a tyrranical government in England, with the help of the French. The writings of the various founders and contemporaries of that time further illuminate the spirit and intent of what they were trying to establish in this country. Want to get into the mind of what was intended in the constitution? Read Common Sense, or the Federalist Papers for starters, and you will not be able to have such a narrow and shortsighted reading of the Constitution.
Furthermore, the militia provision was because there was never an intent to have a standing army. The founders had deduced from example after example that a standing army was nothing but a tool that could be used for imperial and tyrannical ends A militia however, would be called up and organized at the state level by the governor when a need arose, out of the citizenry, and when the need was over, would dispel again. Taking that into consideration, a private citizen could not have lesser weapons than the military, the private citizen was the military. Fun piece of trivia…When did the U.S. first have a permanent standing army? Any takers?
In addition, with more reading of the supporting writings, you will find that many believed that if the populace were armed, it would be much more difficult to impose a dictatorial, or corrupt government over the people. Posse comitatus even exists as an additional buffer against the president conducting any military operations within US borders. In aadition to the now unneeded Militia clause, the spirit of the law clearly conveys the concept that the citizen should be as well armed as the military, to be able to fend it off in the event that an oppressive government were to try to oppress the citizenry. Jefferson, I believe it was said that the tree of liberty has to be periodically watered with the blood of soldiers and partiots. There was anticipation of a day coming where revolution may again be necessary. Do some homework and you will find that out.
Sadly, the military’s weaponary and surveillance technology far outpace the citizenry now and if there was an attempt to resist oppression violently it would result in an unmitigated slaughter of epic proportions. So to those, who are looking down that road, there’s a dead end sign down the road a piece. The resistance will have to be a politically tactical revolution. I want my rights as much as the next guy, but I don’t have a Tienamen Square fetish.
Best Regards
[Reply]
FEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[Reply]
“I am sick of these liberal commie scumbags and I have no problem including them on our enemies list when the 2nd American Revolution starts. Time to tar and feather these modern Tories.”
‘Liberal commie scumbags’ are the least of your worries.
[Reply]
Mike,
It appears we have a similar view of history in regards to the 2nd Amendment.
However, I must disagree with the argument that the armed citizenry would not be able to stand up to a professional military, particularly the military of the United States.
Of course, the citizenry would not engage the military in direct, open battle. It would be 4th Generation Warfare, i.e. guerrilla warfare. Consider the amazing resistance put forth by loosely-trained Vietnamese peasants, Afghans against both the Soviets and the Americans, the Iraqi militias… A lot can be accomplished by small arms and handfuls of explosives, especially by a force that can effectively chose its time and place of attack, and then blend back in to the population.
The American military would have little hope of occupying the whole of the United States against a popular insurrection. Heck, it has had quite a time holding down Iraq, a country of 30-odd million people in a space slightly larger than California. In particular, the fighting in American major cities would be dangerous in the extreme for an unwanted occupier.
I’m not saying it would be pretty. The initial clashes would be quite nasty. But, as we’ve seen over and over, the resistance force would learn to adapt, and soon would be making quite a mark against the enemy.
Lastly, I wouldn’t expect the existing US military to participate in this kind of campaign. I think the desertion and/or defection rate would be pretty substantial from the ranks of the enlisted men. Special forces, and corporate mercenaries, would be the real trouble.
[Reply]
Shain Reply:
March 16th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
[Lastly, I wouldn’t expect the existing US military to participate in this kind of campaign. I think the desertion and/or defection rate would be pretty substantial from the ranks of the enlisted men. Special forces, and corporate mercenaries, would be the real trouble.]
Agreed.
Though most of the military are not taught that their government leaders may be the ones who are a threat to the nation.
Their first duty is to uphold the constitution of the United States. But what would many people in service do if the Executive orders from their Commander-in-chief conflict with the constitution?
They will probably go with the person over the document, since the document is barely understood, and the person is a now follow my orders, or you will be punished.
That is what happened in Germany just prior to WWII.
[Reply]
WIA Reply:
March 16th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
You are taught in the military about following illegal orders and the consequences of following them and refusing to follow those orders. That’s why Obama wants his own personal military/police force based within the United States.
[Reply]
Shain Reply:
March 17th, 2009 at 10:38 am
Yes, but what soldier trusts their judgment of what is, and is not an illegal order over the command of the Commander-in-chief?
The list looks like an ad from Shotgun
News!
They will pear it down so only the x-pensive guns stay on. The cheap stuff will be banned.
, libertys teeth filed blunt,and capped with rubber.
[Reply]
Understood Adam. However, one should note that the US military has microwave weapons that can make entire crowd feel as if their own skin is burning from yards away. And that’s just for starters. I’m sure the real Minority report stuff is in some DARPA warehouse, waiting for mass productionThe U.S. population en masse is not used to having to cope with true nationwide hardship. The Vietnamese had been occupied by a foreign entity for years (French) and they had a nationalist sense of duty and feeling of contempt for foreign powers and peoples taking over their country and trying to tell them how to live in it. The same was true for their war with the U.S. In Afghanistan, they were able to throw off the Soviets with our money, weapons, and training. Factually, in all these instances, the common thread is a Foreign occupying power. Such would not be the case here unless UN peacekeepers were in the military operations. The arm patch likely would have an American flag emblazoned on it, and that has a tremendous psychological effect. Add to that the disastrous conditions that could have to arise to bring the nation to that state of arrears. Food shortages, bread lines, financial ruin….In a country which has enjoyed such seemingly perpetual success when compared to other nations, there is not a large presence, I think, of enough people who would be willing to face starvation, overwhelming firepower, and being an enemy of of the state for their freedom. Freedom is much too ethereal a concept for most, and as long as they can get their tv, movies, music, porn, or whatever product they like; they tend to think they are pretty free. Quite honestly I feel that the people would just want the hardship to be over, leaving the true believers to be killed or put into those FEMA camps we’ve been hearing so much about. Its not about occupation, Its about simply preventing critical mass.
