Where Liberty is Reborn

Argue With Us! Your Second Amendment Rights

, / 460

Point: The Right to Bear Arms—Within Reason

by Bailey O’Malia

In the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy Americans and politicians have spent time reflecting on gun control.

We often hear that our founding fathers wrote our right to bear arms into the Constitution as a way to protect ourselves from harm; that they wanted us to have that right, even today.

But that’s not something I’m so sure about.

When the founding fathers wrote our constitution their idea of a weapon was a musket. Not an automatic weapon. The gun they had in mind would be used for safety or for hunting.

With this in mind I wonder, what the fathers of our nation would have said about civilians owning military-grade weapons that can shoot a hundred rounds in a minute?

Surely there is no need for a civilian to hold that kind of power in his hand. In fact, why should anyone have that much power over another human being? Do we really trust each other’s judgment?

I’ve been thinking about this for days and I can’t come up with one good reason that a person would need anything more than a handgun or rifle for “safety.”

So when the discussion of changing the gun laws is brought up I think, what a perfectly simple solution; ban all automatic weapons. This appeases the Democrats because they will have made steps towards gun reform, and the Republicans because they won’t be fully losing their right to bear arms. If you consider shooting an automatic weapon a fun hobby, they could still be available to rent at a gun range.

But this is a compromise. A concept politicians and Americans are unfamiliar with these days.

If you’re pro-guns at this point you’re probably saying “but it’s my right, and they’re taking away all of our rights.”

But it’s also your right to feel safe in this country. And despite the theorists who say “arm every person in the country, that’ll scare ‘em!” The lunatics that are shooting up movie theaters and schools don’t seem to place much value on their life or the lives of others.

So before you start spouting your founding fathers crap, take a second to think about the core principle that this country was supposedly built on: freedom. And I don’t know about you, but I don’t feel very “free” knowing that my neighbor could be housing an AK-47 in his garage.


CounterPoint: The Reason for the Right to Bear Arms

by Tim Young

As intelligent as I think Bailey is, she’s dead wrong here.  I do feel safer knowing that my neighbor could be housing an AK-47 in his garage.  Why?  Because I know most of my neighbors are honest, hardworking people who aren’t nutcases looking to shoot up schoolchildren.

See, what happens when these terrible tragedies occur is the media blows things out of proportion to spread their leftist views… and as much as I generally don’t yell and point fingers about how biased they are… this time, they really have showed their hand.  Somewhere in the middle of all the hype about how access to guns was the issue here, we forget what the Second Amendment was really about.

When the founding fathers wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights, they wanted to ensure that all people were equal… equal with each other and equal with the government.  Yes, when this was all written, people only had muskets… but do you know who else only had muskets?  The government.

We had just finished overthrowing a tyrannical government in order to become a free nation, and the founders, who literally helped fight in that war, wanted the American people to have equal footing with whatever government took over, in order to prevent tyranny if necessary once again.  These guys were smart, they weren’t thinking inside the box of their time.  They were completely aware that technology would change, but they wanted Americans to be able to stand up for themselves.  How does one do that?  By having the same level of weaponry as the government!

The Constitution was written with revolution in mind, not the peace that we have internally had for about 150 years now.  I say 150 years, because we fought ourselves with our armed militias in The Civil War… we have been lucky to have had internal peace since then…  But you can’t closed-mindedly say that the Second Amendment was for limited weapons.  It just wasn’t.  It was meant to keep people on the same level as the government, so that they could fight for their rights if necessary.

And sure, if my neighbors had rocket launchers, I think I’d be scared just because they could blow up my house… But if original founders were still around, I think they’d be alright with it.


We want you to weigh in on this argument!  Type your comments below!





