I would just like to say, anyone who demeans any President, past or present, isn't very knowledgeable. I keep seeing nasty comments about our President. I didn't vote for him and think many of his policies are not good for the country, but he IS our President and I will show him respect he had earned.

But I would like to say this. This comment swings both ways. Those who demean past Presidents when defending the current President don't have a leg to stand on. What is good for the goose....

SECEDE from DC......... the ONLY option

When a government has ceased to protect the lives, liberty and property of the people, from whom its legitimate powers are derived, and for the advancement of whose happiness it was instituted, and so far from being a guarantee for the enjoyment of those inestimable and inalienable rights, becomes an instrument in the hands of evil rulers for their oppression.

All current and future gun owner must pass a psychological evaluation.

Sounds like a better plan to me.

"The NRA desires to make it easy for potential terrorists to arm themselves with assault rifles and 30 bullet ammunition clips. The wannabee terrorists in America won't have to try to get a bomb from undercover FBI agents. All they have to do is go to a gun show. What is wrong with this picture?" - shaak322

shaak you have no idea what you're talking about. Read this blog post and get your facts straight.

" As the Second Amendment states we need to have a "well regulated militia."

Job1........... I'm going to tell you again, the words used in cir 1776 DO NOT HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS THEY DO TODAY. "Well Regulated" means Well Trained. Not under the governments control. Period. You need to stop spreading lies and learn some history. Here is a quote that might help you:

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

"Sufficient Arms and Ammunition" means that we as citizens have the right to the same small arms the government has. M-16s are a whole lot more firepower than AR15s. You gun grabbers should have stopped while you were ahead.

So...what the hell (specifically) was in those executive orders he just signed? That is kind of an important detail.

sandmantruth

In the fight for liberty and against tyranny, Obama is no more an ally than Bush was.

Just more lies by our govt, useing kids as a tool you should be ashamed of yourselfs.

Can't wait for all those Crips and Bloods to register their guns.

I can't wait for all the "straw men" buyers who provide the Crips and Bloods with their handguns to be prosecuted....

Caesar -

AM where are you with large squalor cities like chicago with their murder rate.

Gee, I don't know, Caesar. Guess.

What if there were 8 assailants (see gangbangers)?

And they all have 7 rounds?

You do the math.

"Please Ignore 'spelling errors' on post #1.58"

Or just ignore the idiotic blather altogether.

What the dipstick Democrats don't get is that they think it is all about guns, yet when it comes to mental health, they don't say a thing. Which is why when the Dipocrats come down on the dumb extremist faux Republicans, they are the same stupid animal, though they pretend not to be.

Idiot one party voting Democrats need to embrace their stupidity just like faux idiot one party voting Republicans. According to an idiot Democrat right now, it is totally okay to stab someone with a knife and kill them because you killed less people. And oh god nothing can be done about that blather, when in fact, all it takes is the same level of being interested in not killing people. In other words, right now, Democrats are totally okay with killing kids as long as you do it in certain ways.

And it is exactly that ugly. Dumb Repukes are telling you that magazine sizes won't matter, which is entirely idiotic. On the other hand, Democrats are fine with mentally unstable people slitting kids throats because it is done with a knife. That's why they haven't introduced any legislation dealing with mentally dangerous people. And they won't either, because the Democrats are run by the *ssh*le end of their party when it comes to laws that keep people safe.

Sorry, it takes thinking moderates to come up with solutions. Because moderates use the word AND, and not just OR.

Gee, I don't know, Caesar. Guess.

currently given your poutrage, on board. In the past there were a crickets a chirping. again knee jerk reaction to a tragic incident. hyperbole and strawmen

Job1:

As the Second Amendment states we need to have a "well regulated militia."

DAMNED RIGHT!!!

"Well Regulated" is defined as: well equipped, well ordered and well trained...

"Militia" is defined as: A body of CITIZENS ARMED and trained, esp. by a state*, for military service APART FROM the regular armed forces. -- reserve militia. ALL persons who are not exempt from military service and not actively serving in the armed forces OR national guard. -- Black's Law Dictionary 8th Edition

You better learn what words mean before you go "shooting" off your mouth! ~_o

Same to you, Repubs4Obama...

duplicate

Hello folks, 23 executive actions? There were no Executive Orders as I understand it. That means it is up to the Congress to pass legislation on banning "assault rifles" and magazines and that aint going to happen.

Where is Feisty Red Head, Pigotry, Silverton, RI Mom, Haggis, you guys put up a good fight, but the POTUS kind of let the air out your sails didn't he?

I hope they go after Big Pharma with their psychotropic drugs but their lobbyists are too powerful.

Now the government will move on to the Debt ceiling fight which will take up all the oxygen in Washington.

If liberals would focus this much attention on reducing the deficit and repairing our economy, and not gun control that is doomed from the start, then this country would be way better off.

So true. And that, exactly, explains why the deficit is going down and our economy is getting better. Because we did focus on it, and it is working. If Republicans hadn't opposed us every step, the economy would be recovering faster.

skyparrot

Oh, Max, white males have been the perpetrators of all mass killings committed by firearms in recent history, excluding the DC sniper--not getting around that: Sandy Hook, Columbine, Luby's Cafeteria, Gabby Giffords, Sikh Temple, Aurora Movie Theater. You can defend the indefensible.

You forgot Ft. Hood. Oh wait, that was "workplace violence". Sorry, my bad.

And they all have 7 rounds?

You do the math.

so you agree a 30rnd 'clip' would do better than 7rds? 7*8 = 56 eh? see AM you defend the criminals and prosecute the law abiders, do enjoy hand wringer

RepublicansforObama: Amazing the unintelligent and uninformed liberal Obama supporter. You start out with the incompetent argument of "well regulated militia" and, again, argue that meant "government military".

First, congratulations on getting your high school diploma with absolutely no American History knowledge. This is very basic and easy to understand. "Well regulated militia" meant "the people". Think about it this way - if the Bill of Rights list the freedoms of the individual then why would the SECOND right (the 2nd amendment) say, in your opinion, the government has the right to keep and bear arms. That is such an illogical argument.

But, for the sake of argument, let's assume you still don't see the difference and want to argue the 2nd amendment does NOT give the people the right to keep and bear arms and meant a government military. Then how do I show your ignorance? Simply look at the quotes from the people that WROTE the Constitution or were involved during that time or shortly thereafter. Here are a couple:

"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))

"...if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?" (Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail, Johnathan Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol.2 at 97 (2d ed., 1888))

"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." [William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8)

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850))

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined" (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)

"No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion." (James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775])

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

"Sufficient Arms and Ammunition" means that we as citizens have the right to the same small arms the government has. M-16s are a whole lot more firepower than AR15s. You gun grabbers should have stopped while you were ahead.

BS. "Sufficient Arms and Ammunition" means "thermonuclear arms" and "aircraft carriers." Otherwise, what is your "small arm" going to avail you when a fusion device explodes 10 feet above your head, taking out you, your gun, your friends and the surrounding countryside?

That isn't going to happen; you are not going to be allowed such devices. This argument was over when we accepted the idea that we can't keep nuclear bombs in our basements. Anyone who thinks that any gun has a chance against the might of the US Government is smoking dope.

BackCountry --

You've also ignored SCOTUS interpretations of the 2nd Amendment but I'm not surprised, you seem incapable of seeing anything you don't want to see.

Just curious. What do you think of the SCOTUS's interpretation of the Constitutional right to privacy in Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, and Lawrence v. Texas?

And before you say that interpretations can change, just think about that, what that might say about the founders' true intent and the current SCOTUS's interpretation of the Second Amendment.

And also remember, Courts can change.

They're only right because they're final. For now.

Caesar --

so you agree a 30rnd 'clip' would do better than 7rds? 7*8 = 56 eh? see AM you defend the criminals and prosecute the law abiders, do enjoy hand wringer

Not at all, and you know it. I'm just saying that you and your puny 7 rounds would be dead before you even got that little pea-shooter out of your pocket. And that would be true however many rounds you had versus multiple shooters. So sad. I'll miss you.

The president's recommendations also direct administration officials to "clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes" and to "release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities."

This is the most stupid aproach to solve the problem with young and adult mentally ill people.

"Well equipped, well ordered and well trained ARMED CITIZENS being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Some of you,Job1, seem to have forgotten how we freed ourselves from the despotic rulership of King George; with Gun violence. You might also recall how we enacted freedom and equality for all people; with Gun violence.

The heart and soul of the second ammendment has little to do with hunting and some of the ignorant keep espousing. It is about an inalieable right to self protection and freedom from abuse by those empowered to lead. It is clear many of you have not really read the consitution or the writings of our founding fathers who crafted it. We have a Second Ammendmet because, in their wisdom, they knew that governments and governing people can not be trusted to be forever benevolent towards those they govern. A careful reading clearly show the intent is to arm the people so they may protect themselves bith collectively and individually. A ban on assault weapons insures that the governing body would be armed against the people and that is not the intent of the Constitutional Congress in ratifying and signing the document.

At the same time, nutbags like Steve-446003, would destroy the baby with the bath water. Our strength is in our unity and our collective cooperation. Cessation is out of the question and only fools speak of it. They would destroy the very fabric of what we have worked so hard to build. Go away Steve! You can secede by yourself.

We must realize that guns can be an instrument used by both good and evil. This ill sought security through legislation and abandoned assurances, Obama, flies in the face of the wisdom of our founding fathers; the people are to be trusted! I encourage slow deliberation and process while we collect ourselves and realize that true freedom is risky lest we trade it in for a tempoary devil's bargain. As Benjamin Franklin was quoted in 1775, "Those who would trade essential liberties and freedoms for temporary security shall have neither security or freedom."

WTF is wrong with all you lefty loons? I'm going to bet none of you has lost a child to some armed thug, yet you're more than happy to cry about "the children" to advance your agenda! Do you really think it matters to a parent what kind of gun their child was murdered with, or if it was a gun at all? I'll guarantee it doesn't! You all love to talk about "common sense" measures. Too bad none of you have any common sense. Your stupid laws will do NO good. They'll only make life harder for ordinary citizens, as the laws WILL get abused by arrogant public officials! If you have trouble understanding this take a hard look at California!

1badjr

Plus, Ronald Regan put in the original Assult Rifle/Weapon ban.

Well at least you are consistent even if it is consistently wrong. Clinton signed the Brady Bill and it technically didn't ban anything except the manufacture and import of new "assault weapons" Of course since the definition of "assault weapon" was purely cosmetic the manufacturers quickly found ways around it.

Bush couldn't re-instate it in 2004 and let it expire.

Ummm, of course he couldn't re-instate it? How could the President do the job of Congress? It wasn't reinstated because there was little support in Congress for it, even amongst the dems.

There will always be someone to tell you that you are wrong

Well when you are wrong about pretty much everything you've said you should probably expect people to tell you that you are.

The FACT of the matter is that the CDC put out a report TRYING to verify the validity of gun control laws and the best they could come up with is "inconclusive" with many specific laws shown that violence both increased and decreased in areas such laws were in place. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

These laws don't and won't do jack @!$%# other than to pacify sheep by giving them a false sense of security. The definition of stupidity is wasting tons of time and money on something that everyone knows will amount to nothing. In other words, par for the course within our government today.

So true. And that, exactly, explains why the deficit is going down and our economy is getting better. Because we did focus on it, and it is working. If Republicans hadn't opposed us every step, the economy would be recovering faster.

Deficits going down??? Economy getting better?? Last I looked the deficit was still around 1.3 trillion or more every year Obama has been in office. The economy is NOT getting better - we are still bumping along on the bottom, real unemployment is still around 16% and economic growth is still less than 2%. There is no "recovery"

Then how do I show your ignorance? Simply look at the quotes from the people that WROTE the Constitution or were involved during that time or shortly thereafter. Here are a couple:

When you stop living in 1776 and come to understand that no amount of civilian firepower can protect us against a corrupt US government today, you will have a point.

Job1

On the contrary. It seems according to Sigmund Freud it is people like you that are suffering from a retarded sexual and emotional maturity.

Regarding Obama's anti gun speech, it seems he listed a number of generic executive orders he intends to issue and intends to put the more controversial issues in the hands of congress. Lot's of luck getting any of that passed.

THERESA-532036

No one needs assault rifles to hunt. No one needs assault rifles to defend their homes. No one needs 30, 60, 100 or more, magazines.

This is not your problem , I use to practice, hunting and to protect my family. 10 rounds in not enough if more than one delinquent get in to my house , I can miss a few shots and that will be the end for my family. Only ignorants that never face the reality made those comments.

By the way, the NRA is probably doing the s**tiest job ever of convincing people, even when they have a point to make. It is part of the problem, that the NRA isn't run by level headed people who represent gun owners, but by extremists with axes to grind.

Sometimes other news outlets do a better job at explaining that point. Here's one from CNN, and also one that alludes to why Democrates are idiots for only trying to fix one part of the law, and that's the part about guns.:

Releasing a gun-themed shooting
video game a month after the Newtown massacre reveals that the NRA doesn't even
take its own claims seriously. As for the NRA's assertion that games create
violence, it is nakedly self-serving.

But, as queasy as the whole thing
is, violent video games do not cause more violence. Several
researchers, including myself, met with Vice President Joe Biden on Friday to
inform him that studies are unable to support the contention that violent video
games contribute to societal violence. Rather, it is untreated mental health
symptoms that contribute to outcomes including youth violence, dating violence
and bullying.

That's an intelligent excerpt from an opinion article written by Christopher Ferguson. I don't agree with every single point of that article, but it does not only show the hypocrisy of the NRA, and point out that video games aren't part of the problem anyway, but points out that mental health issues that are untreated (which the Democrats want to ignore) certainly are part of the problem.

Well its official:::: Our president has sold out.... You can always tell when this happens because the policies they create cost us "the common people" by laws which are designed to bring in more revenue for the states instead of costing the states a little more.... And then you have the goofy states which want gun toting people in our elemetary schools.... So these people can be armed when they snap....

I don't know why anyone would ever need an assualt rife....

http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.shtml

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

CURRENT LAW:

TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES

Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

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

• organized militia is made up of members of the National Guard and Naval Militia, the unorganized militia is composed entirely of private individuals.

In Colonial times "arms" usually meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.

“Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” in “Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution,” under the pseudonym “A Pennsylvanian” in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.

“Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” (spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789.)

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

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

," Obama said at a mid-day announcement at the White House, "if there's even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there's even one life that can be saved, then we have an obligation to try it."

How many other products could he have said the same about?

IE> Alcohol . Products that contain it are responsible for 1000's of murders ,Homicides and accidental deaths a year.

Since He consumes and invites other to consume these products , he stays silent and allows the slaughter to continue.

Seems there is something more than the saving of just one life .

Hi guys, its been months, did you miss me?

Let me catch everybody up.

1. Obama is still the source of every right wingers worst nightmares.

2. Anyone that thinks even halfway conservative is a neo-natzi gun totting extremist.

Yep, still the same as it ever was.

Yes. I went back and read the First Amendment and it clearly states "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAWS"

Actually, it's the 2nd Amendment.

We can all use a few words taken out of context. Aside from that the Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment is a personal right to own guns. Deal with it and stop with the smarmy "WELL REGULATED" B.S.

So the Supreme Court has already decreed that we are no longer allowed any weapons that can actually take on the US Government, should it go corrupt.

Please explain how it is that the Supreme Court's ruling is NOT in direct disagreement with the 2nd Amendment, which specifically states that the American public has a right to be able to take on the combined might of the US military machine, should the US Government become corrupt.

1) 1915-1917- Ottoman Turkey- 1-1.5 million civilians killed

2) 1929-1945- Soviet Union- 20 million civilians killed

3) 1933-1945- Nazi Germany- 20 million civilians killed

4) 1927-1949- China Nationalist- 10 million civilians killed

5) 1949-1976- Red China- 20-35 million civilians killed

6) 1960-1981- Guatemala- 200,000 civilians killed

7) 1971-1979- Uganda- 300,000 civilians killed

8) 1975-1979- Cambodia- 2 million civilians killed

9) 1994- Rwanda- 800,000 civilians killed

Every single once of these examples began with the government interferring with gun control. Every single one began with permits required, government list of owners, more severe penalties, BAN ON CERTAIN GUNS, WARRANTLESS SEARCHES, INCREASED COST OF AMMUNITION, CONFISCATION POWERS BY GOVERNMENT, ILLEGAL TO CONCEAL GUNS, AND ULTIMATELY COMPLETE BAN OF PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF GUNS.

We are on this path and it is the wrong path. The 3 cities in the United States with the highest crime rate is New York, Chicago, and Philedalphia. All 3 of these cities have among the most strict gun law in comparison to other metropolitan areas of the United States

The history of governmental gun control has repeated itself exponentially into genocide and vulnerability to being attacked by both foreign and domestic forces.

The Liberals cry foul about deaths due to guns, yet have zero remorse for young lives lost due to Abortion...

And I respect the Office of the President, but reserve the right to judge the office holder.

Honestly, the proposals sound pretty sensible.

There's nothing crazy in it, yet the NRA is foaming at the mouth.

The 2nd Amendment has been twisted by the NRA and its supporters to the point that it's almost unrecognizable. Even Scalia says there should be restrictions on who can own guns.

"If we can save one life..." Well, maybe you should fix the economy and cut down on the suicides of people losing everything. Focused like a laser on jobs since 2009.

"Strengthen laws for gun trafficking."...Good one...Eric Holder...Public Enemy #1.

You can't even stop the humans from invading from Mexico...How are you going to stop guns from not coming in? Loser.

What a bunch of hot air this guy does...And, this is nothing but a distraction to take the weak minded people off of focusing on the fact that he still refuses to cut any spending and is driving this country into financial ruin. But, liberals are not smart enough to see it.

Two things:

1-Please join me in signing the Sandy Hook Promise: http://www.sandyhookpromise.org/ Thanks GM for helping to spread the word.

2-I'm not sure if it's willie size that causes some of the posturing we see when the subject turns to guns. A lot of these posters seem genuinely afraid of someone or something coming after their STUFF. And their gun is perhaps the most important way they can protect their STUFF. My recommendation is to turn off the TV, grab a coat, and get outside if it's nice enough. Just for a little look around.

In addition to "violent video games" we should also look at how MSM is exacerbating this fear by constant "breaking news", and repeating the same crap repeatedly over and over again and again, ad infinitum . Just having fun there... This fear creates a lot of anxiety in people, especially those that aren't savvy enough to question the source, or the truth.

In nearly every mass shooting going back to Columbine there has been a consistent thread - people taking meds that have a side-effect of "mania" going off on a rampage. Yet we concentrate on the means by which they induce their violence rather than what caused them to snap in the first place.

Meds that cause some people to act out in violent rampages is the problem. There are other ways that clever and motivated people with a desire to go on a homicidal rampage can fulfill their fantasies. While the President and all you anti-gun liberals are focused on guns another troubled person on psychopathic drugs is plotting another mass killing.

Mr. Rogers.

So now, you are spending all of these efforts to save .04-.06% of gun deaths?

Yea that's reasonable.

Unfortunately, REASON has nothing to do with this. As a matter of fact, REASON is exactly opposite of what the LEFT is seeking here.

They do NOT want a reasonable solution... they want an EMOTIONAL solution.

Why else would Obama prance those children up on that stage. (despicable - using those children as pawns in his political game.)