Best regards
[Reply]
I don’t know how many of the people behind these posts have actually seen real action but I think it would be safe to say (by the content and demeanor) very few. That list of weapons (designed to kill people) and firearms (designed for sporting and self defense) is just the beginning of the guns that the far, far left liberals in power do not want us to have. The armed citizen with a pistol, revolver, shotgun or an AR is not the true threat to them.. That citizen’s sphere of fire is limited to the close quarter battle at hand. The real threat to them is the everyday average hunter with his accurate, scoped and tuned hunting rifle in a true high power caliber. The tens of millions of us that fit into that category are armed far, far better than the military snipers of yesterday up to, including and through the Vietnam era to the late 1990’s. That is what they truly fear. An armed citizen that can make a difference (either acting alone or as a part of a team) up to a minimum of 600 meters is the most dangerous threat to those that want to control our lives. There is nowhere in America that they (a corrupt politician) can go without the threat of thousands of such people to consider and fear. History has shown that anyone who dares to go out from under cover risks everything to a motivated individual with the skills and equipment possessed by our everyday average deer hunter who numbers in the tens of millions in this country.
Make no mistake about it, there is no list of guns that does not include all guns in the hands of private citizens.
I have personally seen the long trains heading to storage depots loaded with U.N. white painted equipment that was definitely not of U.S. origin. What is that equipment doing here? What is it going to be used for? Who is going to operate it? Who is it going to be used against?
These are all questions that we (all Americans) need to be asking ourselves and those that are running this mess of a once free country (ie; in Russia you have more rights to smoke a cigarette than in America). Everybody better wake up and see where this is going and where our country is headed before its not our country anymore.
[Reply]
Mike, I forgot to ad something about the microwave transmitters you mentioned. Just turn up the juice and they cook and just don’t make you feel like they burn. There was a little place called “The Road to Basra” in Iraq where its “rumored” that this technology was first used against troops (and unfortunately many kidnapped civilians).
[Reply]
Still, again, the argument isn’t really about how *effective* the armed civilian populace has to be… these are issues of strategy, tactics, and combat effectiveness, and have no bearing on the Right that the 2nd Amendment grants.
It doesn’t mean that we have the right to bear arms “only if we have even odds against our government,” or “only if we’ve received police or military training.” There are no caveats on the Right. The discussion is sliding from what our Rights are (and how the legislation would infringe on the Right) to how much firepower we’d need or what weapons DARPA has cooked up.
These things are not the issue, and are frankly distracting from the crux of the conversation.
Citizens have the Right to be armed, up to standard military small arms, in order to be a final balance of power against a tyrannical government or foreign invader.
That’s all there is to it.
[Reply]
HistorySuffersNoFools Reply:
March 17th, 2009 at 4:40 am
Yes that is all there is to it, and the elite are losing.
If we had no choice but to go against an Israeli Mossad-British assassination squad….we would pretty much dust them.
That is what they fear and are more afraid of us then we ever need to be of them because any fight like that would also be terrible public relations in front of the Jewish & Christain community.
They would instantly think, “Who the heck do these people think they are!??!?” and “What is this nonsense? Dual Israeli-Turk Americans need to leave the USA TOMORROW if this is what they do!!!!”
That would be horrible for everybody, hence instead of doing anything about guns you just need to recognize that the DOD aka Department of Defense will cut off ALL ammunition sales.
http://www.theshootist.net/2009/03/dod-ends-sale-of-expended-military.html
Direct your ire over there, as that is where their real strategizing pretty mcuh always gets played.
[Reply]
I’m still trying to figure out how all these yahoo goobers conclude that those who are not in a well regulated militia have ‘the right to bear arms.’
[Reply]
Shain Reply:
March 17th, 2009 at 10:46 am
The question is, how do you determine that the Second Amendment requires you to be in a Militia to own and bear arms?
‘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.’
Did you notice that it is the right of the PEOPLE, not the militia, to keep and bear arms. That is very clear wording. The Supreme Court accepts that understanding. The Supreme Court also understands that the primary reason for the right to keep and bear arms is to be able to defend yourself from a tyrannical government.
The Right to keep free from a Tyrannical Government requires well armed civilians, not a government owed and operated standing military, with weapons that have the ability to kill people.
[Reply]
Now is the time for cool minds and tempered demeanor. Our anger is carefully designed to smoke us out and then in the quiet of some unsuspecting moment—take us out!
Take a lesson from the calm little waterfowl that appears to have not a care in the world, but beneath surface of the pond upon which he floats, are quickly moving feet keeping him afloat amidst all the hastening atmosphere around him. Keep cool, fool…until the appointed time.
[Reply]
I agree that cool minds and tempered demeanor are necessary, but that doesn’t alter the fact that we are going to have to kill them all in the end.
It is inevitable.
[Reply]
Adam R. is correct in what he says as to the real issue. It has been decided that individuals do have the right to keep and bear arms. However, a private police or military force under the orders of our leftist leaders will have absolutely no regards for our rights or laws. They will follow orders given by “world citizens.” Those orders may and will be illegal but trampling upon our rights is of no concern to those giving or receiving such orders. I was simply pointing out before what these people fear most. Remember a guy named Lee H. Oswald from a few years ago and his relationship with John F. Kennedy? Those are the kind of people that can cause political change in this country. The weapons I mentioned earlier are the type that those people would use. Thus they will be taken away. I am in no way condoning such action. I am simply showing the historical significance of such actions and equipment and the fear and panic that it creates in the minds of an extremist regime.