  • lawrence says:

    the simple fact that no one either has the brains or guts to say, if the military can have it, then i as a american citizen should have it. this even goes for a rocket launcher. but sad to say when our government thinks that we are weak, a take over will be attempted,(just like germany, china, russia, etc.) they will have much better weapons than we the people. can you say over 100million people slaughtered who could no longer defend themselves with the countries mentioned above.

    we as american people no longer trust our government, that is why we will not tolerate any more gun laws, period.

    bailey, im sorry but your argument is laim and filled with either lies or incompetence, i will let you pick.
    all of these tragic assults were used with a semi automatic weapon, if the deranged individuals had a fully automatic weapon we probably would have had less deaths, as they can not be controled. if you are going to argue gun control then at least know what you are talking about. but i believe most gun control people know exactly why they spout what they do, and it has nothing to do with safety.
    oh by the way, most of these tragic slaughters happenend in gun free zones, not police statons, not gun stores, not gun ranges, but places where people know that there are no guns.
    like charleston heston said you will take our guns froour cold dead fingers, and when the government fires the first shot, no one will be safe. God bless to all lawrence

    • Richard Durham says:

      You are right. Just ONCE I’d like to see a TV report explain the difference between an M-16 and an AR-15. The government and their controlled media have duped the public into thinking that AR-15’s are what the Navy Seals use. The general public thinks that semi-suto’s are “machine guns” and are terrified. The rush to buy has cost me plenty. I just paid $110 for TWO cartons of .22 long rifle ammo. Yeah, over 10 cents a shot for target ammo. I’m 66 years old (nearly 50 of those as a firearms enthusiast) and have never so much as pulled a gun on anyone. I WILL give up my life to protect the Constitution. I regret that I have only one life to give for my country. Yeah.

      • Lee says:

        I think it is amazing that the media never once reports how often a person with a concealed carry permit stops a criminal by just pulling a gun on him without ever having to fire a shot. They don’t report that because the argument for gun control would fall apart and the media can’t allow that. I would also like to ask the liberals what part of “shall not be infringed” you don’t understand. You do not punish the law abiding citzens of this country for the mistakes of one person.

        • S says:

          Right on lee, the Founding Fathers were very spicific in there wording, “Infringed” is a powerful word, people should look it up!!!

          • Mustang75 says:


            Baily thinks that way because what libs really, really, like, you know, I mean, like the 2nd Amendment has a typo in it. According to libspeak, the right to bear arms is simply a typo and should read the right to bare arms. That way the government can’t force us to wear long sleeves.

          • Thomas Nelson says:

            The reason that our Founding Fathers did not include Semi-auto guns/firearms is because they had no knowledge of them had they been invented then they would of been bailey I feel safer with guns in my house and on my person my family does not have armed personal like yours does cops are minutes away at best banning guns and taking them will not stop robbery’s or killings it’s not working in Chicago or the UK

        • George Jones says:

          The Government is to blame much as any body. They force mind altering drugs on people to control them when they get a little upset over something and turn them into mindless beast.

      • ChristyK says:

        Bailey says we should ban automatic weapons. Although it is unconstitutional, we already have banned fully-automatic weapons. She doesn’t seem to understand the difference between automatic and semi-automatic. Semi-automatic is just one pull = one bullet like most guns. She severely hurts her argument when she makes such an uninformed statement.

        Regardless, the consitution was meant to guarantee our right to bear any arm that the government bears, including missiles, rocket launchers, tanks, drones, and submarines. Unfortunately I can’t afford a tank or a drone. :(

        • Mustang75 says:

          Actually, drones are not so expensive. A camera can be added to any flying model plane/helicopter.

          This is, however, one problem with this web thread. There are not enough libs her to have fun with their pitiable arguments.

          Bailey, I applaud your participation in this thread…get your friends.

    • bob says:

      Aside from the fact that the muzzleloading rifle in 1776 was the technology of the day and the semi-auto is the technology of this day, does anyone doubt the framers intended that we have less than that? Absurd. The other major flaw in this woman’s argument is the assumption that the right to arms is GRANTED by the Bill of Rights. On the contrary, the framers believed that right already existed as a natural right of free men and the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to prevent government from usurping it.