No... the left wants this done quickly, while people are emotionally compromised, still grieving, and lacking logical thought.

Hello folks, apparently the POTUS has passed the buck to congress regarding banning "assault rifles" and large magazines, that aint going to happen.

Where is Feisty, Haggis, Silverton, RI Mom, Pigotry, you guys put up a good fight but the 2nd Amendment won today.

I would like to see the government go after the psychotropic drugs and Big Pharma but they are too powerful a lobby and our government legislates for those that put the most money in their pocket. We have the best government money can buy.

Theresa, you and no one else, will tell me or anyone else what we NEED. That's not how it works in this country. Whether or not, I choose to own a weapon, the type of weapon or the amount of ammunition that I choose to have in my house is absolutely none of your business. It gets really old when all the gun haters, starting with the President, out there decide unilaterally what I NEED. I have way more respect for you or anyone else to ever approach you and tell you what you NEED in your personal life. This is the biggest problem with the left and the main reason that this situation will never be resolved. The left only thinks in terms of what they think is right. Anyone that disagrees, or presents alternative ideas, are painted as nuts, called names and so on. There could be a productive conversation about guns in this country if the left could be a bit less sanctimonious and realize that a lot of people have good intelligent ideas on how to deal with the situation just like the left does.

No... the left wants this done quickly, while people are emotionally compromised, still grieving, and lacking logical thought.

And also because 900 people have already died due to gun-assisted violence SINCE the Newton massacre. And about 30 people CONTINUE to die EVERY day while you keep explaining what a** holes we are for worrying about the mounting death toll.

Job1 Comment collapsed by the community

Many that hate any type of gun control are uneducated white men who think that carrying an assault rifle will make them bigger.

Job1, do you enjoy being a racist making ignorant sweeping statements, or is it to balance out the "nutty" right-wingers you talk about with an equally dumb left-winger perspective?

I'm absolutely pro-2nd Amendment. Don't think guns should be wholesale banned in any fashion. However, I don't own any except a hunting shotgun, which is collecting dust in my closet. I actually think I'm in the silent majority of Americans who are neither on the idiotic far left or far right of the issue, which means I can see the need for some restrictions, but also can see the need for people to own firearms. Unfortunately, the idiots on both sides are the ones being heard recently.

I can definitely see that there are problems with current gun sales laws and what type of firearms and accessories the general public can lay hands on. Clearly, laws WILL NOT prevent bad people from getting guns. Period. But it doesn't hurt to tidy up some loopholes. I was alright with about everything until I read this:

The president's recommendations also direct administration officials to "clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes" and to "release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities."

How the hell does a doctor asking about firearms in the home do anything? Even if you're speaking about mental health professionals, they have no right to have information like this. This is like asking if I have beer in my house. If your a psychopath that has intent, I'm pretty sure the answer will be, "None of your damn business." And if they do answer "yes," does this go onto their medical chart? Absolutely dumb. This really won't change or improve anything. As far as reporting of threats of violence, it is already covered in HIPAA. I assume the President is simply referring to this:

"The HIPAA Privacy Rule permits a covered entity to disclose PHI, including psychotherapy notes, when the covered entity has a good faith belief that the disclosure: (1) is necessary to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the health or safety of the patient or others and (2) is to a person(s) reasonably able to prevent or lessen the threat. This may include, depending on the circumstances, disclosure to law enforcement, family members, the target of the threat, or others who the covered entity has a good faith belief can mitigate the threat. The disclosure also must be consistent with applicable law and standards of ethical conduct."

Again, nothing changed or improved here.

But as far as the background checks and limiting of magazines and whatnot, I say OK. This doesn't affect the VAST majority of regular people who use guns to hunt or for home protection. As long as people understand that this won't stop illegal activity and cannot be enforced on the weapons already out there (i.e. nobody's going door to door to collect the ones already sold) this should be an acceptable compromise for most. Excluding, of course the whackos on the right AND the left.

Let the bashing begin....

Job1

The far right posters here prove that crazy should not win

The far left posters here prove that crazy should not win

The constitution does not say that the government must protect the children. Of course we want our children to be safe but it is not the government's role. POTUS is just using the children as pawns.

@ Byron Raum

and how many of those "gun-assisted" deaths were committed with an "assault rifle". How many were committed by an individual who legally owned the firearm? Most gun deaths are criminal on criminal and are done with handguns, not "assault rifles".

To all you ignorant low information voters:

There is no such thing as an "assault rifle" or "assault weapons". That's just some vague, fuzzy, made up and focus grouped left wing attempt at redefining rifles and guns so that eventually every gun will be an assault weapon and banned. Stop listening to the Obama Administration's Josep Goebbels Propaganda Ministry.

"Most Americans agree that a president's children should not be used as pawns in a political fight," he said. "But to go so far as to make the safety of the President's children the subject of an attack ad is repugnant and cowardly."

But apparently it is all right to use our children as pawns to pass a bunch of knee-jerk reactionary laws that will do nothing to prevent or diminish violence, only take us one step closer to disarming law-abiding citizens.

And also because 900 people have already died due to gun-assisted violence SINCE the Newton massacre. And about 30 people CONTINUE to die EVERY day while you keep explaining what a** holes we are for worrying about the mounting death toll.

How many of those are using registered guns? How will restricting legal gun ownership effect criminals who possess illegal guns? All you are really doing is making law-abiding people less able to defend themselves.

What's sad is that this was a golden opportunity for Obama to lead and he whiffed badly. Instead he chose to be political. Limiting the firepower of an individual doesn't address the true problem. We have become a more violent and less caring society. We've gotten to the point that life has very little value. This is exemplified by the fact that these prohibitions don't address the root problem they just limit the number of victims.

Regardless of whether or not "assault rifles" should be banned, please tell me how banning them destroys your 2nd amendment rights? I keep hearing that, yet hear no logical reason why. Where does it say people should be able to have anytime of weapon they want? If people want to so closely adhere to the 2nd amendment every should should just go back to having muzzle loaders. New weapons come out, new situations arise, you need to make necessary changes to accommodate these things. If not everyone would be running around with RPG's and fully automatic weapons. Times change and sometimes you need to re-evaluate portions of our constitution. No ones banning all guns or repealing the 2nd amendment.

No one NEEDS these weapons. People WANT them. There is a vast difference. I keep hearing people saying "all the cool weapons are being banned." It's not about need. If a 95 year old man can take out 2 armed people breaking into his house with a shotgun (actually story, not just making up a scenario) why does someone else need an "assault rifle" with 30 round magazine? Who the hell are you that you have teams of heavily armed people trying to take you out. If you legitimately need such a weapon and ammo capacity you should probably re-evaluate other aspects of your life. Were people this angered and claiming their rights were taken away during the first assault weapon ban? Are their stats that specifically show that people with normal guns died because they didn't have an assault rifle instead?

Besides, no one is being disarmed. People who already own them get to keep them. The people who WANT these guns by in large probably already own one. So now you're just complaining because you can't stock up more if you'd want them. Need one so bad, go out and buy one now. Frankly most of the stuff being proposed (putting aside the assault rifle issue) is common sense stuff that should have already been in place and I don't see how any sane rational person would be against them.

Also, stop citing all these countries where "gun control" created a problem. They're either all third world un-developed countries or there things that happened 70+ years ago. It's terrible justification. Besides, if the government does something like that it would be with the aid of military action. Good luck fighting off a tank with your AR15.

RepublicansForObama-6186389

I

Just

Wanted

To

Tell

You

To

Have

A

Nice

Day.

Pfffffft!

Homie D Clown

The Liberals cry foul about deaths due to guns, yet have zero remorse for young lives lost due to Abortion...

And I respect the Office of the President, but reserve the right to judge the office holder

I hope the next time a Conservative use pregnant woman, just born babies and a big picture of a baby

inside a mother's womb to promote restrictions to abortion. Will see how liberals cry aloud for the violation of the woman rights.

My M.S. degree and 4.0 GPA say otherwise. Were the Founding Fathers uneducated white males?

Come and take 'em.

Protect the second ammendment for law abiding citizens while keeping assault weapons/guns out of the hands of criminals..............

Pass legislation requiring all gun manufacturers (not private citizens) to apply finger print scanning technology mechanisms to all rifles-pistols connected to a universal data base which ALL gun owners must pass!!!!!

When the gun owner passes the background check. It would remain on file and when the weapon is ready to fire. The owner must place finger against scanner to unlock firing pin mechanism. If the person attempting to fire the weapon is not within the registered owner data base or a failed background check attempt at firing the weapon. The firing pin remains locked and weapon cannot be fired.............pass the idea onto your Represenatives.

I guarantee this would signifigantly reduce gun violence while protecting the second ammendment............end of the NRA game for the Coporate Gun lobby putting our children (and ourselves) in danger...............

Very enlightening that the NRA has been proved correct regarding the warnings they have been repeating vigilantly with respect to what would happen if Obama was re-elected. For the last five years the NRA has been one of the few organizations that has published the truth about Obama's hidden agenda regarding gun control and gutting the 2nd amendment. Keep up the fight NRA I'm sending in my check to upgrade my membership to lifetime status. Even before his 2nd term inauguration he's cast aside the lies he's been telling the last 5 years and the agenda he's been denying is now his highest priority!

While I don't agree about the more violent and less caring part of society (I really think we are just as violent as in 1980), I already mentioned I agree with Sfenolafson that as it stands, Democrats haven't helped prevent anybody from slicing open your child's throat. And it isn't going to come from laws limiting the use of knives.

It comes from laws dealing with dangerous people, particularly ones with diagnosed mental health issues. Which shows Democrats only care if you get shot, not if you die from being split open from a knife.

Obama and Joe fail on the real issue here. It's not the people that legally have the right to own a gun. It's about the thugs that have own guns illegally the law does not affect them. I believe that the Obama Biden should have taken striker measure by allowing anyone that posses an illegal gun to go to jail for a minimum of 5 years just for having a gun. Maybe these people would think twice before purchasing an illegal weapon. Most of the killing are done by illegal weapon so why hurt the innocent.

Seeing the way all of you talk to each other, I realize that everybody in this country hates each other. If we suddenly have an economic collapse or some kind of large disaster and civility disappears...you guys are going to start killing each other. None of you can have a civil discussion and you'll just rip each others throats out. All I can say is...you antigun people are going to be at a severe disadvantage when that happens.

That is all. Have a nice day.

[What if there were 8 assailants (see gangbangers)?]

Moot point...gotta know when to cut your losses. You're not gonna get 'em all anyway.

[should i use harsh language]

I've read your posts the last two weeks...why not, you're good at it. ;)

Our Founding Fathers instilled us with the right to bear arms as a "check and balance" to an "over-reaching oppressive" government. It seems that is what we are getting now and is no coincidence that this right is slowly being taken away.

Let's face it, in order to perpetually be in power, the democrats have broken domocracy. By extending entitlements, and amnesty to illegals they plan on buying elections for the forseeable future. They put themselves before the good of the country.

Interesting points of views expressed here, from what I can see, many Liberals here must also disapprove of the recent "revolts" in Egypt and Libya... and the constant problems of the people of Syria.

How dare they stand up for themselves or the Tyrannical Regimes... How dare the President assist with funding and other support for their endevours. But wait, those citizen rebels are using AUTOMATIC MILITARY WEAPONS!!! But citizens in the USA have no reason to own a down grade of those very same weapons...

So I am confused, is it ok or not ok? After all, more innocent people (including kids) are harmed DAILY in Syria, than Aurora and Sandy Hook seem insignificant.

In USA record, it's not even the most devistating, in fact, the most tragic mass murders in USA History were not committed using a firearm. Worst school related involved a bomb, Worst Domestic... bomb, worst foreign, 2 jet liners...

Here is another tidbit of history, only one recorded mass murder in the whole USA history was recorded by a legal, registered gun owner... all the rest had obtained by illegal means. and this is per FBI.Gov's own records.

Last I checked, even the Liberals agreed, the USA laws were the presumption of innocence. Not the presumption of one's guilt without cause or proof.

And no offense to those that "feel that others do not NEED certain things", but the great thing abotu freedom is you have the ability to determine your own "needs and desires" and others do not get to tell you what you do/do not need.

Otherwise, you might find many of the things you enjoy could be deemed unnecessary or not needed, simply because others do not see a point. In other words, I wouldn't even begin to go there, because you might take yourself down a road you do not like. Never use an argument or talking point that can be later used against you.

In closing, the term "assaul style" is cosmetic. It also take roughly a half second to pop out a clip and replace, about the time it takes to fire 2 rounds. Limiting the rounds in the clip only just means determined individuals need to carry more clips, from the reports of Aurora and Sandy Hooks, that wasn't an issue, they concluded with full clips to spare. Smaller clips take less room.

Not to mention that one just needs to order online to get, the only way they are going to get in trouble, is if they get caught, which likely means they attracted attention...

Keep in mind, it's been illegal for years to kill another human, and that around the globe, yet their are literally more than a millions violent deaths per year World wide. Firearms actually make up a small percentage of them.

What has the government ever done that worked out for the people of the US?

There is a great evil in the world and is slowly infiltrating
our government. It is called zionism. They think that we (goyem) were put on
this earth to serve them. They use our sons and daughters to fight wars with
islam because in their mind they are better than US. This NWO cancer must be
removed from our halls of congress. Geitner, Levin, Lieberman, Bernanke, Feinstein, Boxer, Bloomberg, Schumer, Big sis, and
Raum Emanual. They want to take over America because their banking fraud
is crumbling. The only way they can do that is to take our arms away. The
zionists want to do away with the bill of rights and the constitution to make
slaves of all of US. They are going to collapse our economy and wait for the
sheeple to cry out for help. The help they will give you is a room at a Fema
camp. You think I'm crazy, research it. Read the Talmud. Killing US is not a
sin in their minds. Personally, I have many questions about the Newton
shootings. Who were the 2nd and 3rd people they arrested. The one proned out in
the woods. Eyewitnesses in both events
say there were multiple shooters. The
story keeps changing and getting more bizarre every day. The fathers of both
the Aurora and Newton shooters were supposed to testify before congress about
the Libor scandal. Coincidence, I think not. Start arresting some domestic
enemies and things will change for the better. Are there any patriots left in
DC?

Why are all the gun grabbers jewish?

Nobody in government can take away my GOD given right to self defense of home and self.

Biden says the world has changed, but not for the better. I have had enough of "change" in the last 4 yrs.

Wait... so according to the points, one of the 23 Executive Actions is:

16. "Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes."

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/16/obama-to-announce-gun-control-proposals-shortly/comment-page-2/

What does the ACA have to do with this?!? Only THOSE participating doctors can ask their patients that question? Is there were all information about every single person on the plant is NOW going to be databased for the government to access? What happened to doctor/patient confidentiality or is that null and void too?

Where is the pointed task force dealing with the pharmaceutical companies and then handling of Mental Illness??

There are over 75,000 Alcohol related deaths in the U.S. every year!

When will they ban Alcohol?

Our country is facing financial ruin, and once again our government is shifting attention to hot bed issues that will forever divide our nation.

"We can't fix our economy, but we sure can take away more of these foolish sheeple freedoms. I'm sure glad I'm a Congressman, and I don't have to live by the same laws that I write."

Americans better wake up before it's too late!

The Patriot Act wasn't about gun control. Citizens United wasn't about gun control. What is gun control all about?

Is the government going to outlaw CNC milling machines? People already own and possess the technology to make weapons at home in the their garage.

Tell me who the government will restrict from owning guns?

Thieves know that locks are an inconvenience meant to keep an honest man honest!

If you really want to fix the degradation of a society, then you must address the real problem of MORALITY.

Murder=Moral Issue

Greed=Moral Issue

Oppression of the Poor=Moral Issue

Global Warming=Moral Issue

Caring for the Infirm=Moral Issue

Divorce=Moral Issue

The list is endless. Get the Picture?

No, I really don't think you do!

Those who want big assault rifles probably have small willies and need to compensate for their feelings of inadequacy.

...........and you know this............HOW??????????

You give blow jobs and hand jobs to the members of your local shooting range or sporting club???????

#1.95 "No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion." (James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775])

I am a student of the constitution and have read the federalist papers more times than I should admit. Your sources are excellent and i am sure cut/pasted from some NRA related or founded blog, however, the above quote actually belies the original intent of the second amendment. It was changed from Madison's language "The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country" To the language of the ratified amendment, "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."

This language was changed at the behest of the Slave states, MD and S.C. in order to provide them cover for their "militias" which were in affect posses organized to protect the SLAVE OWNERS property allowing them incredible rights to audit slave quarters and pursue escaped slaves with impunity.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/03/whitewashing-second-amendment

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

If you tell me that this whole debate is about a "Free Country" then I ask freedom for whom? Most of our laws are designed to protect PROPERTY not INDIVIDUALS. When it is phrased as a "Free State", it is commonly held to imply that states have more rights than the federal government, (or in the case of ratifying the constitution, the states giving rights or ceding rights to the federal government), such that when a natural disaster strikes the Governor of that state has the right to (or NOT to) order their national guard to provide assistance.

So your "defense of and protection of" the second amendment is and has been a ruse to dupe the common man into defending the rights of property owners (in this case gun owners) to prevail over those who wish to be able to pursue their "right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" (admittedly from the Declaration, rather than the Bill of Rights) by NOT BEING TERRORIZED by those who think guns are the only answer to protect themselves.

In summary, please stop using the poorly interpreted second amendment to subvert my first amendment rights.

Edit to add: #1.150= one of the most racist/xenophobic comments I have ever read! are Obama and Biden Jewish? Over 80% of th American public self identify as Christian;please take your Bilderberg tripe somewhere you can fool some people, not here.

I agree that we have to get a handle on gun violence. This is more about imposing wills than anything else. The "Needs" argument is a smoke screen because it can't be answered, nor does it have to be answered. This is an issue of the fundamental rights of responsible Americans. I don't personally need a Ruger SR556SC rifle and many of you would claim that because I don't "need' it I shouldn't be allowed to have it.

Alcohol claims lives senselessly as well. Not just in DUI accidents either. Alcohol can be linked to many domestic violence reports and has claimed lives in college fraternities. Alcohol has been a contributor to sexual coercion and assault among young people. It is addicting and has been linked to birth defects. No one needs alcohol ( go ahead and walk into to your bosses office and tell him or her you need alcohol to do your job) Sooooooo, alcohol should be illegal? I guess some of us drink responsibly so, liquor should be illegal. It is far too dangerous. Beer and wine could still be available at a reduced alcohol content.

The problem with giving up freedoms you don't care about is sooner or later an issue will come up with a freedom you do care about.

Many that hate any type of gun control are uneducated white men who think that carrying an assault rifle will make them bigger.

Sad that racist remarks like these are permitted to remain published on Newsvine.

Job1,

You need to aquaint yourself with the Constitution and the Men who wrote it along with their note about it... First of all, notes exist which state, the 2nd amendment should not be interpreted to mean that each citizen should not be armed. Each citizen should teach there children how to hunt, and protect themselves and their families... Not an exact quote but close enough... A well Regulated Militia is Seperate from the Army's, it is made up of Citizens not attached to a regular Army... The National Guards answer to the Regular Army/Government...

The answer we need is Criminal Control, make Jail time, Work time, 5 years should be, 5 years, Life should be Life not Parole in 15 or 20... Also, A Death sentence should be carried out within 24 months, not 24 years...