Don’t think that a Democratic House, Senate and President can’t pass any legislation that they want. They can and will. At that point we are no longer Patriots but Terrorists in their eyes. Its only a matter of time. Holding up rhetoric will be of no avail concerning these people. They have already spent more in 60 days than every president did from George Washington to George Bush did combined! If they can pass such insane legislation and spending bills, trampling over the Second Amendment will be nothing more than a pebble in a highway.
We are not up against another country or power here. We are poised against our own government that is under the control of those that swore to uphold our constitution and are now preparing to change it to fit their own agendas. Where is help going to come from? Think about it. Do you really think a state with a Democratic Governor will call out the National Guard to combat those sent against his citizens by his own political party? Don’t expect any help from there.
We all have to take a cool, calm, long and hard look at the big picture here and what is coming down the road at us. They will use our own system against anyone who opposes their will. They will modify and change our laws, morals and history to be used against their opposition.
As far as Adam is concerned pertaining to his last statement about militias, individuals and the right to bear arms, if he would read the Heller decision he would have it all figured out very quickly.
[Reply]
I will quote from my post on the 14th.
I’ll quote Article Two of the Bill of Rights first, then present my simple realization and perhaps, God willing, this ludicrous issue can be resolved once and for all. (Yea, right …) Here goes: ‘A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ (!) As far as I can tell, that’s one sentence. This issue doesn’t need to be debated by constitutional lawyers. This whole debate could be cleared up by my first grade English teacher. Article Two says, essentially, that: ‘In order to maintain a free state a well regulated militia (The Military, Police, National Guard, etc ) is necessary, and to that end only (at least according to the grammatic content of the sentence) people (The Military, Police, National Guard, etc) have the ‘right’ to bear arms’. If you reverse the two parts of the sentence it becomes even more crystal clear: ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, in order to maintain a well-regulated militia.’”
The gun control debate is just one example of the nature of the problems that arise in a country of people who are seventy percent functionally illiterate. I just pray that you’ll let people who are different mind their business and keep your little fearful hands off the weapons for a while.
[Reply]
Shain Reply:
March 17th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
[Article Two says, essentially, that: ‘In order to maintain a free state a well regulated militia (The Military, Police, National Guard, etc ) is necessary, and to that end only (at least according to the grammatic content of the sentence) people (The Military, Police, National Guard, etc) have the ‘right’ to bear arms’.]
That is an interesting, convoluted, way of looking at it. At what point is the word ‘people’ synonymous with the military and police?
How can the government protect us from a Tyrannical government?
In the end, it is up to the individual citizens to raise up in arms when the government steps on their rights. Many of the states have become nothing more then vassals to the federal government. This means that if the state automatically consider the federal government as correct, the peoples’ rights no longer hold any meaning without the ‘individual’ right of the person to maintain arms.
There was a reason why the distinction was made between Militia and People. If you read quotes from Thomas Jefferson, then it becomes crystal clear that the right to ‘Own and Bear Arms’ was an individual right, and not a right based on a police, military or para-military background.
[Reply]
Shain Reply:
March 17th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Simply put., the way you [Adam] read it, the Second Amendment isn’t a Right at all, but a Privilege.
Rights, by definition, can not be based on a collective group of people held under the government. Then it becomes a ‘Power’ or ‘Privilege’, distinct from a Right.
People have Rights. The Government was given certain Powers by the People. Those powers can generally be taken away by the people when they believe that it is unnecessary or destructive for the government to hold them.
[Reply]
“That is an interesting, convoluted, way of looking at it. At what point is the word ‘people’ synonymous with the military and police?”
Because ‘people’ are what make up the well regulated militias (military and police).
Article two is one sentence. Pretty simple, huh?
[Reply]
Shain Reply:
March 17th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Very true that People make up Well Regulated Militias. I would never argue that point. The point I would argue with, though, is that there is no stipulation that the people have to be part of the Militia to have the right to own and bear arms.
In fact, if it is a ‘requirement’ to be part of the militia to ‘Own and Bear Arms’ then it is no longer defined as a right, but a privilege of the position held within the militia.
[Reply]
“there is no stipulation that the people have to be part of the Militia to have the right to own and bear arms.”
The simple sentence stipulates that the people that have the right are the ones in the well regulated militia.
I guess it’s open to interpretation. How about a reform of article two to include the specifics. If a majority wants ordinary citizens – those who are not in a well regulated militia – to have a right to bear arms, then they should put it in there.
Democracy is about rule by the majority. If gun rights advocates are in fact a majority then the argument is over. Guns for everyone.
I myself, not being an advocate for guns, have learned a lot from some of the more insightful gun advocates on this thread. There is legitimate points from both sides.
[Reply]
Shain Reply:
March 18th, 2009 at 8:05 am
On this, however, you are showing your ignorance.
America is not a Democracy. You will not find the word Democracy anywhere in the Constitution.
Democracy is more properly termed as mob rule, rather then rule of the majority. Either definition is a bad thing.
Democracy is actually one of the worst forms of government, and generally doesn’t last for very long, being a transitional government, self destructive in terms of individual freedoms. This is well written by the founders.
We are ’supposed’ to be a Constitutional Republic, with a limited touch of Democracy, in that we are supposed to be able to elect our representatives.
A Constitutional Republic is a form of government that protects ‘individual’ rights, over majority rules. In that 51% of the population can not arbitrarily vote to take away an individual’s rights or property.