      • Norm Dyche says:

        All this said and done. Now, how do we locate the stolen and non registured guns in the intercity? How will they locate the guns? Clean up that mess and then come and talk to me about my guns!.

        • Sandy says:

          Isn’t it amazing that no “Lib” will not touch a real problem with a ten foot pole? I don’t even have a gun but I support every SANE, law abiding citizen’s right to own, yes, even a semi-automatic rifle. I once agreed with those who say no one needs that kind of weapon, but that was before horrors of the LAST 12 YEARS! Including, but not limited to, a President who cannot, or will not call the Fort Hood and Benghazi murderers Terrorists. “Work Place violence”, “Reaction to an anti-Muslim home video”, my —! Who do they think they are fooling.
          How sad to think that citizens of a democracy need to level the playing field, in terms of firearms, between themselves and their own, elected government. Wasn’t that what the arms race with Russia was about?

      • Dave says:

        The Second Amendment was not about hunting bears or buglers.

        It was about fighting tyrants, and enemies foreign and domestic, and ensuring the powers of government never can oppress the rights of the individual. As such it is logical that the intent was to equal the individual weapons a tyrant would use on the people that the Second Amendment was addressing. In other words, they were referring to arms that were state of the art battle weapons of the day. An AR-15 today is the political equivalent of the musket of 240 years ago.

        And it doesn’t mean that we are all going to storm DC if a leader oversteps and really pisses us off, although that could happen. -The point is that an armed population is one that cannot be ruled; Mao was quoted as saying “Political power flows out the barrel of a gun”, and Stalin said “why should we allow people to have opinions if we don’t trust them with guns”. So it is also symbolic, but in a very important way. An armed population ensures that government serves the people and not the other way around.

        That is why the Second Amendment is right behind the First, second only to the right to free speech. It ensures the other amendments are taken seriously.

        What to do regarding the recent school tragedy? Well a lot of substantial things can be done that will help stop it from happening that superficial, but ‘infringing’ gun control won’t. Like keeping all dangerous things out of the hands of the unstable, and maybe reforming our psychotropic drug administration in light of some violent tendencies that seem to be emerging from it’s use.

    • Leslie Fish says:

      What makes democracy work is the fact that the majority of the citizens are not idiots or lunatics, and nowadays we have the Internet to guarantee that we’re not ignorant, either. Note that three states have already quietly passed laws requiring public schools to have armed guards, if not firearms-trained and armed teachers and principals, on duty during the school day. There are even some state legislatures that are openly discussing inaugurating some type of Swiss System, whereby all the state’s citizens shall be armed and trained. Meanwhile, media pundits spin further and further out of control, going so far as to say that the Constitution itself is outdated and should be scrapped. Never mind that any politician who said that in public would be committing political suicide. The sheer irrationality of the anti-gun crowd will doom any legislation they try to push, despite all their wailing about the Newtown massacre. All we have to do is keep broadcasting the facts: that no armed lunatic has ever attacked a police station, an army base, a shooting range, or any other place where the inhabitants are likely to have guns.

      –Leslie < Fish

      • Michael Filppu says:

        I just have a couple of issues with your comment. First, having access to the internet does not necessarily mean that one cannot be ignorant. Remember the car insurance commercial where the woman says that they cannot put anything on the internet that isn’t true, and ends up walking off with the “french model”? Also, as for no armed lunatic ever attacking an army base, remember the Ft. Hood shooting? I remember that all of the weapons and ammo are kept in a specific location, only to be used in the field, during emergencies, and during war. The soldiers that carry weapons everyday for work are MPs and maybe special forces, but they don’t walk around base with an M-16 slung across their backs or in the low ready. Just a few thoughts for you. Have a pleasant day.

        • Alice says:

          You should also remember, the Ft Hood massacre was stopped by a womman who was on the base for another reason, was armed legally with a gun, and shot the assailant thereby stopping him before anyone else was killed.