When a child with Mental Health Problem's reach's 18 yrs. instead of cutting them loose, keep them in care until they are OK to leave, regardless of age...

Gun Control is doing nothing but hurting Law Abiding Citizens & Treating Symptoms, it is not taking care of the problem...

If you anti-gun FREAKS truly believe all the CRAP you spew...I want to see yard signs go up saying "gun free zone" in YOUR front yard! NO??? We put them up at our schools, whats the problem with your front yard dumba$$e$??

sieg heil obama

Well that didn't take long, All the Crazy's are out now. Steve2steve. Who so you thing your scaring. I think your just scaring yourself more and more. I can give you something you can take to the bank. If the State or Government wants to come and get your guns, The most you could do is kill yourself, because there not anything you could do to stop it. What in the Hell do you think a well regulated Militia Means. It means not letting Nuts like you get out of control. There is no reason in the world for a militia in this country. You people don't seem to understand, as long as we have free elections, You nuts have no reason to fear the Government. Hell If that were the case, we would have had a civil war in 2000. That was the second time in my life time we didn't have a free election, the first was when they killed JFK. He was fairly elected and they killed him because he wouldn't go into Vietnam. Well maybe also because he was going to dishpan the CIA as the Government can not control them. Like the President said, this fight will happen in places like right here. The Majority has hit Critical mass and then NRA's people will start to defect to the as the become a part of the critical mass. We the People will not be denied. The masses will win this battle. The Coward President of the NRA will run and hide like he did during Vietnam. He is so for Guns, why didn't he serve. That is the most Ironic thing over the last 30 years. The people pushing wars all the time are the same ones that refused to serve when they could have. Little Bush, Hide out in the National guard, as did his daddy's VP. Dick Cheney had better things to do during Vietnam. Romney ran off to France During Vietnam. These are the Modern day war hawk's. How does a Coward rise to be a warlord? More Important, How do you people follow them, like their the grate white Gods. The Masses are behind the President, and that includes many people in the NRA.

We who believe in God, Family and the Constitution will not let our country be degraded any further. Were done talking. You want our guns, come and get em. Just don't forget to bring lots of body bags when you do. History has proven to us that the only proper answer to a tyrannical government is a rope and a tree.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Thomas Jefferson
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff109180.html#pdKsEbJI8i9kztPd.99

Byron,

Last I checked we've been getting our ass kicked in the middle east for over ten years with cheap rifles and homemade explosives.

@Getsmadstaymad: Dude, the government will gladly bring lots of body bags for your body parts.

Duh, a stupid assault rifle isn't going to save you.

When you get over yourself, you'll realize what WILL save you is if you move to Iran, Syria or Saudi Arabia. You'll find more people who think like you there. Send us a postcard with your guns when you get there!

You Commie Libtards still don't get it. Do you?

You all talk about the "SAFETY OF THE CHILDREN". Just which law that he (Obama) proposed, which action did he suggest, that would have stopped Adam Lanza from stealing those guns, and murdering those children?

And Just to Fact check the Liar in Chief. According to reports,THE AR-15 JAMMED, EARLY IN THE ASSAULT, {according to experts, the 'Beta' 100 round drum is prone to cause jams (so much for "High" capacity magazines)} and Most the of fatalities or injuries were caused by the shotgun and handgun. He made it sound like the AR was the only gun used.

And Has everyone heard, why the shooter in the Mall in Oregon only shot three people? It was reported he was confronted by an armed civilian. And he also stole the gun he used.

There was only one solution to the problem, and his answer was to throw money (we don't have) at it. Finance armed guards. Well I guess he is creating jobs.

His other solution, to study the problem through the CDC. I just watch Stossel the other night, and he reported the CDC has studied, looking for laws that work, and have found nothing!

Now I will agree, we need to study the affects of violence, strong sexual content, the lack of consequences, and other adult fair in the gaming, movie, and TV industry. As well as the effects of divorce, peer pressure, bullying, the lack of discipline in the schools. We need to study the Progressive agenda on our children. Remember, mass or spree murders were very, very rare up until the mid 60', and did not become "common" until the early 90's.

Also, remember an American citizen could order and have delivered, via the USPS, a fully automatic weapon until 1934 or for about 15 years. Do you know how many spree or mass murders I found in this time frame, other than criminal gangland? ZERO. EASY ACCESS to guns is to blame for these tragedies, My ASS.

The gun ban proposed, just at the gun ban of 1994, did not, will not remove those types of guns from circulation. They will still be out there.

I am going to tear a page from the US government's play book now. How does a nation defend its self from a nuclear attack? With nuclear weapons, or "a reply in kind", aka "MAD", (Mutually Assured Destruction).

So how does an individual defend against an armed assailant? How does a school defend against a raging mad man?

Here is small town America hunting is big, NRA membership is common, and the locals here know the time creating better controls of assault styled weapons is here. Big city folks playing hunters is big business for us so we don't want hunting go away. But really when city folks show up with assault weapons to hunt it is laughable, they are only suitable for hunting people. Yes these folks do get "gun happy" and shoot each other, usually not dead. The visitor's accuracy is usually not too good. They have a point and shoot mentality. They shoot a lot of shells, make a lot of noise, and some time even hit an animal.

I don't have an exact answer here but this is were we are now.

@Mr Rogers (and the rest of the viewing public) You're missing the entire point here, it seems to have gotten right past you. Even though it's as plain as the nose on your face.

Adam Lanza should never have had access to those guns to begin with. What's more, its painfully evident that his mother didn't secure them properly, and that she didn't have the common sense to know her mentally deranged son, and her guns should never be in the same room together.

More guns would not have stopped Adam Lanza from doing this. In fact, quite the opposite is true. More guns would have exacerbated the situation.

However, Adam Lanza would not have been able to shoot 26 people inside of 10 minutes if he did not have access to those guns.

Therefore LESS GUNS is the answer.

We spend less time and effort on training gun owners how to safely "operate", and store their weapons, than we do on people who simply want to drive a car or a motorcycle; and, we do it all in the name of the 2nd amendment.

But, the question we never seem to ask ourselves is; was the right to bear arms as granted by the 2nd amendment put into place as a means to usurp someone else's inalienable right to life?

I don't think so, and when one "right" steps on and in some cases eliminates another, it's time to use common sense to stop it.

We cannot assume that every gun owner is going to be responsible enough to know that their weapons must be securely stored when not in use, and we can't assume that every mentally unstable family member of someone who owns guns, will be kept away from them.

But, we can limit the number of guns that are out there, and we can limit their capacity; and, if that's what it takes to prevent another twenty some-odd innocent little angels from being brutally murdered in another such incident, then so be it.....and your 2nd amendment right be damned.

1badjr,

That wasn't under the Reagan administration. You're not even close. The previous "assault weapons ban" was passed and instated in 1994. Bill Clinton was really proud of it at the time. He was very insistent that that bill would make a difference. It didn't do anything to lower crime rates or keep "assault weapons" out of the hands of criminals.

Job1, Where did you go to school to be taught that M-I-L-I-T-I-A spells guns? The militia is tyo be regulated by having the people armed, as is put forth by the founders, Tench Coxe for example;

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

Obama* wants to try everything to make children safe at schools Except putting a guard in the schools to keep children safe.

So many things that Biden and Obama* say, just do not make sense. Eric Holder is still in Criminal Contempt of Congress and Obama* is still exerting Executive Privelidge to protect the criminal from prosecution in the "Fast and Furious" Conspiracy to sell assault weapons to career criminal insurgent drug gangs and cartels. Thereby giving aid to the enemy in the war on drugs.

Obama* has done a blatant act of Treason on national TV and he is due to impeached along with Joe Biden.

This is a capitol offense.

I have several ideas:

1) Improve mental health care across the board and make it more accessible

2) Offer one of the liberals favorite carrots: the tax rebate, to people who buy approved gun safes to secure their guns properly and/or for gun owners who take an approved gun safety course

3) Prosecute the gun owner whenever an improperly secured gun is used in a crime. (if your kid "steals" your legal gun because it was not properly locked up, you stand as guilty as he for the results of your negligence)

4) Put an armed guard at every public school....employ some of those awesomely trained veterans as they come home.

5) Mandate universal background checks for all gun purchases, and vigorously prosecute those who attempt to purchase guns who knowingly are ineligible.

6)Maintain an easily accessible national data base of individuals inelegible to purchase, own or possess a gun, including known criminals and persons with known mental health issues when they have been deemed dangerous to self or others through some standardized credible process.

Why do we have to punish law abiding citizens for the acts of the few?

Chuck, if you think your vote gives you some political capital at the table of the elite, you are deluding yourself. When have we much less congress been able to decide whether to go to war or not? Our government legislates for the people who can put the most money in their pocket. Wake up or enjoy your slumber.

"Job1

No one is taking away anyone rights. As the Second Amendment states we need to have a "well regulated militia.""

We do - it's now called the armed services. We also have the national guard.

I'M SHOCKED!!!!!!!

SHOCKED I TELL YOU!!!!

Well. Not really.

Barrack Husseins little knees buckled under the pressure. He didn't do anything but throw 23 meaningless ideas out to be bounced around for a few months.

Nothing of substance, just more smoke and mirrors in a vain attempt to appear concerned.

He handed the real heavy lifting off to the Congress where it should go.

Now, all the Congress has to do is, using the amendment process is change the 2nd Amendment to Barrack Husseins liking.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

That will never happen. The Federal Constitution is sacrosanct and should never be changed. It can be amended, so knock yourselves out. Get the 2/3's majority of both Houses of Congress to change it, then get 2/3's of the States to agree and you can change it all you want. This should only take a few years.

Especially the 2nd Amendment. Notice it is the only Amendment that has the caveat of,,,”SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”.

Shall Not Be Infringed means CAN NEVER BE VIOLATED, it means, CAN NEVER BE LEGISLATED AGAINST, it means CAN NEVER BE REMOVED.

Go for it Libbies!

Good luck.

If you want to change anything, go to the States as has been done for 224 years. It's much less of a problem to change things at the State level. This is why our Framer's demanded we be a Federal Constitutional Republic.

We should never question the genius of our Founders and Framers.

Lol @ Getmad,
Sorry America, but you are obese illiterate and failing at maintaining your super power status. Your fat a$$e$ will never thwart a terrorist plot at Nakatomi Plaza, you will never stave off an armed invasion by a Cuban/Russian force and you will most certainly never gun down someone on the street and save a victoria secret model. Why? Because most of the above activities require something completely foreign to your culture, EXERCISE. You will all continue your mostly boring and insignificant lives, the lucky ones as cubicle monkeys and the not so lucky ones doing something with a forklift, a counter with a bell or cooking grease. Stop dreaming.

And the song remains the same. Hey lefties, Do you believe you are bullying less with your socialist, "We know best and anyone who disagrees is crazy" speak. As with all things coming out of D.C., The devil is in the details. Just as it was with King William of Clinton's assault weapons ban. Which incidentally Warthog,,,didn't ban a single assault weapon, it only banned ugly semi autos and high cap mags. Big deal. Assault weapons are where they have been, in the hands of the military and police. Assault weapons are select fire machine guns, not semi autos even "scary" looking ones. Neither will this one. Had any of these lunatics had an actual assault weapon, the body count would have been much, much higher. But of course the gun grabbers can't be troubled with facts. They have a dogma and an agenda, this is better than facts.

Now as the mental health provisions, Congrats, leftists you have managed to do what the right has been unable to do for decades, because of your past efforts of keeping them out of the eyes of law enforcement, making those who have been diagnosed with "potentially" dangerous mental conditions known to law enforcement. No more hiding behind those pesky doctor-patient confidentiality laws. Now let's include COPS in the mental health evaluation, they are after all, only human. And the military, again only human. So good job of throwing some of your formerly favorite victims under the progressive bus, as it were. I guess individual rights of privacy are now fair game to the progressive grist mill of gun control. So which right will the left trample next? Confidentiality between lawyer and client perhaps? As I said the devil is going to be in the details.

Wile the automobile remains the #1 killer of people between the ages of infant to 35 years old, I here no ban for them, why? What if the Newtown lunatic had used an Escalade or Suburban, at recess to run them all down? I know it sounds insensitive, but, I would wager the death toll would have been much higher.

How about alcohol or tobacco, both perfectly legal, yet they are responsible for countless MORE deaths than guns. Yet there is no action in the works to curb them or register them, or ban them. And incidentally, you have no RIGHT to own, grow, possess or consume either.No where are they listed in the bill of rights or the constitution. Not the left has become the faithful, blind followers of the Dr. Coptoe plan. Who is doctor Coptoe you ask? He was the charismatic, autocratic, mind controlling leader of San Angelos mega-plex in the old movie demolition Man. Odd, How fantasy can predict fact sometimes. But then, the left and holly-weird have been in bed, as it were, for decades.

I'll wait until the full provisions of the Coptoe,, err Obama plan are made public, if indeed they ever are. Just as a number of King William of Clinton plan never made it into the public venue, like his rubber stamp FISA courts. To all the lefties out there blaming and bashing the NRA, You do realize blaming others for your problems is a sign of mental illness, do you not? But then, the left has ALWAYS looked to demonize and vilify all that oppose them. You repeat a lie long enough and loud enough until it becomes the truth, according the leftist agenda, just like Stalin, Hitler, Marx, Lennon, Ill, Pol Pot, or Castro. The fat is your current savior associated with Bill Ayers, unrepentant domestic terrorist and founder of the terror group the Weather Underground and Radish Kadelli, now professor, former PLO agent/operative. These are facts, but, the left repeating Obama's denial made the truth a lie. The left are masters of misdirection and brain washing.

In any case, I'll see what this piece of work brings. We worked around the Clinton ban, I'm sure there will loop holes in this one. As I said the Democrat,,, Devil is in the details.

To all of you right wing, holier than thou lunatics, please enlighten us on how many weapons did Jesus Christ carry with him. Go ahead, give us a breakdown on how many swords, spears, bow and arrows, etc., did Christ posses?

Let me help you less competent, gun toting morons -- ZERO. That would be"0" wepaons of any sort.

So, please stop using Christ and the traditional "christian values" as an excuse for your sadistic mentality.

The second amendment was passed when there were muskets, that shot one bullet at a time. You want to honor the second amendment, then revert to the musket and a one bullet at time shooting spree. STOP using the second amendment as an excuse for your sadistic mentality in justifying assault weapons and 30+ clip magazines. These weapons have nothing to do with the second amendment; they do however, have much to do with the low self esteem of the many that feel they must posses a war chest full of the latest killing machines to feel adequate.

Mental issues are manifested with the need to posses destructive weapons. Sooner or later, these nut cases snap and we have mass killings. It's a matter of time. That's why all assault weapons need to be removed from circulation.

RepublicansForObama-6186389, you want to regulate all of us "extreme right wing gun nuts"? Do you plan on showing up to "regulate" WITHOUT a gun? Is there no such thing as just a "gun owner"? when someone purchases a gun, do they instantly become a "gun nut"? Does something manufactured in New York or California have the ability to turn someone to a right-wing extremist? Ready when you are.

FZ: Edit to add: #1.150= one of the most racist/xenophobic comments I have ever read! are Obama and Biden Jewish? Over 80% of th American public self identify as Christian;please take your Bilderberg tripe somewhere you can fool some people, not here.

Jews and zionists are as different as night and day, do some research.

I saw an interview that Biden admits he is a zionist. Barry is a puppet, you sir are a slave.

You made my point for me, 80% Christian being screwed by 5% zionists.

I have been to Afghanistan twice and will be going back again in May. They are not Kicking our aZZ anywhere but in the lefty NeoLib media. Because that is where they receive the greatest amount of aid and comfort. On every battlefield we rule. They can only get away with chopping up schoolchildren for listening to music, and beheading housewives who learn to read, when we are not there. But then you dopn't really care about those people do you? You only care about what Kim is wearing today. So eat another bon bon, Oprah will be on soon, and the welfare check just arrived yesterday, so your life is good!!! Screw the reast of the world!!! You and your make me sick. And if I could defend the rest of the counrty while leaving you unprotected I would but your free ride is secure because people with bigger hearts and minds than you will continue to stand between you and the chaos and protect your sorry aZZ. With our Guns!!!

Just to clear up you NeoLibs BS about militias. They are defined as armed citizens not involved the military. Otherwise the Founding Fathers would have written the word "military". They could spell, and were aware of the differance.

Some people just NEED to become concubines of the NRA when faced with no real reason to be... Grab your ankles and monger fear for the fear mongers for the price of membership!!!!

Freaks and buffoons, Serfs and surrogates, Save 'merka!!!

There's good reasons why republicans and fear-mongering stupidity correlate so well... It's just the way you concubines like it! Having your idiotic heads in the sand is one thing, getting them pounded into the sand by your "keepers" seems even more desirable to you.

Here's a hint: When you find yourself arguing counter-points to points that don't exist... You're probably as dumb as daddy said you were before he left.

Where were all you NRA nuts when the Patriot Act was passed? You don't think that violated the constitution? Probably not, because you don't think past the barrel of .22 mag mini revolver.

Job1, your first comment shows how truly stupid and ignorant you are. I live in the South where we have an abundance of guns and you will never guess what happens during every election. Democrats, as well as Republicans, both tout their membership in the NRA to garner votes and many of them are very well educated. So, your ignorant comment holds no water. It was meant as a simple insult formed in a tiny brain.

Look at the note this article ends on - calling the NRA repugnant and cowardly - totally, totally biased reporting. I don't know about anyone else, but I am in the middle on most issues, and I am getting tired of the left slant the media is putting on things. Fox has it's place, and so does MSNBC, but the mainstream media........keep it honest please!!!

Our media has become nothing more than government influenced propaganda. where are the free thinkers in the news, the people who want the truth out and don't care which agenda it effects? same with the earlier article about the witness to sandyhook being harassed by "truthers". the Rosen guy has conflicts in his own story, so the issue to the media becomes the "truthers" hassling him instead of "why doesn't this guy's story add up"???? shame on our journalists.

To the correct thinking conservatives in the room.

Maybe it is time we tell our Representatives to let Obama go wild with his Communist/Progressive agenda. Just like the "Fiscal Cliff" debate, I told my representatives to go along with Obama. I told them you are going to get blamed for it anyway in the MSM, but at least at the mid term election you can say, "This is Obama's doing."

My nephew works at a Union run plant in KC, and the union workers there are already showing signs of "This is not what we voted for.", when their 2% SSI withholding Holiday was over.

I mean we already know that Obama is an anti-American Communist in Progressive clothing. Maybe it is time, we allowed the left to see how far he wants to go. Of course I am probably giving the Left more credit than it deserves, thinking they will understand what is happening to the country, or what will happen.

@thinkaboutit 1.54, respect is earned not given. I don't care if you are the King of Siam, Queen of England or Jesus Christ don't give your power over to anyone.

What is really ridiculous is that, the same people who say we have no right to tell them they can't have assault weapons because it infringes on their rights, are perfectly happy to tell women they can't control their own bodies!! Freedom is not just about guns, then, is it? You want the right to be able to kill massive amounts of people in seconds and threaten civil war over it. BUT, a woman's right to choose is not a freedom issue? Hypocrites much? Gun freedom is more important than personal freedom? Really? And, don't say one thing has nothing to do with the other. It completely does. Assault rifles have one intention. To kill as many people as possible in a short amount of time. The right to control your own body IS a true freedom issue. Why aren't you yelling about that?