A simple version of this is a jury in court. You are not guilty, unless 100% of the jury says you are guilty. It is not a Majority vote, that rules, but a Unanimous vote.
[Reply]
Is anybody on this site familiar with the Supreme Court decision in the Heller case? It has been ruled that it is an Individual Right! That is how the Second Amendment has now been interpreted. That is the law of the land. Forget all the esoteric arguing back and forth. It has been decided! Enough said!
[Reply]
Shain Reply:
March 18th, 2009 at 8:12 am
Now if we can get the courts and legislation to take out the Arbitrary wording that they added to the second amendment.
That the government can make ‘reasonable’ laws in support of gun control.
Who gets to determine what is ‘reasonable’? The people who want no one to have guns?
[Reply]
Just looked it up. Done deal.
[Reply]
I guess ‘well regulated militia’ now means ‘well regulated guns.’ Wow!
[Reply]
Here are the Supreme Courts reasoning’s:
* that the operative clause of the Second Amendment—”the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”—is controlling and refers to a pre-existing right of individuals to possess and carry personal weapons for self-defense and intrinsically for defense against tyranny, based on the bare meaning of the words, the usage of “the people” elsewhere in the Constitution, and historical materials on the clause’s original public meaning;
* that the prefatory clause, which announces a purpose of a “well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”, comports with the meaning of the operative clause and refers to a well-trained citizen militia, which “comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense”, as being necessary to the security of a free polity;
* that historical materials support this interpretation, including “analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions” at the time, the drafting history of the Second Amendment, and interpretation of the Second Amendment “by scholars, courts, and legislators” through the late nineteenth century;
* that none of the Supreme Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation, specifically United States v. Cruikshank (1875), Presser v. Illinois (1886), nor United States v. Miller (1939).
[Reply]
Shain Reply:
March 18th, 2009 at 1:00 am
Gee, I think that has been exactly what I have been saying.
[Reply]
Lets get deeper and move on to the ‘Victims.’ A third point of view on the gun control issue. They remain strongly silent and unorganized for some strange reason.
Any views? I’m sure this may bring about a whole new discussion.
“Outlawing guns would leave only outlaws with guns.”
This doesn’t take into account the fact that many of the victims of guns are children shot by other children – outlaws neither one.
[Reply]
Shain Reply:
March 18th, 2009 at 10:23 am
There are victims who specifically state that they are not mad at the gun that killed their family. They are mad at the Criminal, or even the legislation that caused the family to be disarmed so they could be gunned down.
You can watch “Penn & Teller” on gun control and see one of these victims get pretty ticked off at their legislation on how a single individual crashed their car though a diner window/wall and slowly, methodically assassinate the patrons. The ‘victims’ mother and father were two shot and killed right before her.
In the end she said that no law will ever cause her to not be able to protect herself or loved ones ever again.
Most of the ‘children shot by children’ are gang/drug related, and not just a innocent/innocent combination. Just as many children are killed riding bikes or more so who drown in swimming pools.
We have yet to make bike riding or swimming pools illegal.
[Reply]
Adam R Reply:
March 18th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
This is what I referred to earlier. Those who wrote the 2nd Amendment had criminals in their society, too. There were murderers, there were accidental deaths.
The fact that guns made murderer’s actions more effective, and accidental deaths more likely, was seen as an unfortunate, yet acceptable burden. Why?
Because the alternative, disarming the citizens, was seen as much, much worse. This reality of their times is the same reality of our own times.
This doesn’t take into account an individual’s Right to self defense against said criminal. I’m still talking about defense against tyrannical governments and foreign invaders.
If you’d like to discuss the 2nd Amendment as it pertains to individual self defense, we can. However, the 2nd stands as necessary even before we get to that point.
[Reply]
WIA Reply:
March 18th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
You are absolutely correct in your assumptions as to the necessity to prepare for whats worse than the alternative. Here is a perfect case in point. My home state is Missouri. I do not smoke but observed this scenario the other day at a local quick shop. A customer in front of me was buying a carton of cigarettes. He was told that a new state tax was added and his carton would now cost almost $40.00. He was then told that in a week or so the new federal tax kicks in and the cost for his carton of Marlboro’s will soon cost almost $50.00! This is a perfect example of government interference via taxation. The government is trying to make smokers pay for health care by their purchases. The people that want to ban our firearms and weapons will do the same to those items. However, the really outrageous taxes that are probably coming are on the ammunition. The anti-gunners are proposing a 400% tax on ammunition based on the retail price. What is the tax supposed to go towards? They will probably say to health care for gun violence. They are making every gun owner and shooter responsible for the crime, violence and accidents out there EXCEPT the true perpetrators of such.
Remember a few years ago under the Clinton administration when the government tried to tax emails. They said only a penny each. Falling revenue for the postal service was cited as the reason. What would that tax be today 10 or 15 years later if it had past?
The power to tax is the power to destroy!
[Reply]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdJGcrUk2eE
[Reply]
Shain Reply:
March 18th, 2009 at 8:05 am
“On this, however, you are showing your ignorance.
America is not a Democracy. You will not find the word Democracy anywhere in the Constitution.
Democracy is more properly termed as mob rule, rather then rule of the majority. Either definition is a bad thing.
Democracy is actually one of the worst forms of government, and generally doesn’t last for very long, being a transitional government, self destructive in terms of individual freedoms. This is well written by the founders.
We are ’supposed’ to be a Constitutional Republic, with a limited touch of Democracy, in that we are supposed to be able to elect our representatives.
A Constitutional Republic is a form of government that protects ‘individual’ rights, over majority rules. In that 51% of the population can not arbitrarily vote to take away an individual’s rights or property.