    • AZJim says:

      We need to have enough fire power to thwart any attacker, be it a bad guy or our own government. See quote below;
      “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

      — Thomas Jefferson
      You mentioned that our founding fathers had in mind, muskets. That is because that was the weapon used against them. If the British were using AK47’s our founding fathers would be using them as well. You don’t go to a gun fight with a knife and, like wise you don’t want to be under-gunned either.

      • Mustang75 says:


        Well and good. Don’t you just love the last real bastion of America, Arizona. I do, too.

        Having said that I must refer to your Patriotic quote, brave, but without any hope of success.

        Why, you ask? Good question! We CANNOT hide from infra-red.

        If the military sides with the Imam, rather than the Constitution, then we’re screwed.

        I do, however, want to be clear on another point.

        If “anyone” wants to take my guns, they had better bring guns. I cannot win against a government force, but I WILL NOT roll over.

        • walesmd says:

          Mustang75, I am glad to hear that you will not rollover. Because I, and most everyone I know that owns a gun and most of the people I know who don’t own a gun, won’t rollover either. You are right in the fact that the government does have better guns than the citizens have. However, we have a total of 315,056,000 citizens with 310,000,000 nonmilitary firearms in the U.S., and only 2,278,000 are military personnel, with 884,000 of those being reservist. That’s a 138:1 ratio. Oh yea, that’s also asking our own sons and daughters to fight against us. My point is that we have the power over the government and if it came down to us having to fight the government the citizens have the advantage.

    • Anonymous says:

      What you will find here: Lots of folks with the right information and mindset to re-free this country. What you won’t find here or anywhere else: ANYONE who is ready to do anything about it. Shame on us!

      • Stan says:

        I am ready! They won’t take my guns easily! Ther will be someone dead before I am! I have to Agree with the statement that Charlton Heston made. They will kave to pry them out of my cold dead hands!! We have to protect ourselves from this dreaded socialist muslim government that is trying to ruin America and what it stands for!!!!

        • Mustang75 says:


          Have you not noticed that the USA does NO LONGER EXIST in anything but name only. I served in the Army for 35 years, and for what? A nation that no longer exists.

          • Marla says:

            To Mustang75 –
            I just want to say THANK YOU for serving. I am sad to say that you are right, our nation is not what it once was. There is a movie called “Last Ounce of Courage” that was not in the theaters long, but is an excellent movie about Faith, Family, and Freedom. I am urging people to see this movie, now out on DVD. My son has been in the military for 12 years now, and I don’t want him or anyone else that served to look back and say “was my service for nothing”? Again, I appreciate and thank you for all you did.

      • Mustang75 says:


        What did your anonymous mind have “in mind”?

        • Anonymous says:

          Mustang75, I certainly did not mean any bad feelings toward anyone. I just can’t understand why we continuosly let the powers that be stomp around and wipe their asses on our beloved Constitution. They have already broken so many laws one would question where to begin,provided we could get them arrested. I don’t understand why we can’t even get them arrested. If you or I break the law, we are arrestedand charged, but they seem to be able to circumvent that beginning of process. It makes me furious. So we just let them keep on going the way they are with no one having the way to file charges. I would give anything to see a legal way to pull them down and put them in prison. I don’t want to see it come to even one shot fired. What is the catalyst we need to set the people off? I mean I know we can win if it comes violence but at what cost? I don’t want to see the loss of life. I think that if we could just get one judge to agree with us the whole house of cards would come down in short order. IS THERE SOMEONE WITH THE BALLS TO GO UP AGAINST THEM?

    • Paul says:

      The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription

      IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

      The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

      When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

      • Paul says:

        It was meant for us to have the same kinds of guns that our government had so that we could be a threat to them if they decide to do away with the constitution.At the time the government had muskets now they have assault weapons.It dont get any clearer than that if you dont understand it then you should not be allowed to vote or make decisions on the matter.