I can agree with background checks for all sales. I can agree with strict laws against gun traffickers. I can agree with barring mentally ill people from having guns. And I think most people could. What I have a problem with is banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Knock those last two items off, and we may have a deal.

#1.178= Why are all the gun grabbers jewish?

Comes right from your OP. apparently you don't distinguish between them until you have to back away from your orignal intent. Bigots hate being called bigots.

And BTW, the original zionists were some of the best terrorists: Menacham Begin and Ariel Sharon were both involved with the bombing of the King David Hotel.

Mr. Rogers said;

Adam Lanza was a MENTAL health case and nearly ALL of the kids in these mass
killings were under mental health drugs of some kind. That is CLEARLY where the
discussion should be focused.

Also, Adam's mom CLEARLY error in making her gun accessible to her mentally ill son
but she is dead already. No law would have changed this.

Show me the law that would have helped here that doesn’t punish the 99% of law
abiding gun owners and I will be ready to talk.

From my viewpoint, the 'answer' to reducing the amount of gun violence in our schools is to restrict access to firearms by mentally-deficient individuals.

This does not mean I want all citizens to give up their firearms. As far as I'm aware, no one is suggesting that--it would be unConstitutional, and in certain situations, I CAN see citizens feeling safer with high-capacity assault-type firearms--property owners in border states who have been plagued by crossings of illegal drug dealers/cartel smugglers with heavy firearms comes to mind.

But those who are mentally deficient should not have, own, or be permitted to access such weapons.

The solution, to me, seems simple--ban ownership of high-capacity assault-type firearms to those living with a mentally-deficient individual, and mandate stricter penalties, including jail time, for those who lie on that question on the purchase/permit application. A background check for purchase/permit of such a weapon should include a mental health question for other members of the household, and such can be easily verified through government records--I am the mother of a high-functioning but autistic child, and were I to apply to purchase one of these, a background check would turn this fact up easily through Social Services records.

Job1: you are a mouthbreather! Total waste of space. Truly. You really believe that this cancer is going to bring us out of the created debt in which he caused and created? Seriously? You are truly an island of ignorance. Repubs4Obama: you are in this category as well. There are so many juice drinkers here that truly believe he is doing "good" for this country? Lets looks at some of the good: fast and furious, benghazi, shall I go further.....giving more benefits to those that are not working but yet those of us that are disabled from serving our country are losing are jobs and getting disability cuts because of his debt he incurred. Hmmmmm this is the cancer you follow? Rule of thumb: if you follow a cancer, eventually you will also get cancer.

Fast and furious executive order? Why? So that his name, which was top of the heap for those authorizing weapons to be crossed over into mexico. IMPEACH HIM NOW. Benghazi: intel received months, weeks and days with the consulate pleading for more security and possible threats and attacks. End result: we lose 3 Americans (2 of which were prior SEALS), Admiral gets relieved along with an Army officer becuase they were going to send help. Punish the good guys,, yup. Clinton to be on trial....falls down from "fatigue" and then blood clot. Hmmm someone needed time to make up stories. And now she is going to be stepping down. Another great dem huh?

Gun control? Bad guys get their guns legally huh? Thats what you believe! Chicago, strict gun laws: has the highest death rate over 550 in 2012. Hows that gun control work? Hmmm civilians cannot defend themselves when faced with an armed attacker. But hey, your president is doing great?

Medical care: make it free for congreemen and women, senators, etc. Those of us now have to pay more and get less. Thanks a lot, folks, seriously. I hope you get everything you deserve. Truly. I remember when everyone was saying the bama had less national debt than any other president and then what happened? How is that debt now? Everyone else that follows this clown cant see that he is truly destroying this country for other countries to step on in and take over. Hope you are prepared. Really!

I would say that I feel bad for you all but I really dont, I only wish you get what you deserve times 10!

Hey Confused;

Jesus made a choice of not being armed, just as you can. Had he decided to bear arms, do you think he would have been crucified? Especially given his fathers influence? I think not.

Muskets are the past, technology advances, revert to the pin and paper for all you communications. No e-mail, telephone, internet, same thing.

Modern firearms are as much of the 2nd amendment as computers are to you half truth weavers. The fact is the 2nd amendment was intended to give the people a way to defend from all assailants, including a government that moves to takes these same rights, including your 1st, 4th, 7th,etc amendments. Without the 2nd how do you propose to protect any of the others, genius? Write s stern letter? Three Supreme court decision in as many years have affirmed the INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms. Nothing short of a declaration of marshal law can change that.In that event lip service liberal of the line of fire. Because it will start a civil war, not that their is anything civil about war.

It was the 2nd amendment that kept the Japanese from invading the west coast after pearl harbor. Admiral Yamamoto told the Emperor of Japan, "We can not invade the American main land, their citizens are armed. There will be a rifle behind every blade of grass and they will annihilate us". To all you leftist ideologues I say this, Those who do not learn for history are doomed to repeat it, or in your case, very likely to be enslaved by it.

Ok, Job1 has decided that we who value our freedoms are simply dumb white folk. I suppose we all live in the mountains and sleep with our sisters as well.

Folks, no one is going to convince you of the importance of your rights, as American citizens, until someone comes to take them. And when that time comes, they won't talk about...they just do it. Registration is only the beginning (that was for you New York). Why not ask that old, jewish lady whose parents were in Europe around 1938. She can explain it better than I can. Ask even if you are antisemite, she may have some wisdom to share about what's coming. Even if you don't believe the holicaust happened.

The fact is, the "States rights" arguement is invalid when it comes to The bill of rights, when you read the reason for the first ten amendments. Try this:

As originally ratifïed, the Constitution primarily addressed the structure of the government and provided for few individual liberties. Instead, they were set forth later in the Bill of Rights, comprised of the first ten amendments to the Constitution. A bill of rights was demanded by many states in return for their ratification of the Constitution, which they felt needed to outline individual liberties as well as government structure.

The key phrase for you "State's rights" people is Individual Liberties. Why would they put something for a state's rights where they are spelling out your liberties? The states get their liberties based on the constitution they wrote, which was ratified by the people of that state and accepted by the federal government.

Our Founding Fathers came from a tyrannical government. They respected, appreciated, and loved liberty. They would write something to ensure the country's ability to resist the government. Do your history to learn the truth. Or just read ProBusiness's post since I doubt many of you read your history.

So Job1, which of us is uneducated? I myself hold a Bachelors in Electro-Mechanical Engineering. My understanding of history comes from amazing teachers all through schooling in New Jersey. I am twice a combat veteran and don't really need a weapon if I wanted to (or needed to) kill. At least you got the white part correct. Your openning thread statement was ignorant, racist divvle. So should we all be thinking you like this law because you know when guns are out of people's hands, you and your gang banger buddies will grab your AKs and take what you want, when you want? As long as we are profiling.

I'll choose to think you are not that type and try to be reasonable. A very real thought though, we don't need more gun laws. Punishing law abiding citizens is not the answer. What we need is harsher punishment for felonies. Think about it. There's no fear of consequence. If you murder someone, you will be taken care of for the rest of your life. Job provided by the prison system (at tax payer expense), three hots and a cot (at tax payer expense), cable and exersize (at tax payer expense), and a shower buddy for some lovin' (at tax payer expense). Where's the consequence? Where's the fear of reprisal? And there is the problem. But let's take the distraction instead of working on the problem.

Oh Block Head, there is no room for racism anywhere. I see your moniker sums you up! You are not a credit to your race much less humanity.

You may want to dive into the primordial ooze and start over again!

confused-3012211

To all of you right wing, holier than thou lunatics, please enlighten us on how many weapons did Jesus Christ carry with him. Go ahead, give us a breakdown on how many swords, spears, bow and arrows, etc., did Christ posses?

Let me help you less competent, gun toting morons -- ZERO. That would be"0" wepaons of any sort.

So, please stop using Christ and the traditional "christian values" as an excuse for your sadistic mentality.

The second amendment was passed when there were muskets, that shot one bullet at a time. You want to honor the second amendment, then revert to the musket and a one bullet at time shooting spree. STOP using the second amendment as an excuse for your sadistic mentality in justifying assault weapons and 30+ clip magazines. These weapons have nothing to do with the second amendment; they do however, have much to do with the low self esteem of the many that feel they must posses a war chest full of the latest killing machines to feel adequate.

Mental issues are manifested with the need to posses destructive weapons. Sooner or later, these nut cases snap and we have mass killings. It's a matter of time. That's why all assault weapons need to be removed from circulation.

#1.176

Yes, the Constitution was written when State of the Art was a rifled single shot muzzle loading black powder firearm, as well as a muzzle loaded cannon.

So if your argument is valid, then the 1st amendment only covers the printed word (freedom of the Press, i.e the printing press, from which the news media or journalists derive the name "Press"), or speech conveyed to a live audience(Freedom of Speech, to talk publicly). It does not cover, Television, and all the news organizations there, nor does it cover the Movie Industry, the Internet, to include the Porn Industry, the Video game industry, or any modern technology, such as cell phones. Which means the 4th amendment does not stop the Government from eaves dropping on your phone calls.

It is no wonder you are confused. You have no understanding of the Constitution, the Founders of this great nation, or the role the 2nd amendment plays in all of it. My guess is, you think the Constitution grants you the rights you so carelessly bandy about.

"The intelligence of a people is inversely proportional to the size of city and the length of time spent there in". Robert Reedy 1980

“To paraphrase Chairman Mao: Freedom and Oppression are dispensed from the END of a gun. Which END are you on?” Robert Reedy 2008

Jeff said:

I can agree with background checks for all sales. I can agree with strict laws against gun traffickers. I can agree with barring mentally ill people from having guns. And I think most people could. What I have a problem with is banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Knock those last two items off, and we may have a deal.

I will agree with everything you said except for one.

I advocate banning ownership of assault-type weapons and high-capacity magazines to anyone with a mentally-deficient individual living with them.

Other people, if they so wish, can have them but if you have a mentally-deficient person living with you you will not be allowed to purchase one because that individual has the potential for massive havoc.

Yay! The good guys strike back! Ban that crap!

Not one word about more money towards mental health care? THE MAN WAS MENTALLY ILL NOT>>I REPEAT NOT THE WEAPON>>>president and his men are going for sensationalism ...not real solutions...I cant believe they dont advocate for better mental health care....low quality leaders...

This is just another bunch of laws that say "we are doing something" when they are doing nothing. First of all, define "military style" weapons. I define that as fully automatic, machine gun style weapons that can shoot several hundred round per minute. Those are already banned. What I believe they will try to ban are guns that "look" like those weapons. That is like banning cars that look like Corvette's because they go too fast and are dangerous...no matter if the car had a lawn mower engine in it. If such a ban wherewhat would care makers do? They would build cars that don't look like Corvette's but have the same engine. So, you have to look at the "engine" of the gun, not how it looks. Nearly all guns today, whether it be handguns or rifles, are all semi-automatic weapons. They are NOT fully automatic weapons. Full auto weapons are ALREADY illegal. So what is going to happen with a ban on "military style" guns. The gun manufacturers will simply read the law and how it is written and build semi-auto weapons that don't look like the "Corvette", but go just as fast. Banning these weapons does nothing, except maybe make these politicians think they are doing something. At the end of the day a it will do nothing to prevent any murders or make us safer. Typical for all politicians....all talk and no go.

And all this for weapons that are used in less than 1% of murders in the U.S. Why can't these bozos concentrate on balancing the budget instead of wasting everyones time with fruitless laws that do nothing. For that support such a weapon ban, you are either ignorant or stupid and maybe both.

Just wanted to add to the whole blacks in prison thing. Not that it matters but whites make up more of the prison population. People just like to say minorities and case anyone who isn't white in one group. Fact more whites are on government assistance and make up more of the prison population.

The guber Nazis led by the NRA are losing big time. The majority of the american people don't support the gun totin' gubers, EVEN by a WIDER MARGIN than voted Obama into office. There's no hope for you gubers...

• The latest from ABC/WaPo "Would you support or oppose a law requiring a nationwide ban on high-capacity ammunition clips, meaning those containing more than 10 bullets?"
• Support = 65%

And Job1 starts with the name calling, etc. Shows how educated he is. If the majority that oppose gun control are uneducated white men, then how do you explain the black and female senators and those in Congress that possess firearms and CHL's? How do you explain that a number of black and white law enforcement officials (with college degrees) don't support the president or his proposals? I've talked to a number of them, and that is where I am getting my information from, not reading it somewhere. Leave it to the libs, etc. to start name calling when someone doesn't agree with them. Job1 is probably in a lower class than uneducated white men.

Job 1 - Carrying an "assault rifle" does not make us "uneducated white men" bigger, it barely makes us equal to the threat brought by "educated" criminals.

Law enforcement at all levels is, by its very nature, reactionary, only acting after a crime has been committed. The only way ensure 100% crime prevention is to take away everyone's liberty or life. Whichever comes first. Because we are a free nation, no law enforcement agency has the ability to protect every citizen from illegal acts of another. In fact, adding regulation and bans only educates the lawless even further while the "uneducated" are left to protect themselves with less and less.

Most of those who appose gun control do not appose it because they are egotistical maniacs, but they appose the notion that gov'ts (local, state and federal) have the authority to decide who should be protected and who should not and how. They appose the idea that gov'ts can arbitrarily impose a value on human life and property. They reject the notion that the constitution is merely "words" without purpose or value. They accept the truth that the PEOPLE have the right and responsibility to defend and protect their rights and freedoms from criminals and tyrants.

Twenty-six fellow citizens lost their lives last month not because someone had a gun, but because someone with a gun was not there to stop him.

How about Barack and Joe put everything they've got into getting this country back on it's feet, lower the unemployment rate, and passing a damn budget?

what i have not seen on here is anyone address what the nra said about komrad obamas children having armed guards at their schools.

as i understand it the school they go to has armed guards all the time it does not matter if the presidents kids go there or not and as for the kids being off limits, i dont think so, about every add that komrad obama and his comrads put out asking for money has the kids in it somewhere so they are fair game.

as for the moron who mentiones a 100 round clip, there is no such thing the biggest clip i know of is a 8 round clip which was used in the world war two era m

M1,

If anyone would bother to check out the murder stats they would find that after the assault weapons ban ended the murder rate in this county went down every year

THERESA-532036

What is really ridiculous is that, the same people who say we have no right to tell them they can't have assault weapons because it infringes on their rights, are perfectly happy to tell women they can't control their own bodies!! Freedom is not just about guns, then, is it? You want the right to be able to kill massive amounts of people in seconds and threaten civil war over it. BUT, a woman's right to choose is not a freedom issue? Hypocrites much? Gun freedom is more important than personal freedom? Really? And, don't say one thing has nothing to do with the other. It completely does. Assault rifles have one intention. To kill as many people as possible in a short amount of time. The right to control your own body IS a true freedom issue. Why aren't you yelling about that?

JUST HOW STUPID CAN YOU BE?? That isnt about a womans "body", its about murdering the most INNOCENT of them all. An unborn CHILD!! WHY arent YOU...YOU YELLING about THAT?? Stupidity abounds!!

many that always post first on internet forums day after day after day are reclusive shut ins devoid of any social life and more likely than not collecting welfare.

Job1...............you are an ignorant ass! Coming from a well educated firearm NRA Member.

I would rather count myself among the supposed uneducated, than amongst the group that are either blind sheep or enemies of our Constitution and its people so they are unable to oppose or defend against Tyranny, as our Country has done before! Here is a quote from monticello.org, supposedly from Thomas Jefferson:

You might also want to look up the seven stages of democracy, attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler and decide for yourself at what stage we are in currently, and how close we are to the end of our democracy,according to his writings. I can only hope that we do not need to have another fight against tyranny again in our country, but hope that we are able to fight for our freedom. Instead of hoping, like many other countries, that there will be a country that will come to our defense, and help us defend our freedoms.

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

• From bondage to spiritual faith;
• From spiritual faith to great courage;
• From courage to liberty;
• From liberty to abundance;
• From abundance to complacency;
• From complacency to apathy;
• From apathy to dependence;
• From dependence back into bondage. Just a brief synopsis of his writings... I hope that the NY is prepared for court challenges based on their decisions to forsake the basic principles of our government. People are always saying that the Constitution was written over 200 years ago and that some of it no longer is relevant! I totally disagree, as life is uncertain and the Constitution was written to give us liberties and stop others from taking them away from us! I believe that the second amendment was written specifically to give us the right to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government! Remember the reason our country was started, and what we needed to do to get this country! I am not advocating revolution, just that we should be prepared and able to protect our rights and country! Unless you think that it will never happen or there will be another country that will come to our rescue, All you need to do is read the world news and see the turmoil our world is under, with people that are unhappy with their government!!

True Texan Only a moron could make the argument you just did. Assault weapons have only one purpose. To kill massive amounts of people as quickly as possible. A personal, private choice of what to do with your own body is a TRUE FREEDOM issue!! IF you can't see that, you are too ignorant to continue the conversation. You are really saying it's ok to force a woman to give birth but it's not ok to stop mass murders by guns? Really? Who is the moron? I think it's you and basically your entire extreme party. Freedom is not YOURS to pick and choose, is it? What can be taken away from one, can be taken away from another. A woman's right over her body IS a freedom issue for more than 50% of this country WHO ARE WOMEN!!

newdayDAWNING...RETURNED Comment collapsed by the community

Who is Obammy?

I don't know. Once I'm done tryin to figure out who Chimp Bush and Darth Cheney are I'll work on it and get back to you.

Probably the most frightening part of this article (and frankly, the whole thing is chilling) is that the president is now encouraging your family doctor to spy on you and violate doctor/patient confidentiality.

Wake up, America. This is a very bad, very dangerous man you have elected to the highest office in the land. And now that he has no fear of answering to the people for re-election, he will push his radical agenda by any means necessary, including executive order. I expect at the end of four years to see his jack-booted thugs going door to door to search our houses for anything they want.

How many times will he shred the Constitution before our eyes?

When the 2nd amendment says, "..right to bear arms..." how is "arms" defined? Would you say it is a citizen's right to possess any type of weapon regardless of it's destructive capability?

THERESA-532036

What is really ridiculous is that, the same people who say we have no right to tell them they can't have assault weapons because it infringes on their rights, are perfectly happy to tell women they can't control their own bodies!! Freedom is not just about guns, then, is it? You want the right to be able to kill massive amounts of people in seconds and threaten civil war over it. BUT, a woman's right to choose is not a freedom issue? Hypocrites much? Gun freedom is more important than personal freedom? Really? And, don't say one thing has nothing to do with the other. It completely does. Assault rifles have one intention. To kill as many people as possible in a short amount of time. The right to control your own body IS a true freedom issue. Why aren't you yelling about that?

#1.186

What a completely asinine and ridiculous argument. Does a woman have the right to choose who she has sex with and when? And if it is forced upon her, is it not called "Rape", a prosecutable offense? So, yes a woman has the right to choose what to do with her body.

However, if you look at the facts, (and I am an Atheist, so this comes from Natural Law, not the Bible) human life begins at conception. PERIOD. Evolutionary and Natural Law dictate that those cells can only form into one thing, a human body. To think of them as anything else, is in error and in violation of the Natural Law.