A simple version of this is a jury in court. You are not guilty, unless 100% of the jury says you are guilty. It is not a Majority vote, that rules, but a Unanimous vote.”
Democracy means rule of the people. The two most common forms of democracy are direct democracy and representative democracy. In direct democracy everyone takes part in making a decision, as in a town meeting or a referendum. The specific rules may vary: perhaps everyone must agree, perhaps there must be consensus, perhaps a mere majority is required to make a decision. The other, better known form of democracy is a representative democracy. People elect representatives to make decisions or laws. Again, specifics vary greatly.
And, surprise, a representative democracy is a kind of republic. What distinguishes a republic is that it has an elected government. Representative democracies are, therefore, a kind of republic. Self-appointed governments such as monarchies, dictatorships, oligarchies, theocracies and juntas are not republics. However, this still allows for a wide spectrum. The classic is the Roman Republic, in which only a tiny percentage of citizens, members of the nobility, were allowed to vote for the Senators, who made the laws and also acted as Rome’s supreme court. Most people would say that Rome was a Republic, but not a democracy, since it was very close to being an oligarchy, rule by the few. Although the Roman Republic was not a dictatorship (until Augustus Caesar grabbed power), it did not allow for rule of the people. In both theory and practice the Soviet Union, that late evil empire, was a republic (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) because the lawmakers were elected, if only by the Communist Party members.
Beginning with the Constitution’s adoption, America has been a Republic. But the dominant trend over the last two centuries has been to make it into a democracy as well, a representative democracy, also known as a democratic republic. True, the creation of the Constitution itself was partly a reaction against democracy. In states like Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts, the situation was getting way too democratic for the monied aristocracy that had, since the American Revolution, refused to share power with ordinary men.
[Reply]
Shain Reply:
March 18th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Our Constitution guarantees a Republic, “as long as we can keep it”.
Once we lose it, like we are right now, it will go to either Mob Rule or a Monarchy. At this time it is 50-50 as which will win out. Either one will be America’s down fall, if we have not already fallen to a point that we can not get up already.
I support a complete return to the old Constitution. Most of the laws that have grown up around want’s of the people are not needed, and in fact are destroying freedom in America.
Such as Gun laws. What do you really care about how a person dies, if they were killed. Murder is already a crime. Why should it be a more of a crime if it was committed by a felon with a gun?
If we can keep the Republic, there is still a chance, though from what I’ve been hearing, it’s been close to 100 years too late for our chance.
[Reply]
WIA Reply:
March 18th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Actually, I’d like to know what ignorance is shown? I feel like I’m in a debate with a Democratic candidate running for election. A question is asked and a reply on a whole different topic is given.
And by the way, there are states that do not need a unanimous decision by a jury for a conviction. Check it out.
Posting a comedian’s reply to an issue such as gun control is something that would be expected of a gun control advocate acting as a mole on a site like this. I don’t think anyone who is seriously concerned about loosing more rights to a tax and spend government would think that was funny.
[Reply]
Shain Reply:
March 18th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Adam was using a comment which basically represented that gun control should be put to a vote, and let the democratic process pan it out. (Adam, it is annoying that you keep bopping out of threads. It can be difficult to follow for those just entering.)
I was updating him, that despite how often Democracy is thrown around, ‘make the world safe for democracy’, ‘Our country is a great example of democracy’, even by our politicians, who should know better, it is not a democracy!
Our country is a Constitutional Republic, a government based on Law. It is not a democracy, a government based on the whim of the majority.
A Constitutional Republic protects individual Freedoms, such as what is listed in the Bill of Rights, as the law of the land, in which no laws can be made to contradict it, other then, possibly by the Amendment Process. I’ve heard both ends of the field on Amendments. One side states that Amendments can completely change the meaning of the Constitution. Others state that they are only to be used to refine it, but not change the essence.
Adam does have a point. We are slowly turning into a Democracy, as we have observed with Gun Control. Our Government wants to pretend the Constitution and Bill of Rights doesn’t mean what it clearly says.
Instead, the Supreme Court observed that the Second Amendment would make us believe, despite their ruling, that laws can be made on ownership of ‘Arms’. They call them ‘Reasonable Laws’.
They literally think that the Second Amendment says, in essence, “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 _unreasonably_ infringed.”
Who decides what is unreasonable? The current government in power? They are pushing a powder-keg towards a flame, and people such as Ron Paul supporters have woken up that the government is not our friend. I suppose that is why people displaying and promoting our Constitution are now being officially labeled as Terrorists in parts of the United States and the Federal Government.
If you don’t think we can go the way of Rome and Germany, you need to look at your history much closer. When you do, you will see staggering similarities happening now, and what happened then.
Back when the 2nd Amendment was written, Citizens had access to every weapon the government had, from rifles to cannons.
Today’s government would prefer it that we had only single-shot shotguns, if any firearms at all. There is only one reason why they are putting such knee-jerk fear in the public about firearms, they want to take them _all_ away, if just a little at a time.
At that point, the government can transition from a Constitutional Republic, to what ever government is desires, with no fear from the people.
Yes, powerful Democracies have changed to full fledged Monarchies/Dictatorships. Usually, right after they started controlling the weapons the people had. Anyone who didn’t follow the new rules were detained as terrorists.
[Reply]
WIA Reply:
March 18th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Shain has it as close to correct as can be said without being accused of treason or labeled a terrorist by today’s political leaders. We may be a Constitutional Republic right now but there are those in Washington (and those individuals have published documents attesting to such) that are attempting to mold us into a “Socialistic Republic.”
It is interesting to note that the Democratic Party officially took gun control off of their platform after the election of 2004. When the issue was on the platform the gun control issue was (in essence) put to a vote. The results were wins for the party opposed to gun control. Taking the issue out of the debates and the public eye was a strategy that was used to swing voters over that never would have voted the way they did otherwise. I have been a Democrat my whole life. This never used to be an issue. Republicans and Democrats used to be on the same road just in different lanes guiding our country in the right direction. Somewhere along the way both parties veered off in different directions to certain degrees (one far more than the other). Years ago my party deserted me and those like me. After what I’ve seen in the last 60 days, I’m just waiting for when we are told to start spelling America with a K instead of with a C.
Shain Reply:
March 18th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Yea, how can we forget that one of Obama’s political promises just before the election took place. “I am not going to legislate any gun control during my term in office”, or some such lie as that.
So far we are seeing Obama being par for the course as a politician. He is throwing away his political promises, the ones that got him into office, out as fast as he can get them into legislation. It is actually a lot faster then I was expecting.
I should have known better. Once everyone finds out that he’s making the economy worse by throwing more of our, our children and all the way down to our great grand-children’s money on the fire, there is going to be a revolution.
He and the rest of our government do not want us to be armed when our economy becomes like Germany 1923, superinflation making everyone’s savings and retirement money worthless.
(For history purposes, the German Mark (dollar) inflated so high, because of government spending, that they had to replace it with the drachmark(sp?), valued at one-million marks. Yes, Germany became so over-inflated based on socialist programs, that their money was devalued to about one – one millionth of it’s original value. At about that point the fire to their central parliament building occurred, and Adolf Hitler was given the Enabling Act, removing Germany’s constitutional limits on government, to fight terrorism.)
Country Gun Death Rate per 100,000
Japan 0.07
Singapore 0.24
Taiwan 0.27
Kuwait 0.37
England/ Wales 0.4
Scotland 0.49
Netherlands 0.55
Spain 0.74
Ireland 1.24
Germany 1.44
Italy 2.27
Sweden 2.27
Denmark 2.48
Israel 2.56
New Zealand 2.67
Australia 2.94
Belgium 3.32
Canada 3.95
Norway 4.23
Austria 4.48
Northern Ireland 4.72
France 5.48
Switzerland 6.2
Finland 6.65
USA 13.47
Source: W. Cukier, Firearms Regulation: Canada in the International
Context, Chronic Diseases in Canada, April, 1998 (statistics updated
to reflect most recent figures, January 2001)
[Reply]
Again, these are numbers are unfortunate. I’m not arguing that, Adam. However, we find them acceptable, given the alternative.
One could argue that if deaths are all that matter, then we should put guns on the back burner and instead concentrate on eliminating an even greater threat to the public: cars.
Death rate per 100,000 by Motor Vehicles: 15.2 in the USA.
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=118&cat=2
[Reply]
Cars are good for the public at large and serve many different and positive functions. But there is a risk and it’s something we have to live with.
Guns serve no purpose but to kill and cause violence.
[Reply]
Shain Reply:
March 19th, 2009 at 10:48 am
That is so false that it almost doesn’t deserve a come back. However…
Guns serve no purpose but to kill and cause violence?
What about _preventing_ violence? It is estimated that Firearms prevent from 900,000 to 2,500,000 violent assaults per year.
Even at the low end, I’ll live with them if that was all they did. But I’ll live with them because they are our right to prevent a tyrannical government as well.
[Reply]
WIA Reply:
March 19th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Firearms are also used for numerous sporting purposes. With numerous sports sponsored by both the summer and winter Olympics. Look at the countries with gun control like England. Violence is off the scale. Deaths by means other than by firearms has risen dramatically. Criminals are going to hurt, wound, steal, rape, assault and kill with ANY type of weapon. If they can’t get guns, they will substitute a knife, club, automobile, poison, etc., etc., etc.
Malpractice by doctors kills many times more than gun violence in this country. Do we ban doctors? Of course not. The same with automobiles. A death with an automobile is called an “accident.” A death with a firearm is called a “killing.” What’s the difference –None! Our problem is not guns or gun control. It is lack or disregard of “Personal Accountability and Responsibility” in this country. The liberal left has an excuse for almost everything. If they can’t find an excuse, they just ignore the problem or shift gears and spin the argument off in another direction.
The same with people. Someone uses a gun to commit a crime. The gun is the bad guy. The perpetrator is a victim of a social problem and he should not be held accountable because of his background. That is what this Adam is saying in so many words. If we took the guns away does anyone with any common sense really believe the perpetrator would not commit a crime? All he/she would do is find another way to commit that crime.
[Reply]
WIA Reply:
March 19th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
I forgot to add this before when I mentioned the Heller decision. The supreme court has also ruled several years ago that there is “no duty to protect imposed upon the police.” They do not have to protect you if they don’t want to. No liability. So when trouble starts, you have no one to turn to except you and yours.
Adam Reply:
March 19th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Yes, but the ability to do violence serves a powerful political purpose… the ability to fight in the modern era.
The 2nd Amendment exists so that the armed civilian population can fight the government (if need be) or a foreign invader.
The accidental deaths are an unfortunate by-product of an armed society. They were considered acceptable losses, if you will, compared to the danger an *unarmed* population faces against a government gone wrong, or an invading force.
This ground has been covered before in this conversation. Do we really need to backtrack?
[Reply]
Adam R Reply:
March 19th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Whoops.
That was by me, Adam R, not Adam.
It’s starting to look like there’s just one Adam, and he’s having quite the conversation!
[Reply]
This discussion can best be described as a dialogue of the deaf.