There are only two instances where abortion could even be considered viable. 1st, In violation of the woman's right to choose, i.e. rape (to include statutory or incest). 2nd, In violation of the the woman's right to life, i.e. The pregnancy (the fetus) is an eminent threat to the woman's life. Or as I call it "Self Defense", as the baby will kill her, if something is not done.

No, the "Abortion on Demand" issue is just another cause of the violence we see in our society today. The "No Consequences" attitude of the Progressive mind set.

Micks, the second amendment is not Moot no matter how you wish upon a star

I've read your posts the last two weeks...why not, you're good at it. ;)

come on Micks. I've been called a pussy by you, FR is a hostile enivornment for dum rednicks like me.

Seriously Micky have you ever had the privledge of being around gangs? but nonetheless would it be foolish to ever think our government couldnt become tyrannic? Partisans aside. Maybe it would be wise to research why the founding fathers found it necessary to include an amendment like that. Hint: the common defense is already covered in the constitution.

The 2nd amendment said, the right to bare arms, not muskets, not swords, not cannons that could level buildings (yes they had them back then), not explosives..

Why written as bare arms, maybe because it was written by people that knew things change but the principle of a nation to have self preservation from tyranny was at stake.

"if there's even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there's even one life that can be saved, then we've got an obligation to try it."

While this is a noble statement, what would he say to the families, if what he is doing, causes the death of one or more people.

how can anyone talk with people who use emotions to create thought? emotions are not logical so any thought produced by an emotion will be radical. this board is full of radical emotional hate speech and as usual it comes from the same people who blindly follow politicians and can not think clearly.

Article the fourth [Amendment II]^[3]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.

does anyone understand the word "infringed?" do you understand the commas?

there are no restrictions on what we can own as an armament, our founders were not as stupid as you people make em out to be, they wrote the constitution for the future and they knew the end results and tried their best to prevent it.

infringed past participle, past tense of in·fringe (Verb)

Verb

1. Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
2. Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".

the federal government nor the state has any regulatory powers over the 2nd amendment, none! congress can call up the militia but it can not regulate it.

honestly this is a waste of anyones time, these government lackeys will never open their eyes to the truth and will follow the devil into hell if he told them too, they have no reason to think for themselves when politicians and celebrities do the thinking for them. anyone can read a random board and see the issues as clear as day, its like in grade-school at the playground, nothing but childish insults and banter meant to bring others down to the insulters level.

Hey oblockhead, I see you just joined newsvine. I smell a re reg.

All you Gun Lovers:

Call your state legislatures TODAY - Ask for a list of all senators names and emails. Then go to google and Search HB0104. Send an email to every state senator asking them to sponsor a bill like HB0104. I did this in my state yesterday, and it has already been pushed on by a senator as of today. This will send a clear picture to the Federal Government about how States feel. Feel free to Copy and Paste this message to other articles - We must do more than bickering at the Libs - We must take action.

THERESA-532036:

The whole point of having an armed citizenry with powerful weapons is so that the govt will think twice before trying to take away the peoples freedoms. I don't know if you are a gun owner (I would guess not) but a large capacity magazine is not for hunting but it would be invaluable for defense against the military should it come to that...Never happen in America you say? I am sure that is what the German people thought in the 30's...the issue is like that of the cold war and nuclear weapons - nobody wants to use them and knowing they are out there causes people (govt) to stay in line.

http://www.reagancoalition.com/articles/2013/20130115004-oops-provision.html#w2c76wqJIqO5BDqR.99

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot...AHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Stupid Libtards!

Hey libby theresa, YOU brought it up so I guess that makes YOU the biggest moron HUH! You are correct about ONE thing. SOME weapons are for killing massive amounts of people. Guess which ones havent been used as often as you have been led to believe. Sheeple. Weapons are for defending ouselves and hunting. The 2nd wasnt written for hunting no matter how you libs want to spin it. It was written to DEFEND OURSELVES!! Got it?? Thought not. I say if you are out screwing around and get pregnant and want to murder the child we (my tax dollars) will pay for it ONE TIME! You AND the father (if he doesnt want the baby) get fixed like you would a dog or cat so that never happens again! And you libs are good at twisting what has been said but you have to look your lying self in the mirror every day not me! ALSO you are correct about not picking and choosing freedoms...so take this one away that you hate so much and the next one might be the one YOU like. Stupidity STILL abounds!

The desire for Obama to attack our constitution, specially second amendment was part of his agenda. He could ask for gun restriction when he got majority in congress but he decide not to do it , because gun restriction is not popular, Erick Holder use the Fast and Furious but it was a shoot in Obamas foot, now the perfect time, use childs to ban certain guns. However the ones that kill the most are in the hands of delinquents in the streets of Chicago.

Oh no, you mean I can't have a 30 round magazine to protect my self!? You mean I can't buy a gun from Cletus without somebody knowing? We're all gonna die at the hands of the marxist, or socialist, or whatever he is being classified as these days. I feel warm and safe, sleeping with my .223. How will I make it through the night?

Just like all the rest of us. I live in L.A., I don't own a gun. Military veteran who just isn't such a coward that I feel the need to own a gun. The world ain't nearly as scary as you guys think. Really.

If you want scary, try Somalia. This ain't Somalia, this is freakin' fairy land compared to Mogadishu, and you need a gun in fairyland? Sad.

AfromArizona, you are right about law enforcement being reactionary by nature. In addition, they are really under no obligation to protect, even if all the police cars were to have "To protect and to serve" on the side of them. If someone harms you or your family, even in the presence of an officer, and he does nothing to stop it, he and the police department cannot be sued. Well, tney can be, however, they would not lose in court.

To the idiot who started this post, an "Assault" rifle is just a rifle. Just like a pistol it is semi-automatic. There is NO difference between an "Assault" rifle and any rifle of the same caliber. It's those "scary" (only to the ignorant) add ons like a folding stock (oh my) or a cooling system (the thing with the tiny holes around the barrel (eek) or a pistol grip (RUN AWAY!!!) that's the difference!!!!!!! Just like a pistol it is NOT A MACHINE GUN!!! It is semi-automatic meaning one bullet fires with each squeeze of the trigger.

Your ignorance of this subject alone should raise alarm, even with yourself. Your lack of information on the subject and rush to agree with the Ministry of Truth is just what they are counting on.

Lunkystraydog

The 2nd amendment said, the right to bare arms, not muskets, not swords, not cannons that could level buildings (yes they had them back then), not explosives..

Why written as bare arms, maybe because it was written by people that knew things change but the principle of a nation to have self preservation from tyranny was at stake.

• !

#1.225

Not to nit pick a good post, but it is "bear" arms, not 'bare' arms, one means "to carry" the other describes "Larry the Cable Guy" ;-)

This is 100 percent FACT, but the left does not want to talk facts they live on emotions.

Close, but not quite - The Left lives and thrives on Tyranny. And they only Play on the emotions of their willing, uneducated myrmidons and constituents to accomplish their goals

Anyone who thinks that the people who are suggesting we decrease our ability to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government are thinking "only of the children" is either mad or delusional.

And for the Intellectual Giants who for some odd reason keep attempting to showcase their disconnect from reason by making some asinine correlation between gun ownership and penis size - How in hell do you account for women in this equation?

Guns are not the problem folks.

The mere presence of guns does not cast some sort of mystical spell that makes people want to shoot up schoolyards. You have to W A N T to see someone dead FIRST before you decide whether you're going to use a Gun.. or a Knife... or a Car... or a Crow Bar.. or your Fists... and in one case recently it was Chili Powder - Yes, a woman gave her boyfriend's infant daughter a teaspoon of Chili Powder .. and it killed her.

All the gun laws on the planet are not going to cure the motivation to kill. All the gun laws on the planet are not going to cure mental illness.

But what they will do - is create a national consciousness that says the Government is no longer the servant of the people - but the Master. What they will do is tighten the noose around the ability to defend yourself from an out of control government.

The excuse will be to 'Save the Children', but the Reason is far more sinister than you can imagine.

Congress passes laws. A KING makes decrees.

Learn the difference between Reason and Excuse before it's too late.

Once again, a liberal equates "education" as somehow being analogous to intelligence. The two are completely different issues. As liberals often want to do, many of them also seem to believe that if you are educated, that it somehow should automatically grant one superior authority to wield control over someone who may not be educated. After all, as liberals all know, they are much better at making your life decisions for you than you are...all that "education" and everything they have you understand, gives them such authority to do so, at least in their self-absorbed, delusional little minds.

Yes, in the mind of a liberal, education equates (falsely) to a superior intelligence. But, what really makes liberals apoplectic is when someone attains a degree of education, and yet, even with all of that education, they still don't think like a liberal. That not uncommon phenonemon is what really drives liberals up the wall.

As such, this arrogance so often displayed by liberals, is why I hate modern day, post Wilson / FDR liberalism with every fiber of my being. And that is why liberals are nothing but putrid little arrogant piles of dog sh!t in my book.

(For the record, I hold a BS in Business Management and Marketing (double major), class of 1981, from a well respected private university in Tennessee. My wife is a board certified physician, and is even more conservative than I am. Funny how all of that education still didn't make us liberals)

Gang violence accounts for a large portion of the murders in America. In 2006, 58% of murders in L.A. were gang related. Some writers claim that up to 80% of all murders in America are gang related, though this number scemes high, given the statistics I could find in the last 10 minutes. It would probably be safe to say that half of murders are gang related.

Take the profit out of gang culture, and the problem is reduced. When prohibition ended, crime, especially murder dropped. When a product is criminalized, it becomes a very lucrative criminal enterprise for gangs. If it were not profitable, they wouldn't be fighting over it, and new members would be hard to recruit.

So, end the failed war on drugs, and murder rates will drop. Legalise and tax the drugs. The savings of $billions of taxpayer dollars can be used to treat addicts and take a chunk out of the debt.

The war on drugs has had no effect on consumption, There would be no supply if there was no demand.

Accept that people will continue to use drugs, legal or not. 90% of the users would not be classified a criminal for any other reason.

The drug enforcement industry will fight against this. They get $13.7 Billion tax dollars a year and always want more. This does not include Coast Guard and other military expenditures, or the ongoing cost of keeping non violent offenders in prison.

Within 5 years of legalization, murders in America will drop by 3-4000 per year.

Some legislators wish to control personal behavoir in this supposedly free country. Let people control their own morality on whether to use drugs or not.

OBLOCKHEAD America's Favorite Negro

Lebensraum (help·info) (German for "habitat" or literally "living space") was one of the major genocidal political goals of Adolf Hitler, and an important component of Nazi ideology. It served as the motivation for the expansionist policies of Nazi Germany, aiming to provide extra space for the growth of the German population, for a Greater Germany. In Hitler's book Mein Kampf, he detailed his belief that the German people needed Lebensraum ("living space", i.e. land and raw materials),

Dude, OK, you proved yourself to be a racially motivated skin-head. Happy now?! Well, you shouldn't.

You see, it's been a proved fact that 85% of all skin-heads were sexually abused by there own kin. Yeah, like good ole daddy. Sorry if your knees just jerked and you may have whiplash and flash-backs now but, that's the facts.

What happens is while growing up being molested, your brain builds this hatred towards mostly anything then you jump on the nearest band wagon of hatred when you mature and are more able to make your own decisions.

In your case, it was someone you grew up with or met that happen to be a racist. Now, you don't know why, but subliminally, you just seem to hate people of color, Jews etc....

You don't know why, but that's just the way it is and it simply makes you feel better. It's OK though, being sexually abused as a child must've been a tragic and scary situation for you.

There is help out there. There are psychologists that deal directly with thes problems but unfortunately, it's usually too late when you reach the elevated level in which you're on.

Good luck in life and sleep with one eye open man. We're all still humans.

confused-3012211

So, please stop using Christ and the traditional "christian values" as an excuse for your sadistic mentality.

Perhaps if Jesus had a weapon he could have avoided crucifixion. His death, and inability to protect himself, is exactly why you should never submit any weapon you own being taken from you by a criminal or the government. In reality, they are the same.

The second amendment was passed when there were muskets, that shot one bullet at a time.

Yes, both sides had one-shot muskets. Imagine the result of the revolution had the colonists only been armed with bows and arrows or axes. They won our independence because they at least had the same weaponry and more courage to be victorious.

You want to honor the second amendment, then revert to the musket and a one bullet at time shooting spree.

And how effective will that be against a criminal or oppressive government with your bogeyman assault weapons?

Try to keep up Spanky.

Gang violence accounts for a large portion of the murders in America. In 2006, 58% of murders in L.A. were gang related. Some writers claim that up to 80% of all murders in America are gang related, though this number scemes high, given the statistics I could find in the last 10 minutes. It would probably be safe to say that half of murders are gang related.

Take the profit out of gang culture, and the problem is reduced. When prohibition ended, crime, especially murder dropped. When a product is criminalized, it becomes a very lucrative criminal enterprise for gangs. If it were not profitable, they wouldn't be fighting over it, and new members would be hard to recruit.

So, end the failed war on drugs, and murder rates will drop. Legalise and tax the drugs. The savings of $billions of taxpayer dollars can be used to treat addicts and take a chunk out of the debt.

The war on drugs has had no effect on consumption, There would be no supply if there was no demand.

Accept that people will continue to use drugs, legal or not. 90% of the users would not be classified a criminal for any other reason.

The drug enforcement industry will fight against this. They get $13.7 Billion tax dollars a year and always want more. This does not include Coast Guard and other military expenditures, or the ongoing cost of keeping non violent offenders in prison.

Within 5 years of legalization, murders in America will drop by 3-4000 per year.

Some legislators wish to control personal behavoir in this supposedly free country. Let people control their own morality on whether to use drugs or not.

OBLOCKHEAD America's Favorite Negro

What a sad and pathetic life you must lead. Constantly re-registering so you can waste your time posting your drivel just to see it deleted and your latest account banned. Surly you must realize by this point that even the people who generally agree with you can't actually take you seriously anymore, if they ever did.

If you can't hit and kill what you need to with 7 bullets, maybe you shouldn't own a gun in the first place?

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

Hey Mickey how was your holiday? good i hope... What if there were 8 assailants (see gangbangers)? should i use harsh language. but that was a nice strawman argument.

C'mon Caeser-be honest. Do you really think you've got a chance against 8 (presumably armed) gangbangers, no matter WHAT you're carrying? Let's face it-if you get a gun shoved in your face, you're not reaching for yours. Eight bangers are gonna make you wet yourself, and that's about it.

JimSpence,

Perhaps if you had ever read the Bible, you would know that Jesus knew his fate and went willingly. He was also the ultimate proponent for non violence. Ever heard "turn the other cheek"? Ghandi credited his non voilent change, partly to Jesus. The hypocracy of the right wing with respect to Jesus astounds me.

Do you really think you've got a chance against 8 (presumably armed) gangbangers, no matter WHAT you're carrying?

yes I do. Its not like the criminal gang bangers are proficient. When seconds count, the law is minutes away

The issue seems simple but it is not. Are assault "style" weapons the same as assault weapons? In many cases they are quite similar to their traditionally designed cousins in the product line not by any stretch a assault weapon. Are these weapons any more dangerous than a short barrel shotgun with heavy shot in close quarters? I think not. Here is another thought does anyone need a 565hp automobile, is a car capable of going over 150mph more dangerous than a small low powered car that can go 75mph tops. Should we be allowed to drive such a vehicle? The point is where does it end? Who should make these decisions. Living is dangerous and like it or not we will all come to the same end. Will sacrificing our ability to protect ourselves result in a safer world? I guess we are going to find out.

Guns, even assault rifles, are being vilified but they are clearly not the problem. Do the research - Australia passed a ban on guns and you can easily see the horrible impact that had on the population. These bans only make it easy for criminals to kill people. It will be like shooting fish in a barrel. They will know they are the only ones with guns and you are unable to protect yourself from them.

Obama is destroying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. His "healthcare" tax was a clear violation despite what the stooges on the Supreme Court said. Now he is working on destroying the 2nd Amendment. Don't be so damned reasonable!!!!! He HAS an agenda. This link clearly shows how this nation of sheople are following the path to their own destruction. BAAAAAAA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx9GxXYKx_8&bpctr=1358360036

That's nice that the POTUS stated that he 'will put everything he has into this' when a balanced approach to the budget has not been worked out. With the debt ceiling and sequesteration cuts taking place over the next few months, you'd think that he would try to come to resoultion on that.

And for those that are going to say that I'm thinking about our nations well-being over the safety of kids, I guess this administrations 'crisis of the moment' reaction will occur over and over again. Blame it on the 'Party of No', the Tea Baggers, or whatever, but the leadership of this administration has been at least equally inept. Pathetic.

If this ineffectual and immature figurehead would put one-one-hundredth of "everything he has" into actually doing something constructive like stopping his own out-of-control spending or creating an environment where real and able men were actually incentivized to create desperately needed jobs, rather than doing his posturing metrosexual pansy thing as usual and just running his mouth with rhetoric for the fools, then we might have something going on that's of value in this country again. But I guess not. Isn't anyone else getting tired of these useless tools inside the Beltway?

@Job1

"Many that hate any type of gun control are uneducated white men who think that carrying an assault rifle will make them bigger."

Sources and facts please. Oh wait, don't have any? Thought so.

Fact: Assault rifle - defined as a rifle that has selective fire capable of full auto / burst fire / single shot. You pull the trigger once, and shoot 30+ rounds in the "blink of an eye"
Fact: Civilian AR and AK variants are not assault rifles, they can only be fired in semi-auto (1 pull of the trigger = 1 shot)
Fact: AR = Armalite Rifles (the original designer and manufacturer), it does not stand for assault rifle.
Undetermined Fact: Antigun activists claim 108,000 people a year use a firearm for self defense from being a victim of a violent crime or attack, Pro gun activists claim that number is more around 1.2 to 2.5 million people saved each year. Either way, that's 100,000's of people saved from rape, murder, assault, home invasion, mugging, robbery, animal attack, etc.
Fact: 323 people a year (according to the FBI's 2011 statistics) are murdered by all rifles (which semi-auto rifles with large capacity magazines are only a portion of that number, of that a small percentage of those were children killed). That's out of 8,600 total gun-related murders in the US. More people are murdered by shotguns (356), you know, those low capacity pump/lever/semi-auto guns with very limited range.
Fact: CDC states that 1,314 children under the age of 14 die in car accidents each year due to improperly installed child safety seats, no safety seat/belt or being in a vehicle with a drunk driver
Fact: 728 people a year are murdered by hands/fists/feet (more than twice those killed by all rifles)
Fact: ~1700 people a year are murdered by knifes (5x that of rifles)
Fact: ~1700 people a year are murdered by hammers/blunt objects (5x that of rifles)
Fact: Millions of these types of semi-auto rifles with high capacity magazines are legally owned in the US today and millions more hunt with all types of rifles, yet only 323 people are murdered each year by any rifle type?
Fact: VT/Columbine/AZ all prove it doesn't matter what type of gun or weapon they bring to do mass killings
Fact: All mass killings to date (US/Norway/etc) have almost all been identified and proven to be mentally ill
Fact: Semi-auto rifles with large capacity magazines are used to defend property/livestock/humans from wild predators on farms and in rural areas (from packs of 6 to 50+ coyotes/wolves/feral pigs or even larger animals like bears/mountain lions and yes, humans that often take multiple shots before becoming incapacitated)

With all these facts out there, why is this even a discussion?