The truth is that those who are for gun control base their premise on that people who do kill do it much more readily and handily with guns than without them with emphasis on statistical correlations like the number of deaths caused by handguns in America, where guns are readily available, compared to the number of deaths caused by handguns in countries like England and Japan where guns are not so readily available. Gun control does not advocate disenfranchising Americans or putting them in concentration camps. It’s about making it just a little more difficult for people to commit murder. This was self-evident when the Federal Assault Weapons Act was signed in September 1994 when incidence of assault weapons traced to crime dropped 66% from the pre-ban rate.
This debate will never go anywhere because one side is always trying to undercut the assertions of the other; simplifying, caricaturing, stereotyping and distorting arguments (like implying I say perpetrators are victims. hahaha). It’s no wonder how one could imagine how the other could hold on to such absurd views. Its no surprise that the debates generally leave everyone exactly where they began. With biases intact.
The only way this whole issue will be resolved is when the fever-pitch emotionalism, extremism and hysteria can be put aside and constructive discussion can lead to good mutual public policy.
Thanks for having me here folks. Time to get back to the guitar forum.
[Reply]
WIA Reply:
March 21st, 2009 at 5:41 pm
I do not know where you get that 66% figure from but that is a flat out lie! NO federal, state or private study ever said that! Assault style weapons were used in less than 1% if the gun crimes. The ban had absolutely no change with anything based on that.
By the way, you are totally incorrect in your definitions. An assault weapon is capable of fully automatic fire. Those weapons are governed under a whole different set of laws passed many years ago before most of us were born. That 1994 act, incorrectly labeled, only had an effect on legal to own semiautomatic firearms and all other firearm transfers concerning legal purchases from federally licensed firearm dealers.
Now that the far left leaders have spent all of our tax money, our children’s, our grand children’s, our great grand children’s and our great great grand children’s tax dollars, the need to disarm America is at an all time high before the people who can finally do something about it.
Remember, those that have the ability to act and preserve our freedoms have the duty to step forward and preserve those freedoms in a free society. Even the freedoms of those who would take away those freedoms from us, such as yourself.
[Reply]
Shain Reply:
March 21st, 2009 at 7:43 pm
They get that figure from very creative manufacturing of the truth, to make guns seem so evil that they _must_ be gotten rid of!
I actually was posting figures, that at minimum, Guns save 16 times more lives then they harm, and that is without firing a shot most of the time.
They generally posit figures that for every criminal killed, a family member is 4x more likely to be killed by a firearm.
however, these numbers ignore the, at minimum, 900,000 violent assaults were resisted per year with the use of a firearm.
This brings the numbers up a bit, about 10,000 to 1 that it will serve to save one of your family members rather then harm one.
[Reply]
Shain: Although I am a big fan of a person taking responsibility for their own individual safety, that’s really not what the 2nd Amendment is about. And I think there’s a risk in trying to take the debate in that direction, in that statistics regarding the effectiveness of firearms in self defense vary widely, depending on the source. Folks in favor of gun control will always be able to cite a study or finding that proves the opposite point.
The 2nd Amendment is not about self defense. At the time of the Amendment’s writing, the right to self defense was already understood and assured. They didn’t bother to include the 2nd in the Bill of Rights to restate what they saw as an obvious Right.
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to make the citizenry the backbone of the national defense, and to make certain that popular rebellions were possible in the face of a tyrannical government.
That’s the point. That’s it. That’s all.
If you take the debate to self defense, you’ll cloud the discussion. The other side will argue the relative effectiveness of non-lethal weapons (stunners, pepper spray, the like), and will, in the course of a proper argument, whittle down your need for a handgun to defend yourself against most attackers. Don’t go there. Don’t make the debate about self defense.
Keep the debate about the 2nd Amendment as pure as you can. No one can successfully argue that a disarmed citizenry is safer against a tyrannical government than an armed one is. History proves otherwise. All government instituted genocides were precipitated by the disarming of the general populace. Also, very successful popular resistances in history had their groundwork laid by the simple fact that the common citizens had access to military (or near-military) grade weaponry. This is the reason we have the 2nd Amendment.
[Reply]
Adam R. is correct. We need to stay concentrated on the issue at hand. The liberal left can use statistics to change and manipulate any figures they wish to twist the truth for their own purposes.
The Second Amendment is at the top of the list with the freedom of speech for a reason. Those of the time saw an important reason for this. That reason is freedom. Without the right to bear arms against an oppressive government there would never be a right to free speech or any other right for that matter.
Its just a shame that so many before us have paid the ultimate sacrifice so that those that would rape our Constitution and Bill of Rights would have the ability to do so in this day and age. What ever happened to the oath they took when sworn into office? The Constitution that they swore to uphold? I was taught a long time ago that violation of that oath was treason. Hopefully, one day they will be held accountable for their actions.
[Reply]
Shain Reply:
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:01 am
True. But when Liberals get everything wrong about gun control, there are just too many openings to poke at.
I’m sending my Congressman and Senators aletter of disappointment that they even consider even allowing a vote on an unconstitutional bill such as this one.
[Reply]
Shain Reply:
March 23rd, 2009 at 2:02 am
Dear ,
As a concerned citizen of Nevada, I have been observing our government is not handling significant problems properly. I have recently, in the past year, become more interested in politics. The primary area I’m interested in is why is our government not constrained by Constitutional rules. Three fundamental examples I’ve noticed, that are impossible to ignore, are based on our: wars overseas, economic policy of bailing out failed companies, and infringing on our Second Amendment protected rights.
On our wars overseas, we started the Iraqi war under proven false pretenses. Instead of removing our military occupation based on incorrect pretenses, Congress has supported, what is nakedly, an empire building policy of the creation of permanent bases and continuing the conflict past the observation of the false information that had convinced Congress into supporting the initialization of the war, along with the continuing funding of the military in unconstitutional, overseas destruction of other countries.
On our economic bailouts, we have spent trillions within the span of a quarter of a year. This fiscal irresponsibility has put our nation further in debt then ever before, with no end in sight. I have a question on whether this is a Constitutional power. I do not believe it is. That Congress has supported this funding of failed enterprises, is rewarding financial irresponsibility. I can think of no provision in the Constitution that promotes such power. It is costing the American people both in taxation as well as inflation. Not only is it going to cost in the immediate future, but it is going to cost future generations as well. This is unconstitutional as involuntary servitude. The constitutional creators agreed that all debts shall be paid by the current generation.
On Second Amendment protected rights, it is infuriating to see that Congress even allows Bills that have no Constitutional basis to be voted on. Bills that restrict law abiding citizens access to any Arms they feel necessary to promote self protection and their protection versus a tyrannical government. That every statute in the history of Arms control has not been stricken down based on the individual right, is a testament of how our government doesn’t take the Constitution seriously in their restriction of power. That the Second Amendment is to protect citizens from government, why do you believe that government should have control on what Arms are available to the citizens?
Politics has become more of trying to give people what they want, rather then upholding the Constitution. It is particularly annoying that politics continuously brings up that we are a Democracy, popular vote as law, when by the Constitution, this is inaccurate. The proper role of the government is to protect the rights of the individual, not to help them out when they are in trouble. This is the basis of the true Constitutional Republic, restricted rule by fundamental law, which our nation is founded on.
My observation is that very few of our representatives have any serious consideration of actually following the spirit of the united states Constitution. In that naked observation, you are not following your Oath of Office, to ‘Uphold and Protect the Constitution’. That you are not following your Oath, means that you are committing Treason with each vote that does not represent the Organic, not Living, law of the Constitution.
Please take this under consideration and make your votes with your Oath in mind.
Your constituent,
Shain Edge
[Reply]
MY first act when this BILL hit, was my jaw hitting the floor. My second was to get really really ticked off. Now I’ve read through most (no not all) of the comments. MOST pro gun, those that aren’t can u answer me one question? WHY the worry? Those of us that own our weapons know exactly what they are capable of and what it takes to handle it, care for it and keep it out of the hands of those that do not, (ie. our children and nimrods) We are NOT criminals for having such weapons but are soon to be made just that if this bill comes to pass. I live in a small rural town where nothing normally happens. Yes i hunt for deer in the winter, i fish when its nice and yes i eat what i take out. We are NOT a bunch of fool-hardy idiots running around willy nilly brandishing our weapons in peoples faces, we use them for food and in cases just like this, PROTECTION! We don’t bring them with us in our vehicles just cuz your butt pulled out in front of us, or we are getting “jumped in” do the baddest gang in town. These weapons are ours Just like our cars, i could use that as a deadly weapon, how about my baseball bat, golf club or for the love of a duck my walking stick, all of those can cause equal damage to a body. My GUN is just that MINE. Pry it out of my cold dead fingers. Its still registered to me. That just make u a murderous thief. This BILL is against our constitution. I’m keeping my weapons.
Your former marine
Helen
[Reply]
WIA Reply:
March 26th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Semper Fidelis
[Reply]
Let’s see….no government, no group, no one has the right to tell me what weapon I can have or not have… unless I have taken steps to do some wrongful harm or have actually done wrongful harm.
Secondly, sorry but I don’t trust people who claim to be on a mission from God, not matter their religion, any more than I trust people on a mission from a government or a political group.
That is why I choose to retain my own power to protect myself and my family.
[Reply]
[...] to the Second Amendment. The Democrats current gun-ban-list proposal (final list will be worse): the list he’s never heard of the black market. leave it to a liberal to bring a knife to a gun fight [...]
[...] to the Second Amendment. The Democrats current gun-ban-list proposal (final list will be worse): the list he’s never heard of the black market. leave it to a liberal to bring a knife to a gun fight [...]
[...] the list [...]
[...] Posted by namvet the list he’s never heard of the black market. leave it to a liberal to bring a knife to a gun fight [...]
[...] Posted by namvet the list he’s never heard of the black market. leave it to a liberal to bring a knife to a gun fight [...]
I wonder where they will find enough volunteers who are willing to die in the process of collecting these weapons? Even with only 3% of gun owners willing to defend their god given rights with all their firepower, they wont have a chance in hell of succeeding in confiscating even 10% of the weapons we have. One thing is certain, millions of gun owners will fire every last round they have at any such enemy and they are willing to die before being disarmed because once the guns are gone all other rights will immediately follow. Bring it on Obama we are ready willing and able to defend our rights at all costs. We will keep our liberty or die trying.
[Reply]
Etwas OT, aber was ich mich immer schon gefragt habe, warum T-Shirt Druck so teuer ist? Ich meine, die ganzen T-Shirt Drucker wollen knapp 20€ für ein normales T Shirt mit meinem eigenen Motiv haben. Ich suche jetzt aktuell für meine Band einen Anbieter, der mir Kleinserien druckt (so 10-20 stk). Kennt da jemand einen preiswerten Anbieter?
[Reply]
Sagt mal, was ich schon immer mal wissen wollte: Heißt es der Blog oder das Blog? Ich bin echt *verwirrt*! Helft mir. LG
[Reply]
I propose an “empty holster” day.
Appreciate your thought on the matter.
With the deepest regards,
Lowell L Morse
[Reply]