No matter how you slice it the country is moving toward a major sustained loss of freedom...freedom is the very messy bedrock of our success as a country. Freedom has demanded the sacrifice of self for the greater good of the nation and people for all our history. Now this country's leaders worship at the alter of self to the expense of the good of the nation and the people. Our history as a country of freedom is almost over. No matter who the leadership is if they believe more control and power is more important than freedom we are lost. Freedom includes the right to make mistakes and receive the consequences. Freedom includes the right to property, liberty, and personal protection as given by the Constitution. Only when we as a people uphold these undeniable truths do we prosper. We have made many mistakes by giving our freedom to others to protect. They are living proof of the mistakes we have allowed. I don't care what party you are a part of when we are divided over the very document that grants us the power as a great society we are lost.

So the question is will we be divided or will we demand our freedom anew and replace those who value personal power over national freedom and the greater good?

The current trend is clear and no matter where it comes from the Patriot Act and the NDAA of 2012 are just examples of evil parading as good. The intrusion of government into private communications, personal choice, and religious belief is just the tip of the iceberg. We the people have allowed loss of freedom in exchange for the illusion of safety.

Another sad page in the demise of the American Dream has occurred today...only the vigilant mourn its passing. Only the ignorant stand up and applaud not realizing soon their cherished personal freedoms will be lost as some other group comes to power. Power used for reduction of freedom is never delivered by good men and women...only by those who learn to oppress the controlled. Evil is indeed masquerading as good and most of the country is cheering...truly a sad day.

'I will put everything I've got into this'

ROFL......LOL.....Ya, like a laser on the economy right? What a joke this man is.

Maybe he can drag it out for 4 more years to avoid the real issues.

ED-2874315

JimSpence,

Perhaps if you had ever read the Bible, you would know that Jesus knew his fate and went willingly. He was also the ultimate proponent for non violence. Ever heard "turn the other cheek"? Ghandi credited his non voilent change, partly to Jesus. The hypocracy of the right wing with respect to Jesus astounds me.

You people should read ALL of the Bible if you are going to go there. In one place he told his deciples to sell their weapons and in another he told them if they had none to go buy one (sword of course). WHY, because at one point he wanted them to go as sheep and the other because they would need it for PROTECTION! Please research first.

TomasGrande

If there is a ban on Assult weapons and ammo, you will still be able to have a rifle and/or a handgun.

Please explain how your "rights" have been taken away.

Better yet, explain it to the parents of 20 dead children.

Salud

#1.26

Your ignorance is shining through. Do you have any understanding of the ammunition used in any time of firearm? Do you know that the .223/5.56 (typical of, but not the only caliber of the AR platform) is used in any number of bolt action, slide action, and semi-auto varmint rifles? So to ban "Assault Weapon" ammo, would render several thousand varmint guns useless, and their owners with a legitimate claim of a violation of the 5th amendment rights. (To deny a person of property without due process or compensation)

Also, the AR platform is a multi-caliber class of weapon, (one of a very few in this regard). Which is why I own one. With the removal of two pin, I can change the "Upper" to suit the requirements of the game I am hunting. I can use a .243SSM, (for prairie dogs) 6.8mm for deer, .50 Beowolf for wild hogs, or the .223 for coyotes. It costs half as much as buying a complete gun for each activity. And I am someone who is on a budget.

And since the AR platform can use so many types of ammo, do you plan on banning all these types of ammo? and if so, are you going to compensate the owners of millions of bolt action, slide action, or other semi-auto rifles because those rifles are now useless?

And just exactly what is your "Definition" of an assault weapon? And did you know, they continued to legally manufacture the AR platform after the '94 AWB? They merely removed the bayonet lug and flash suppressor from the barrel. Other than that everything was the same. So, please do, tell me what an "assault type rifle" is.

This is why we are having such a difficult time coming up with a solution. You people have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about. You have no understanding of the ramifications of your actions, or the ineffectiveness of your proposals, because you understand nothing about firearms, their use, their benefits, or even their dangers.

All you have is emotionally driven passion.

Maybe you should watch the Military Channels "The Fatal Attraction of Adolf Hitler". And for all you liberals who "Love" Obama, (which scares the hell out of me). Remember that many German people loved Hitler too. And many did even after the war was over. Those who fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.

Why could the movie theater and school shooters not have used the handguns or shotguns they had with them? WTF is banning a certain style of gun going to do? How many deaths would they have caused with handguns and shotguns? ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME. The child with 11 bullets in them was standing near the front of the pack more then likely since they were cornered and had nowhere to run.

Much like you will be if someone breaks into your home. How will you be able to defend your children when you are cornered in your home? With your fists, a bat, knife, etc.? What if the criminal has a gun? What are you going to do to protect your children? I will take every precaution that I can to ensure my survival/life and that of my family, only a stupid or naive person would not. If you cannot defend yourself you cannot defend or protect the lives of your children.

I could easily save more lives and those of children by forcing everyone to drive 55 MPH. WTF are you doing driving so fast if you have your children in the vehicle? WTF about your responsibility to them and your other passengers. If you a driving an SUV, van, bus, etc. filled with people do you not have a f***ing responsibility as the driver? It would reduce pollution, save the lives of animals, save wear and tear on our roads, save money, etc.. Why can we not do something so common sense or simple?

Jerry Miculek can take a 6 shot revolver (not a true semi-automatic gun) and fire 12 shots in under 3 seconds while also having to reload once in the middle. Double that time or half the amount of rounds fired for a "skilled" person and a skilled person can still put out 6 rounds in 3 seconds reload and have another 6 ready to go. Therefore a skilled person armed with only a 6 shooter can fire 30 rounds in 15 to 20 seconds. They could still only hit something right in front of them however.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonnie_and_Clyde

Just some cases of when bad guys have better guns then the good guys. How did the bank robbers get bullet proof suits back then? How did Clyde Barrow get Browning Automatic Rifles? How many bullets did it take to kill the two guys in Miami (who did not have drugs or bullet proof stuff on) and why would anyone want more then 7-10 rounds to defend themselves and their families against two or three criminals? 15-20 is the minimum for home defense imo unless you have a shotgun that fires multiple pellets at once. If only the one 9mm bullet did not hit Platt's arm it would have had enough energy to hit his heart. How many bullets were fired all by people with training and how many times did they miss or not hit vitals?

I will never live in NY. I never liked being around that many people with no damn space or room to do anything anyway. Talk about lack of freedom. Guess there were no looters at all after hurricane Sandy huh? How about getting rid of the gangs instead? How many children's lives are f***ed up by gangs? How many children and people die due to them? How about the war on drugs?

As much as I hate lobbyists I am almost tempted to join the NRA due to all this B.S. and stupid people. There are so many stupid posts by people I am not even going to bother. Someone that has enough time to sit here all day and post over and over again maybe needs to get life and get out some more. No government would ever nuke its own people or land that has value...talk about stupid.

Obama doesn't give a damn about the Constitution, if he agrees with parts of it, then he quotes it. If he doesn't, then he uses executive privilege and ignores it. When he put his hand on the bible and SWORE to uphold the constitution....he lied, he lied, he lied to GOD and every one of us.

Heck if Jesus had a gun to protect himself with we may have avoided a whole religion.

I seriously doubt that:

John 10:7-10, 17-18
New International Version (NIV)
7 Therefore Jesus said again, "Very truly I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep. 8 All who have come before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep have not listened to them. 9 I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved.[a] They will come in and go out, and find pasture. 10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.

17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

Matthew 20:25-28
New International Version (NIV)
25 Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

The whole reason Jesus came to earth was to die so that by his death humans could be saved. As he was dying, God took all those things that eat at us, that bother our consciences; he put them on Jesus; and Jesus paid the penalty for them so that all guilt can be wiped out forever. Christians are no different from anyone else-they are certainly not better. They've just admitted that they can't make things right with their consciences (or God) all by themselves and that they are not what they would like to be.

For those who don't like my speaking of this, I'm sorry-you don't have to believe it or listen. Keep in mind that I didn't bring up the topic and that the comment I'm responding to got over 60 votes. Sorry for the brief derail.

To ConservativeNOTRepublican

For the record, liken to your comparison between education and intelligence; a degree of higher learning from whatever university or college, along with your marriage to a doctor, makes your political ideology no more righteous, no more holy, and no more "correct" than that of a common hobo, bumming a ride on a freight train.

...and conversely, it is you extremest conservatives who believe the world is your (not my, or anyone else's) oyster. You think that your wealth is more important than anyone, or anything else, and that the world is only good when you get more, and others get less.

Thusly, it is you who believe in the "Divine Right of King's." That, leadership comes from breeding and wealth, and that the more you have, the better it is for everyone else. Therefore, you are convinced that only you and your kind should govern or make decisions about government, such as; who should have access to it, who should be a part of it, and who should not.

Your greed and gluttony are what made the economy what it is today. Not spending by the federal government, not people receiving food stamps or welfare because their jobs were shipped overseas as a means of "lowering overhead." Not, people who make less that whatever is considered "middle class" these days.

I've listened to @$$holes like you extol the virtues of patriotism, sacrifice, and the military. And then, we look closely and we see that most of you never volunteered for any kind of service, military or otherwise. We see that all you ever did was avail yourself to every tax consideration, government extended "perk" out there, while providing no service in return to either your country or your community. We see that all you ever did, and all you ever continue to do is take, and take, and take, and then you complain that those who have so little are getting way too much.

As such, this sort of gluttonous-greed, and true arrogance are why I hate modern day, post-Eisenhower/ "Ray-Gun" "CANTservatism, with every fibre of MY being! That's also why I see j.e.r.k.0.f.f's like you as being the lowest form of diseased, and contaminated excrement that infects our society.

Now, albeit I am not a "liberal." I am a centrist who believes that extremism of all sorts, CANTservative or liberal, is what got us to the point we're at now. It's time for common sense, and compromise in government. That is to say, the best ideas of both political ideologies, liberal & conservative, need to be incorporated as one. It's worked before, and it will work again.

As far as my own education goes, after I got out the military, I attended and graduated from a state university (paid for by the GI bIll that I earned with my service), and I got married to a registered nurse. She is a centrist also, and believes as I do that everyone in this country has a right to, and should participate in the process of Democracy. Funny how all that education (and earned wealth) didn't make us greedy, gluttonous @$$holes, as it has clearly made you.

Liberals scream "common sense gun control" and "the majority of people want it.".

This is an invalid arguement.

The American people want "common sense govt spending" and "the majority of the people want debt reduction."

Why are liberals not up so passionate and upset that Obama and Reid are avoiding cutting spending or a balanced approach to the debt like the flu? (get it...bad flu season. )

If you use that arguement, I just threw it right back at ya.

We can save at least one childs life by reducing the Interstate speed limits to 20 MPH.

But, should we?

He argues safety for our kids and yet so many other things take more childrens lives every year. Then why does it recieve so much press? Why does it require children to be stood up behind him in order to shamelessly garner an emotional response?

Because, this is about the 2nd Amendment. Very soon it'll be about the 1st Amendment with statements like "Better managment of violence in the popular culture."

His wording is vague and his defacto mandate is hollow and politically driven.

If you really want to save more children Mr. President...lean on curbing the biggest, preventable losses of child lives...Car accidents, Drinking and Driving, Abduction, etc.

Job1, you seem to think that the ONLY extremists are in the republican party, YOU ARE BLIND if you think there aren't any in the democrat party also!

Ok let's see, NBC head justice correspondent Pete Williams just finished coming out on air (NBC mind you) and divulged the truth of the matter in the sandyhook shooting. The shooter DID NOT use any type of assault like weapon, but rather he used 4 hand guns. The assault styled weapon was actually removed from the trunk of his car, and was not even in the school. So all of this hype about assault style weapons is just a bunch of hysterical gun control hoowee. This is nothing more than a run amok government wanting to once again chip away at our rights. All it takes is little by little to get the job done.

Now for all of you jackasses who like to think that you understand the meaning of the wording of the 2nd amendment, well you don't know anything really. Had you actually spent any time studying the factual history of the effort to compose the constitution, you would know that the term "well regulated militia" has absolutely NOTHING with government regulation, but rather with a "well trained militia" Or well practiced and drilled. It happens to be the way they used the English language in their time. One of the meanings of the word in todays "American Heritage Dictionary", is to adjust for accurate and proper functioning. The sad part about this is that you knee jerk idiots suck right off of the government pipe and believe the crap they pour down your throats is good for you. If we were to form a well regulated militia in plain sight, the government would come after anybody involved as terrorists, even though it is our right to do so. Don't believe me? Just give it a test run and see what actually goes down. It would make the kings regulars look like saints.

This isn't something I know nothing of. My DIRECT ancestors fought right along George Washington and all of the other brave men who sacrificed and risked everything to provide you a chance at freedom. This something that I have been taught about since childhood, and I'll be go to hell if I will sit idly by and watch the liberal left propaganda machine take our rights without a fight.

All of you who are so willing to just jump on this bandwagon really need to take the time to study every aspect of the reasoning behind this right before you so willingly agree to give up my rights. After all, your rights end where they impose on mine.

And lastly, we all need to come to terms with the very real fact that Each and every one of us is going to die. After all, death is quite simply an unavoidable by-product of life. It isn't when or how you die that matters, but rather how you live. I myself prefer to live AND die free. For living under the oppressive subjugation of a despotic and tyrannical government is not living, but merely existing to serve the whims of those who lord over us. I am so truly sorry for those who have lost loved ones to senseless violence, but it is a societal issue and not a gun control issue. I would rather that my children, (of which I have 4) but I would rather my children die young and free, than old and enslaved.

As for the protection of my home, you are damned rights when you say that any gun is just for killing something, because if someone comes into my home with malice in their hearts and evil in their eye, I will unload the clip right in their face, and not even batt an eyelash. As for target practice? Yeah, OK. That is nothing more than to insure that I am deadly accurate and kill what I am aiming at.

I gaurantee every single one of you though, I would NEVER EVER purchase any weapon to commit robbery, rape, murder, or mayhem. And I believe anybody who does should get life in prison, or death. After all, we have no room for anyone in this society who would.

But,,,,Stay off of my rights.

JOB1, I am very highly educated, I'm white, I am fairly affluent. I own assault weapons. I have had to utilize firearms four times to deter violence. Not ONCE was it an assault rifle. I can assure you that it is VERY difficult to keep one in a holster. I've never broken a law, let alone a gun law. The criminal on the street can not claim the same. Nor will he care about your bans and limits. JOB, when you make sweeping generalizations and blanket accusations you look like one of the zealots you're lobbying against.

As for those of you seeing posts about gun owners fearing confiscation and calling it paranoia, think again. No, it isn't going to happen tomorrow, but those proposed by the President are a step toward making it possible. New Yorks new laws have redefined an "assault rifle" as any firearms sharing ONE CHARACTERISTIC with military style weapons. Do you have any idea the door that was just opened for the anti-gun lobby? Guess what. EVERY gun can be said to share ONE CHARACTERISTIC with military arms. When you have the urge to eat an entire 36 ounce prime rib you do not try and swallow it all down at once...you take it one...bite...at...a...time.

Though it's been addressed above I will reiterate: a militia and a standing military are two very different things. A militia is made of civilians. It is my OPINION that the framers of the Constitution were making reference to the most modern arms of the time, and I believe that if they were to support a militia it would, even by todays standards, be equipped in the same way. I can only speak for myself, but were the need ever to arise I would take up my arms to protect my country.

Seymour,

You shouldn't believe everything you see on youtube.

For what it's worth, most posting here on the left need to grow up and more importantly wake up; unless of course, you're paid professional disinformation specialists and in that case you just need to kiss my a$$.

I'm recalling that the criminalization of hemp had a similar history; whereas, our government rapidly manipulated th emedia to promote a negative campaign that demonized hemp as the murderous marijuana to the ignorant masses and then created a law that required everyone to get a tax stamp to posses hemp and then never issued the stamp.

Think about it, if Obama wanted to outlaw guns all he would need to do is put a simple requirement on owning one, such as passing a psychological examination, which could be design as such that it would eventually becomes impossible to pass. For example, did you ever bully someone, did you ever say negative things on an Internet thread, have you ever argued with a family member or have you ever voted Republican.

We need fewer politically partison lemmings and more American patriots right now that won't readily give up! Question the haste and the validity of whats actually recently transpired at Sandy Hook and Aurora. there hasn't been any solid information released to the public.

Doesn't it bother you that laws, which can't possibly make a difference, are being hastily shoved down our throats. It scares the crap out of me!

that was eventually found to be unconstitutional. If you believe for an instance that Obama is doing something for you, you need to be prepared to be disappointed. Very few in power do things for nothing or no reason.

I for one am sceptical about what happened at Sandy Hook, with a parent smiling and laughing and just before a the news conference officially began he works himself up to look and sound grief striken, not to mention the fact that he posted on face book the day before the shooting a relief fund for his family. As for Aurora, well, that story is just too wierd to be true.

Zman, I think you misread the intent of ConservativeNOTRepublican. His post shows that he AGREES that just because a person is educated it does NOT make them better than anyone else.

Ahhhhhh the racist left.

If you don't like socialism,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,you are racist.

If you are a person of color and you do not agree with them,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,you re racist.

If you are a person of color and you are successful,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,race traitor.

God forbid you do well for yourself,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,racists.

If you support person freedom and liberty,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,you are white. Really?

I bet people of color like freedom and liberty,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,they migrate here in droves.

That must make them racist to the typical socialist.

haggisbingo-2225582

Do you really want the gun nutz (represented by the NRA) dictating the safety of your children. The NRA simply wants to put out as many guns of as much variety and killing power as possible. They will only pay lip service to safety. Do you want them making your laws?

Now I don't presume to know where you stand on this subject, just food for thought, but isn't this EXACTLY what happened with the "Affordable Care Act"? Here we are all forced to have private insurance and the insurance companies just have to accept us as customers (WOW, how many businesses get law required business from the WHOLE nation?) and they promised to regulate themselves? Now didn't they do this in the 80's? Make us that frivolous promise? And haven't insurance premiums continued to rise? So these things just seem to work conveniently for which ever party is in office. Do not accuse me of party preferences, I don't have any, they are all self-concerned servants of the money who feign to care for their constituents when all they want to do is smile and wave and walk off with a huge pay day.

I always thought these four were laws in our nation for last 25 years!

• requiring criminal background checks on all gun sales, including private sales
• banning "military-style" assault weapons
• limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds
• strengthening penalties for gun trafficking

I know they are already in my state..nothing new to me.

Other states better wake up!

@ Ed, but we should all blindly believe everything on TV or the internet; or worse yet, what our government tells us?

trutexan,

Hard to take you seriously with an image of Hitler and swastika representing you.

There are hundreds of inconsistancies in the bible. Probably because the passages were written down long after the events. It was common the attribute a newly written passage to a long dead author, to bake it more credible. The first few books were told aurally for generations until the invention of writing. Ever play telephone? Whisper a sentence to a friend and continue this through 20 people, see how close the result is. This is why the Bible cannot be taken literally. It is the overall message worth learning.

If liberals are truly trying to make things better for all Americans, then why are they always pushing for restrictions on law abiding citizens?

Criminals don't obey laws, law abiding citizens do!

Any further gun control laws will only benefit criminals.

DON'T MISS THE TRUTH!

OBLOCKHEAD America's Favorite Negro

You are as pathetic as Mexico during World War 2.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!

OUCH!!!! That’s gotta hurt. The Mexican evasion was pretty pathetic.

Tell me....do you find yourself constantly apologizing to the brownies??? Do you loathe being white?

You, my good friend, have hit the nail on the head.

White Liberals have a long and deep hatred of themselves. However, they try to overcompensate for this by trying so hard to be black, brown, gay, a woman (if a man) or any other person hurt throughout history. They pretend they all can “feel” the disenfranchised ones “pain”.

This is all based on second hand experience they read from a book or what their dysfunctional parents, peers or teachers told them about all the suffering the other races endured. This is the “bleeding-heart” affliction they all suffer from. They are the main proponents for reparations but of course NOT with their money, they want “taxpayers” to pay for it or the “other” white people besides themselves.

This is the delusion and disease known as Liberalism/Progressivism.

Perhaps you did not hear Cuomo's prior rhetoric about "confiscating" guns ? It sounds like that was HIS intent.

"The sky is falling, the sky is falling"!

Typical right wing, 2nd Amendment paranoia. No one has said they're going to take all guns away, just restrict people from buying assault rifles with 100 round magazines; that type of stuff. Why would you need an AR-15 with a banana magazine? Afraid 100 crooks are going to break into your house? Cite even one example in this country of 100 people breaking into one house! So give me one logical reason, without hiding behind the 2nd Amendment, to have an assault rifle. No one is taking away your pistols, or hunting rifles, or shotguns...it's all classic, neurotic NRA propaganda designed to scare the $#!+ out of you for no reason. And you're falling for it!

CitizenFrank,

Absurdity is not necessary Frank, there's plenty of that floating around today. I am naturally sceptical, so I check multiple sources for information and not just US sources either. Sources must also be weighed for bias, and who stands to benefit.

Scott M:

As the saying goes "better to have a gun and not need it then to need one and not have it" - if you are so brave I guess you were not armed when you were in Somalia? Sure you were and you would be an idiot not to be...so I wouldn't make comments that have no relevance - our soldiers are brave and very well armed - so I don't think that you are that brave - just ignorant.

Only a power hungry driven person like Obama will use children as props to get what he wants.

Our rights should not be at the whim of a dictator who misuses executive orders.

Many people have been murdered in "gun free zones".

Now why is that? Could it be that the killers just knew they would not have to face any guns in a "gun free zone" to stop them.

There is no such thing as a "gun free zone"!

The moment a killer using a gun enters the "gun free zone" then it no longer is gun free, then the innocent die!

How about banning crazy people and killers for a change?

DON'T MISS THE TRUTH!

@ annon, I think Job1 and haggisbingo are on the Obama dole!

YOU CAN"T SWAY THEM WITH LOGIC OR REASON; THEY'RE JUST PART OF THE LIBERALS AGENDA DISTRATION LANDSCAPE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mickey...Cuomo's requiring mental health providers to report any persons they feel pose a danger to society will do more harm than good. According to Psychiatrists and educators that will only prevent mentally ill persons from either going for psychiatric help or from being honest about their feelings and impulses.

Background checks are definitely needed...BUT I can't see any criminal subjecting himself to a background check..ever. They'll still get their guns from other criminals, on the street corner, steal them, buy them underground. The only ones who will cooperate with a background check are the ones who pose no threat and are responsible gun owners. And how are they going to enforce mandatory background checks when guns are purchased from private owners, and not a legit gun dealer retail store or purchased at a gun show.

Seems Obama spent more time bytchin' about Congress and laying everything bad on them than he said much of anything constructive. Nice touch with the chitlins all around...props?

I don't own a gun and so far, have no desire to own a gun, but I certainly wouldn't want it advertised that I am a sitting duck for a home invasion.

Sure, he's not going to take everyone's guns...yet. Just step by step. That's how dictators weasle away people's rights and freedom.

Defiitely something MUST be done about all of the violence, but it should start at the ROOT of the problem and that is our culture, entertainment...not the piece of metal, but the hands that are holding it. I've never heard of a gun walking itself into a movie theater or a school or anywhere else. Or feeling anger or frustration, paranoia, greed, etc.

What are the xeceptions? That is usually a fairness test. Are there existing models we can look to for evidence of performance, such as President Obama using the Massachussetts Health Care Law as a model? California "enjoys" a ban on assault-style rifles and over 10-round capacity magazines. Have there been any independent (i.e. those with neither a pro nor con ax to grind) studies which show the effects of these burdens on citizen's choice? (They seem arbitrary to me, but if there is a proven benefit in excess of the burden to citizens, law enforcement, and record keepers I could support them if they applied to all civilians.) The rush to "do something" will often result in false hopes and disappointment, as evidenced by Justice Department's Waco Branch Davidian Massacre. This is too important to rush to judgement.

THIS IS A VERY SAD DAY FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. I have ancestors who were here during the War of Independence, they would be sad to know that their descendents still have to fight for the same rights they had to protect hundreds of years ago, as they had this same "discussion" with anti-gun people, who wanted people to be disarmed. Had they won then, there wouldn't be a U.S.A., we would still be a British colony.

The main effect of background checks will be to unjustly prevent law abiding citizens from getting guns (most people have done something stupid at some point in their life), and it will prevent people from seeking treatment for their mental or psychological issues (as it would show on their background check). It will not prevent any future mass murders, as most of them were perpetrated by people who had never committed a crime before.

Laws on the type of gun you can own, and on how many bullets you can have in your magazine, will only affect law abiding citizens. CRIMINALS WILL STILL ACQUIRE ANY WEAPON THEY WANT, AND WILL STILL HAVE AS MANY BULLETS AS THEY WANT IN THEIR GUNS.

I guess I misunderstood what democracy and freedom meant, I didn't think it was about a majority taking away the rights of a minority (assuming the majority of people are anti-gun). Or do you feel the Egyptian President, Morsi, is democratic? because that's exactly what is happening there, the majority taking the rights of the minority away.

Just sayin' Ed! You pointed out that one shouldn't believe everything they hear from any given source.

Peace

@Aggie, the whole NY law will hit the courts with a flurry the first time they: 1. Infringe upon anyone who falls under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 2. Infringe upon Doctor patient confidentiality, 3. Infringe upon the 2nd Amendment in any way, 4. Infringe upon the 5th Amendment by invoking self incrimination by having to answer a Doctor's questions pertaining to their gun ownership to receive health benefits.

Talk about the world gone crazy, as that will be the day we'll see both the ACLU and the NRA sitting on the same side of the court room!

Please see comment 1.217 for the basis of this petition: If you feel as I do, please sign this petition, and feel free to copy and pass this along! It is located at: petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/patriots-supporting-constitution-gives-us-rights-and-powers-protect-and-rule-ourselves-against/gnGXPZkN

we petition the obama administration to:

Patriots supporting the Constitution that gives us rights and powers to protect and rule ourselves against tyranny!

I count myself amongst a group of "patriots" than amongst the group of enemies of our Constitution trying to make us unable to oppose or defend against Tyranny, as our Country has done before!Here is a quote from monticello.org, supposedly from Thomas Jefferson a founding father: "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

You might also want to look up the seven stages of democracy, attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler written over 200 years ago, and decide for yourself,what stage we are in! We demand that you abide by our Constitution and our 2nd Amendment rights!

Created: Jan 16, 2013
Issues: Firearms

Theresa, gun freedom is personal freedom. If you look at it hard enough, all of your freedoms stem from your freedom to possess a firearm. The second amendment right gives you the ability to enforce all other rights.

For the record, I have been a gun owner for 30 + years and I have never tried to tell a woman she couldn't have an abortion and neither would the people I hang with.

Anna,

Overly dramatic Anna, my family goes back to 1610, so what. The militia part is often left out of the discussion. The founder's overlying concern was that the British would come back and try again, so the citizen militia should have weapons ready to repel them. They were not worried about themselves trying to take over, they already had.

The reason the British were in conflict with America in 1812 was that America opportunisticly attacked while the British were at war with France, and that didn't turn out too well. Canada gained independance from Britian 91 years after America, without a revolution.

All that being said, I don't think a ban on big mags or assault style weapons will do much. Removing the profit potential from illegal gang activity would do a lot more.

Scott M-

Military veteran who just isn't such a coward that I feel the need to own a gun.

Any of your Military buddies get hurt? In a wheelchair, lose a limb? I certainly hope not. But for those that have, and for those that are aging, what would you say to them about owning a firearm for self defense? Would you call them cowards? Honestly, I can't believe you would even call a civilian a coward for exercising a Right. Maybe you just don't love this country.

They did not have guns in Jesus day, so some of the disciples carried swords, wasn't it Peter that took the ear off of a Roman in the garden when they came to arrest Jesus, just pointing out that people in those times were allowed to protect themselves with equal force of the time. why doesn't the media report on the 100,000 people saved by guns in the US every year. out of the 8,600 killed by firearms only 300 + are killed by any type of rifle so its less then 325 deaths contributed by all types of rifles, it makes no sense to go after the honest citizen, more people died being hit on the head with a hammer, yet I can buy one of those they even sell them in supermarkets and children can purchase them without a background check. so why does Obama and his bunch want us to be defenceless. open your minds and do the math as horrible as things are with these killings in the big picture we are better off with these firearms then without. and for him to play on simpathies and use children who know no better to push his agenda is the fowlest manouver to date, this is all theatrics to cushion the blow and swing opinion he is not leading he is manipulating and people are falling for it. I want the same ability to defend my home as the invader will have to take my life.

http://skyparrot.newsvine.com/">skyparrot

Mr. 20 Dead children part of that 1%? Not enough shredded kids that you find worthy of a larger 5 point.

While Sandy Hook was a tragedy, which by the way, could have been avoided at least in part, had a few teachers been armed (of course you anti-gun always ignore that and/or refuse to admit that they probably would have been to stop the killer, especially the 2 unarmed women who tried to disarm him), what do you make of all the children (and adults) who's lives have been saved because their parents or someone else around them owned a gun? What do you make of the mother who was hiding in a closet with her twins and shot an intruder? What do you make of Kendra St.Clair who shot intruders? What do you make of the mother (who was carrying a gun) who stopped a man from kidnapping her child? What do you make of Leda Smith who held an intruder at gun point? What do you make of Judy who protected herself, her sister, and her sister-in-law, with her gun? Their lives don't matter to you? Of course not, because you are not even aware of the thousands of cases of self-defense every year, because the news medias don't (or rarely) talk about them.

http://maxx-the-moocher.newsvine.com/">Maxx the Moocher

First it will be a ban on assault weapons, then hand guns and on and on and on...

With the background checks, we are already there, I believe that many honest citizens will be unjustly prevented from getting guns, for different reasons.

http://seven2seven.newsvine.com/">Seven2Seven

This is selfish but I don't care. I have all my guns and ammo I will ever need. Do what you want, just don't try to get mine or it would be bad.

You should care.

http://mickeyny.newsvine.com/">Mickey, NY

If you can't hit and kill what you need to with 7 bullets, maybe you shouldn't own a gun in the first place?

First of all when you are in a situation where you have to fight for your life it is very different then target shooting, it is very stressing and you can indeed fire 7 bullets and still be unable to stop the assailant, even if you do hit him a few times. Recently a woman (hiding in a closet with her 9 year old twins) shot an intruder 5 times in the face (with a .38 if I remember correctly, and she missed once, she had 6 bullets total) and he was still able to get out of the house and drive a car for a short time. What would have happened to her if there had been more then one intruder? Personally I was amazed by the fact that despite the stressing situation she was able to shoot him 5 times in the face.

http://anna-molly-1.newsvine.com/">Anna Molly

At least we liberals don't have to keep trying to explain how all these deaths square with our personal paranoia, our interpretation of the Second Amendment, or our philosophy of living.

Yes you do have to explain how all these deaths don't square with your personal paranoia. Adam Lanza wouldn't have been able to kill so many people had the school not been a gun-free zone, had a few teachers been armed. It is your paranoia that killed them, it is your fear of guns and gun owners that caused the tragedy. Had they done a background check on Adam Lanza's mother she most probably would have passed, and had she owned only handguns her sick son would still have been able to commit murders.

And you will be responsible for the death of all law abiding gun owners, including their children, who will be murdered in the future because their law abiding dad either did some stupid things when he was a young man (like stealing, or fight in a bar, etc), or had a condition like diabetes (they are more prone to hallucinations, therefore could be dangerous with a gun right?), or had a nervous breakdown in the past, etc etc, (or because one of his kids had one of those conditions) and wasn't allowed to own a gun because of this, or because they were attacked by 2 or 3 guys and he didn't have enough bullets in his gun to stop them.

http://derekandshay.newsvine.com/">Derek-381097

@Getsmadstaymad: Dude, the government will gladly bring lots of body bags for your body parts.

When you get over yourself, you'll realize what WILL save you is if you move to Iran, Syria or Saudi Arabia. You'll find more people who think like you there. Send us a postcard with your guns when you get there!

Your statement incredibly ironic, as you mention countries where people live under either a dictatorship or a monarchy (which is similar to a dictatorship in many ways), or even worse countries where they are actually fighting against a dictatorship, either violently or peacefully (Syria, Iran), or where the gun laws are either similar to ours (Saudi Arabia), or more severe then ours (Iran and Syria). For example, in Syria "Only licenced gun owners (for certain arms) may lawfully acquire, possess, or transfer a firearm or ammunition", "Authorities maintain a record of individual civilians licensed to acquire, possess, sell or transfer a firearm or ammunition", and "An applicant for a firearm licence in Syria must pass background checks which consider criminal, mental and domestic violence records".

http://ed2874315.newsvine.com/">ED-2874315

Anna,

Overly dramatic Anna, my family goes back to 1610, so what. The militia part is often left out of the discussion. The founder's overlying concern was that the British would come back and try again, so the citizen militia should have weapons ready to repel them. They were not worried about themselves trying to take over, they already had.

I guess your ancestors would be proud of your willingness to ignore what they fought so hard for, and the 2nd Amendment then Ed? Or were they on the anti-gun side? And no Ed, its not so much the militia part that is left out, many have mentioned this, it is the fact that the Founding Fathers wanted people to have the right to bear arms also for private self-defense (there is plenty of quotes that make this point very clear). No they weren't worried about themselves trying to take over, they were worried about future governments becoming tyranic, as the British government had been, and about potential invaders, they wanted people to be able to protect themselves and their country. And people had to do just that when Alaska was invaded during WW2.

Mr Obama if you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen. You parade other peoples kids to make your point that's okay, NRA just used yours to make their's. This time next year, we will be talking about the same thing even the democrats up for re-election in 2014 are not willing to stick their necks out for gun control. The NRA will be right there to campaign for the GOP we could see another 2010 in the Senate.

Politicians manipulate voters every day with half-truths -- or outright lies -- about taxes, spending and many other issues that directly affect the nation's prosperity.

Too many voters embrace feel-good propaganda that they want to hear instead of learning the basic facts about issues they care about. They should do a better job of calling out dishonest politicians -- and shunning media outlets that stoke political food fights.

http://money.msn.com/investing/11-things-wrong-with-congress

newdayDAWNING...RETURNED - Who is Obammy?

Dubya the Turd (Third, III).

SeekingSanity - newday and skyparrot - when someone uses ignorant words for the President - "Obammy, Obozo," etc. - it says so much more about what a total lowlife they are than it does anything about the President. They're really not worth the effort!

Typical Jackarse (the Symbol of the Demoncrap Party), when you jack up someone's arse high enough their arse replaces the location of their head.

When the President was Bush, what did the Demoncraps use as "ignorant words for the President" (and still do). The Demoncraps claimed "Transparency", "Right to Know", "Constitutional Rights", "Freedom of Speech", etc. when President Bush (43) was President; when President Obama became President for similar things the Demoncraps claim "Secret", "Classified", "No Need To Know", etc..

Spirit - 1984

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtzS93HDQeE

Spirit - 1984 Lyrics:

1984

Knockin' on your door
Will you let it come?
Will you let it run your life?

1984

Knockin' on your door

Will you let it come?

Will you let it run your life?

Someone will be waiting for you at your door

When you get home tonight

Ah yes, he's gonna tell you darkness gives you much more

Than you get from the light

Classic plastic guards well they're your special friend

He sees you every night

Well he call himself the (Big) Brother but you know it's no game

You're never out of his sight

1984

Knockin' on your door

Will you let it come?

Will you let it run your life?

It's time you started thinking inside your head

That you should stand up and fight

Oh just where will you be when your freedom is dead

Won't you listen tonight?

Those classic plastic coppers, they are your special friends

They see you every night

Well they call themselves protection but they know it's no game

You're never out of their sight

1984

Knockin' on your door

Will you let it come?

Will you let it run?

1984

Knockin' on your door

Will you let it come?

Will you let it run?

Spirit 1984 - "Well they call themselves protection but they know it's no game"

Giving up Constitutional Rights for "protection". Constant Surveillance (No Privacy Rights).

Facts:

President Obama's Removal and Or Eliminations of US Citizens Constitutional Rights (including Bill of Rights and Amendments) and the Due Process of Law:

President Obama's January 21, 2009 Patriot Acts (Plural US Laws). Expanded Presidential Powers. US Military Use of Deadly Force Against US Citizens. Preemptive Detentions of US Citizens. Monitoring and Censorship of All US Communications. Without Warrant Mandatory Cooperation of US Communications Providers. US Military Tribunals renamed by the Obama Administration as US Military Commissions (Legal Defense no access to "classified" witnesses nor "classified" evidence used by Prosecution). (No) Support to Terrorist Organizations (No Legal Representation as "Expert Advise" per 2010 US Supreme Court Ruling, currently being fought by ACLU). Inclusion of the previously defeated as Unconstitutional US Senate S.1959 and US House of Representatives H.R.1955 aka the George Orwell 1984 Thought Crimes Laws, in that the written or witnessed verbal thought is the Felony Crime, not the Act, example: the definition from S.1959 and H.R.1955, "Anyone stating a radical change to (US) Government is a Homegrown Domestic Terrorist".

During a staged news media event, January 22, 2009 President Obama signs into US Laws his Patriot Acts, 04:38 minutes of 11:55 minutes:

Naomi Wolf: 'Obama can lock any US citizen up without trial'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLSeD19m3UE&feature=fvst

President Obama's 2012 NDAA, US Military Indefinite Detentions of US Citizens:

Obama Signs NDAA, ACLU Disgusted

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IeuE16LLDY

Feds' electronic snooping of Americans up sharply, says ACLU

http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/technolog/feds-electronic-snooping-americans-sharply-says-aclu-6170914

President Obama to circumvent US Congress,"The Will of the People", keep clicking "Next", see anything Unconstitutional, TOUGH that is what you Voted you wanted:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions

The same Demoncraptic Party that demands the killing of anyone that disagrees with them:

Union Leader Jimmy Hoffa Junior during President Obama Campaign Rally, "President Obama, this is your Army. We are ready to march. Let's take these son of b!tches out and give America back to an America where we belong."

If this sounds like the Chancellor Hitler's Brown Shirts and National Socialist German Workers Party (a Political Labor Union) or Mussolini's Blackshirts, it is, as that is what the current US Labor Unions were modelled after.

Pertaining to "Well Regulated Militias" and "Individuals":

US Supreme Court Ruling Unconstitutional the D.C. Anti Gun Laws.

McCullough: We are raising children in America today who are by and large historically illiterate.

The Historical Perspecitive Regarding the 2nd Amendment (considered by the US Supreme Court):

The Founding Fathers KNEW the "Well Regulated Militias" and the "Individuals" (Firearms Ownership) as two distinct separate entities:

The Historical perspective being the Individuals as the "Minutemen" were individuals as farmers, shopkeeps, merchants, fur traders, hunters, etc. that fought the British Regulars after the British Generals Cornwallis and Clinton confiscated all of the Colonists Militia Armories (Firearms) before the start of the American Revolution and the Unarmed "Well Organized Militias" fleeing with the Founding Fathers.

The Individuals as "Minutemen" holding off the British Military until the Founding Fathers would stop bickering (how Army would be funded) and finally create the First Continental Army (Uniforms, Napoleonic Conventional Warfare).

So yes, the Founding Fathers knew the two separate entities of the Individuals as "Minutemen" (First Successful use of US Military Asymmetric Warfare, No Uniforms, Insurgency) and the "Well Organized Militias" (Predecessors to State's National Guard, Conventional Warfare, Uniforms).

President Obama has his Appointed US Ambassador Susan Rice to the United Nations, push for a United Nation's Gun Control Treaty.

Democrats Oppose Obama-U.N. Gun Control Treaty

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/07/26/democrats-oppose-obama-un-gun-control-treaty

The NRA trains the US Law Enforcement on Firearms Safety, Marksmanship, etc.:

NRA Training Only for US Law Enforcement:

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

The NRA "Eddy Eagle" thing also for more of the Schools even if the Schools are opposed (means for children to learn to report unsafe or unsecure Firearms).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSpIAXIrLG4

From the article:

"I will put everything I've got into this and so will Joe [Biden], but I tell you, the only way we can change is if the American people demand it," he said.

His (President Obama's) and Joe (Biden's) "everything" that they have belong to the Citizens of the US.

Byron Raum - What is crazy is thinking that your little guns have any chance against the Commander-in-Chief who commands the mightiest military force that this planet has ever known.

Typical comment of someone that has never Served in the US Military.

Asymmetric Warfare Examples:

American Revolution: The Individual Firearms Owners of the US as the "Minutemen" (No Uniforms, Shopkeeps, Merchants, Fur Traders, Hunters, Farmers, etc.) that fought against the British Regulars, after the Colonist's Militia's (Uniforms) Armories were seized by British Generals Cornwallis and Henry Clinton. The Founding Fathers and the Disarmed COlonist's Militias fled to "The Hot Bed of The Revolution", Philedelphia; while the Individuals kept fighting the British Regulars, until the Founding Fathers could create the First Continential Army.

Operation Cyclone, the US Military Asymmetric Warfare Forces attached to the CIA's SAD/SOG vetted trained armed lead the 1980s Pro US Afghan Muhajeen to Defeat the USSR 40th Army Occupation of Afghanistan. Later the US abandons 20th Century US Ally 1980s Pro US Afghan Muhajeen to be massacred by the 1990s Fundamentalist Islamic Taliban fully backed by the USSR Backed Fundamentalist Islamic Shia Republic of Iran.

October 2001, US Military Asymmetric Warfare Forces attached to the CIA's SAD/SOG go into Afghanistan to Overthrow the Fundamentalist Islamic Taliban Government, eliminate Al Quada and the Islamic Jihadists that sponsored the 9/11 2001 Attacks, Afghanistan is a United Nations Mission (as to why Afghanistan Fails after the United Nations, NATO F**ked up and appointed Gentleman British General McColl, that allowed the Taliban, Al Quada, Islamic Jihadists to return to Afghanistan from NOrthern Iraq thru Iran, and from Pakistan).

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

Operation Viking Hammer and Operation Hotel California (US Army 10th Special Forces Group destroys Five Full Strength Iraqis Armor and Mechanized Infantry Divisions without Airsupport), to Accomplish as 2003 Operation Iraqis Freedom as President Clinton's US Law, H.R.4655 "Iraqis Liberation Act of 1998" Section 2 Justification WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, Section 3 US Policy Overthrow of President Hussein, with US Congressional Appropriations.

US Military Asymmetric Warfare Forces attached to CIA's SAD/SOG go into Libya before the start of the "Libyan Civil War"

Fictious Asymmetric Warfare Examples:

2000 movie The Patriot (American Revolution)

1984 movie Red Dawn

2012 movie Red Dawn (Remake)

Books and movies Tomorrow Series: Tomorrow, When the War Began; The Dead of the Night; The Third Day, the Frost; Darkness, Be My Friend ;Burning for Revenge ;The Night is for Hunting; The Other Side of Dawn ;The Ellie Chronicles: While I Live; The Ellie Chronicles: Incurable; The Ellie Chronicles: Circle of Flight

To all of you Anti Gun Nuts that Never Served In the US Military, pull out your "gun" (penis) and let me cut your gun off, no gun for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kU0XCVey_U

Unconstitutional Official Acts

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

Jon Roland:
Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a "law", and should not be called a "law", even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.

All citizens and legal residents of the United States, by their presence on the territory of the United States, are subject to the militia duty, the duty of the social compact that creates the society, which requires that each, alone and in concert with others, not only obey the Constitution and constitutional official acts, but help enforce them, if necessary, at the risk of one's life.

Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime, and the militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a violation to investigate it, gather evidence for a prosecution, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment from a grand jury, and if one is obtained, prosecute the offender in a court of law.

• This includes UNLAWFUL Executive Orders...

• SHERIFFS OF AMERICA!!! YOU ARE HERBY CALLED UPON TO DO YOUR DUTY AND UPHOLD THE OATH FOR THE OFFICE ENTRUSTED TO YOU!!!

• Oregon sheriff to Joe Biden: I won't enforce new federal gun laws

Anna,

If our fore fathers, the founders,could look back at their decision with the hindsight of today, they would have phrased the second ammendment more concisely. Those that died in combat in the revolutionary war numbered 8000. It takes 9 months to kill that many now. More than a million murdered since 1949.

What's done is done. The wording will not change. If a future Supreme Court decides on another intrepretation of the ammendment or not is not for me to speculate, but that would be only way to change it, as there would never be enough States to ratify a congressional change.

Can we all agree that the murder rate is to high?

Can we agree that it is motive that leads to murder?

Can we therefore agree that there are sectors where motivation for murder can be identified and reduced?

I have identified gang violence in my posts because it is the easiest large source of murder to deal with. Take their profit away by legalizing drugs and thousands of lives could be save every year. Whether you would be one who would take the drugs or not (I would not) is irrelavant. The cost of prohibition is too high, both in bodies and the Billions that go to an enforcement industry that is motivated to prolong the drug war forever, not end it.

Reading these posts is just disgusting and depressing. You crazy gun advocates are collectively the best evidence of why gun control for the mentally unbalanced is long overdue. There are more amendments than just the 2nd amendment, you know? Talk about going to war against the Government is insane. I sincerely hope that someone is monitoring these posts because you people and your conspiracy theories are dangerous. How can you live with such a paranoid and angry outlook on the world? No one is going to take your guns as long as you have and will purchase them legally and manage somehow to pass a background check. If you can't manage this then you can't hide behind the Constitution. You have more serious problems.

I'm disgusted by the comments on here as well, especially the ones that bash people for using emotions as opposed to logic. What you people say makes sense, but at the same time you make it sound like having emotions is a disease. If you think it's so bad, why don't you work towards outlawing HUMAN EMOTIONS so we can all become a society of robots who only think and not feel? After all, a world of logic is just what you want, right?

Didn't the US just triple it's arms sales in 2011?

AmayaB:

Because that would be "Highly Illogical". {says with pointed ears.}

http://kimh49.newsvine.com/">kimH-1330542

Reading these posts is just disgusting and depressing. You crazy gun advocates are collectively the best evidence of why gun control for the mentally unbalanced is long overdue. There are more amendments than just the 2nd amendment, you know? Talk about going to war against the Government is insane. I sincerely hope that someone is monitoring these posts because you people and your conspiracy theories are dangerous. How can you live with such a paranoid and angry outlook on the world? No one is going to take your guns as long as you have and will purchase them legally and manage somehow to pass a background check. If you can't manage this then you can't hide behind the Constitution. You have more serious problems.

I agree that reading these posts is disgusting and depressing. Reading comments like yours for example, who straight away jump to the conclusion that gun advocates are "crazy". Our ancestors fought for these rights that are being taken away one by one. Your government allows you to protect yourself and your family, contrary to most governments in the world, especially dictatorships, where they prefer if citizens are unarmed, but you don't appreciate that and/or you don't care. You believe in myths, you believe that suddenly criminals will start following the laws and rules, you believe that because a building is a gun-free zone, it will keep criminals away and/or that they will stop using guns in those buildings, you believe that wishful thinking will protect you (after all bad things only happen to others right? no one will ever break into your house, or attack you in the streets right? the chances are so slim that it's not worth making sure that you are protected right?), you believe that when you call the police they will be there within 10 seconds and will save you. I can tell you, unless you live right next to the Police station, it takes them a while to get there, I should know, I was a victim of violence myself, and after calling them had to wait with my phone in the bathroom for about 10 minutes, while the sicko was trying to get in (thank God I had a sturdy bathroom door).

Also what will happen with background checks is that criminals will still get guns (you don't believe criminals will go through background checks do you?), any gun they want, they will still have as many bullets as they want, they will still assault people, mass murderers will still mass murder because most of them never committed a crime before, it is only law abiding citizens who for different reasons won't be allowed to own guns, and will be left defenseless. Many won't seek treatment for their psychological or mental issues as it would show on a background check, while what we need is the exact opposite, a better mental health system (what's the use if people don't get treated tho?). And the people you are referring to don't want to go war with the government, they just want to keep the right to do so if it was ever necessary (which I hope will never happen), this by itself is an amazing right that our ancestors thought we should have, while other governments cannot wait to disarm citizens.

What we need are realistic solutions. Better healthcare system to help people who have mental or psychological issues, more severe laws for violent criminals (do you think a guy like William Spengler should have been released from prison?), better judges (recently a judge refused to take a little girl out of her parent's home, a few days later she was killed by her father), better security in schools, etc etc.

Jeremy-960164

The problem is the left does not want common sense laws. ( here is a hint we already have common sense laws )

And we are the deadliest place in the industrialized world. Definitely common sense!

There is not a single law you can make, that would prevent another Sandy Hook. This is 100 percent FACT, but the left does not want to talk facts they live on emotions. You cant stop evil and or Crazy... After all each of these mass shooting broke countless laws to commit the shooting.

Actually, I would prefer a law that would restrict the ability of someone to own a gun if someone who is mentally deranged has access to it or lives in the home. At the very least, they ought to be mandated to lock it away in a secured area.

Everyone wants to ban assault rifles.. FACT less then 400 people were killed by assault rifles in 2011. ( latest numbers released by the FBI )

Because that is the lowest hanging fruit to pick. I know it's short-sighted (I prefer more regulation on handguns and rifles), but if that's all we can pass, at least it's a micro-step forward.

You want to talk about protecting the children being murdered. Umm hello almost 2 million abortions were preformed last year alone. 2 MILLION Children killed because the mother did not want them. What is worse here??

The fact that you Republicans are willing to condemn the babies that come out as lazy welfare moochers if they grow to become poor because their parents are poor (since upward mobility is declining in America) is worse, my dear friend.

ALL of the above isnt even the reason why I am against what the left is doing now. The 2nd amendment provides me the right to own guns. ( for the record I do not own one ) IF I want to own a 50 cal sniper rifle, I can with the correct permits. IF I want to own a M-16 I can, if I want a hand gun I can. These are rights given to us by our most sacred piece of paper in this land.

Okay; since when did the 2nd Amendment allow some random schmuck off the street to buy an M-16 or a 50-cal sniper rifle??? The 2nd Amendment was (A) a way to placate the anti-federalists and states' crowd, (B) to protect the rights of frontier citizens, whose primary source of protection was their store-bought musket, and (C) to provide for a militia that would, if need be, oppose an "oppressive government," whether it be fighting against one seeking to oppress the people or merely impose a federal law that some state official didn't like.

So because i do not own a gun, or in the name of " the good of the people " I am being told to give up this right. Im sorry This is not going to fly..

Nobody is saying you should not own a gun; I'm a lefty "socialist" Democrat and I would like to own a gun somebody. What the mainstream Democratic Party is saying is that you don't have a right to a gun that's ONLY purpose is to slaughter people; you could easily defend yourself with with a bolt-action rifle (like our soldiers did before World War II) or even a single-shot musket (like the colonists and minutemen you so admire). Hell, a revolver will do the job. If it were up to me, you'd have to undergo the same @!$%# that teenagers have to do in order to get a driver's license: you need to get experience with the gun, take exams to test your competence, and prove your worth.

Or rights were trampled on with the Patriot Act, our rights to choose what WE want for our health care insurance by the ACA Act, now the 2nd amendment is being trounced on. When do we the people put our feet down and say enough is enough.. We are tired of our rights slowly being taken away??

I didn't support the Patriot Act, FYI, and I don't like how Obama extended it (yes, I disagree with Obama sometimes). And by the way, the government isn't forcing you to buy government insurance or a specific brand of health insurance; it's only forcing you to GET insurance, you know, just like the guys in "free market" Switzerland do??? The Second Amendment is not being taken away from you, although I prefer to think gun ownership as a responsibility instead of a right.

Whats next in the line? One child per family? More restrictions of Free Speech? I am not a gun owner, but I stand with the gun owners here. Next time the political powers choose to take something away from us it MIGHT be something I do have.

One child per family will only happen if you ban contraception and abortion, because eventually overpopulation will cause social chaos. Free speech should not be restricted in my opinion, but unfortunately I'm not in Washington.

Okay Republicans, I've come here to make a deal with you. Let me clarify that I support gun ownership (as I would like to eventually own a gun), I think people should be able to own guns if they are competent enough to use them, and that guns have been and will be an integral part of our society. Let me also clarify that I think gun ownership ought to be a responsibility instead of a right, that people should have to go through the same stuff to own guns and get a gun license as they do to get a driver's license, and that certain guns are unnecessary (I don't think you need anything more than a shotgun or a bolt-action rifle to keep some thugs out of your house.

Now on to the deal. The President, the Democratic Party, the GOP, and all government officials will sign a treaty to the people of the United States swearing never to repeal the Second Amendment in its entirety or change it significantly so as to limit the rights of citizens to seek (not to automatically get) ownership of a firearm. Most handguns, hunting rifles, and shotguns will be included in this treaty, and the American people will guaranteed that their government will NEVER seek to oppress them in a tyrannical way as seen in North Korea, Nazi Germany, or the Stalinist regime in the Soviet Union. And if the government does so, the people will hereby have the god-given right to depose such a despotic government and create a new one, either by proper democratic elections or the use of deadly force. I personally think the last section is unnecessary because (A) I don't think our government has the cajones to become totalitarian and (B) because I think the soldiers who, if I am wrong, will be sent to disarm the populace and enforce tyrannical laws will refuse to oppress or subjugate their fellow Americans, or aim their guns at innocent civilians as those damn redcoats did in Boston on that cold March day in 1770. Unless you think our soldiers are mindless drones and domicile traitors.....

In return for such a pledge, signed by every government official and installed as an irrevocable corollary to the Constitution and the Second Amendment, gun owners across the United States must agree to the following: a national ban on semi-automatic weapons, a national limit on magazines to 10-12 clips or bullets, a nationwide registry for the purchase of firearms, mandated background checks, the closing of the gun show loophole, restrictions on the amount of ammunition allowed to be purchased to 250 rounds, bullets, shells, or clips every 3 weeks, restrictions to certain high-capacity and high fire-rate handguns, a process of certifying gun licenses and firearm purchases similar (if not identical) to the one required for attaining a driver's license, and a goal to decrease the number of non-recreational (aka defensive) firearms used in the United States from roughly 300 million today to 225 million in 2035. And finally, you must be content with the possibility of the United States government and the armed forces reinstating the draft and calling upon all well-fit men and women to serve in a national emergency, especially those owning guns. Call it an unofficial militia pool. After all, if you want to own guns in the United States, you should be prepared to use them for kin and country. Do we have a deal???

Freshieee

And we are the deadliest place in the industrialized world.

We definitely are not. Russia for instance, has gun laws that are more severe then ours, but their murder rate is twice ours.

The State of Vermont, where the gun laws are less severe then most other States (everyone over 21 can carry a gun without a permit), have one of lowest murder rates in the U.S. (#48 on the list), on the other hand many cities in Canada, where their gun laws are more severe than ours, have murder rates that are much higher than many of our cities and States (over 5 in Winnipeg for example, while it is 1 or so for Vermont, many of our States have murder rates under 5).

It's somewhat troubling that the news media, Brian Williams Nightly News, is so entrenched with their partisan reporting that they would quote from the letter sent to the president by Julia, out of context, in their continuing effort to place blame on the Republicans and their support for Obama.

Her letter read "I know that laws have to be approved by Congress but try very hard to make guns not allowed."

MSNBC reported, "I know that laws have to be approved by Congress but try very hard."

Disgusting and unfair to the viewers of MSNBC as their intent was to "blame the GOP for for laws not being passed.

"While there is no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence completely, no piece of legislation that will prevent every tragedy, every act of evil," Obama said at a mid-day announcement at the White House, "if there's even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there's even one life that can be saved, then we've got an obligation to try it."

Yeah Barry? So WHAT are you doing about mental health? drugs? gangs?

Chicago just celebrated their 25th murder on January 15, if Rham cant clean up his streets, perhaps he should step aside and let someone who can do the job! RUDY....WHERE ARE YOU???

Criminals dont obey the law! DUH!!!!

Where have all the liberal anti-gun nuts gone? the last twenty posts were all pro gun. I guess they couldn't stand the heat and left.

I love all of the arguing. This is good stuff. But why are you all wasting your time shouting your opinions back and forth?

It's not like Congress is going to pass any anti-gun legislation.... For, or against gun control... high capacity mags and AR-15's are here to stay, since any bill introduced will be DOA. Sure, the Senate might get something passed, but the House will send a bill straight to the paper shredder, so what's the point of all the bickering? Don't like it? Fine. Take it up on a state level.

New York passed their bone-head legislation. California will likely bolster their idiotic laws since they have a liberal super-majority and then Chicago will be next.

Don't like that? Then join an advocacy group on a state level and fight it.

Rinse, and repeat.

Published - 15 DEC 12

Every time a tragedy occurs, there are renewed appeals for gun regulation. However, the calls disappointingly always fail.

Regulation of private gun ownership has been a sensitive issue in the U.S. for a long time. Americans own 280 million guns, with 34 percent of U.S. families possessing the deadly weapon.

Centering on issues such as whether citizens can bear arms, and whether the government has the right to ban guns, the opposing camps have debated hotly for years.

Electoral politics is another important reason for the failure of gun control efforts. The Democratic Party has historically paid a price for its gun control efforts.

Many people can't help but turn to the dim hope once again: the gunman's cruelty and evil may provide a strong momentum and broader public support for the restart of gun control efforts. Moreover, with no re-election pressure, President Obama is currently in the best position to promote it.

Xinhua - Chinese Government (Communists) run news agency

-

Published - 6 NOV 1939

All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The Communist Party must command all the guns. That way, no guns can ever be used to command the Party.

- Mao Tse Tung

-

Impeach the Manchurian Candidate, President Obama. He's in the Communists pocket!