    • Erik says:

      Our Founding Fathers formed the Second Amendment as a check and balance provision – thus they provided a constitutional right with the power to overthrow tyrants that gained power within our government, and not be armed with peashooters but actual powerful weapons, which evolved as time progressed. The militias are groups of citizens formed equally to enforce the Constitution. Liars with an agenda have been attacking this true concept of the Second Amendment.

      Thomas Jefferson’s quotes:
      “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.”
      “The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.”
      “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

      Patrick Henry quotes:
      “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.

      “Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!“

      George Washington Quotes:
      “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 Mason Quotes:
      “To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.”

      “I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians.”
      George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

      Hence, if corrupt political tyrants commandeered our government,

    • Erik says:

      Our Founding Fathers formed the Second Amendment as a check and balance provision – thus they provided a constitutional right with the power to overthrow tyrants that gained power within our government, and not be armed with peashooters but actual powerful weapons, which evolved as time progressed. The militias are groups of citizens formed equally to enforce the Constitution. Liars with an agenda have been attacking this true concept of the Second Amendment.

      Thomas Jefferson’s quotes:
      “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.”
      “The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.”
      “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

      Patrick Henry quotes:
      “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.

      “Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!“

      George Washington Quotes:
      “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 Mason Quotes:
      “To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.”

      “I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians.”
      George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

    • Wade Rice says:

      What I hate about these idiot liberals saying that the constitution didn’t take into account semi-automatic weapons so we shouldn’t be allowed to have them. They keep forgetting that the criminals have both semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons and they don’t abide by the law. So I’m supposed to defend my family against the criminals with their weapons with a single shot black powder weapon. Forget about the police, years ago I had someone trying to break into my residence and I called the police and it took over 45 minutes for them to arrive. I finally just confronted the bad guys with my weapon, end of problem so when the police finally arrived they could arrest them.

  • Tas says:

    I think everyone should be concern that the gov bought 46,000 rounds of .40 S&W JHP and hid them under The Fishery Law Enforcement agency.Hollow points are banned for use off shore. I have to question what the intention is. First people need to understand what a semi- auto weapon is. It excludes every weapon that is not a revolver, shot gun or rifle.
    I tell libs when they want to throw the “only militia” thing at me that it is an excellent idea and purhaps the 25% US citizens that are gun owners might be wise to form a militia.

  • Fred says:

    One of the main reasons we are having an argument is because gun banners/anti-gunners like Bailey O’Malia are trying to make their arguments without even knowing what they are talking about.
    – “civilians owning military-grade weapons that can shoot a hundred rounds in a minute?” Very few people own military grade weapons – automatic weapons have been banned since the 1930’s and are heavily restricted. NONE of these mass murders have been committed with an automatic weapon.
    – “Surely there is no need for a civilian to hold that kind of power in his hand.” It is the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. Now we have another argument, WHO determines what a person needs?? WHO gets to say you can have 3 guns, but you can only have 2 guns. You can have 5 cars, but you can only have 1 car. You can have $10,000 in savings, but you can only have $100. Where does it stop?? O’Malia wants to talk freedom – where do you draw the line on who gets to be free – or MORE free?? Law abiding citizen – what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty??
    – “But it’s also your right to feel safe in this country.”
    – “the core principle that this country was supposedly built on: freedom.
    – “I don’t feel very “free” knowing that my neighbor could be housing an AK-47 in his garage.
    There is no right to feel safe in this country. The Supreme Court has even ruled that the police do NOT have to protect you (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0). This is why we have the right of self-defense – it is the right of every citizen to protect him/herself and family – OR NOT TO PROTECT ONESELF.
    If you truly believe the core principle is freedom, then why are you trying to take away one or two freedoms (rights) from a majority of the population in this country because of the actions of a few mentally challenged lunatics?
    One reason you MAY not feel “free” or “safe” because your neighbor MAY have an AK-47 is because you obviously do not understand what an AK-47 is (or any other weapon you mistakenly label an “assault weapon”). If you do your research (instead of listening to the media or the anti-gunners), you will understand that all but a very few AK-47s in this country are semi-automatics that are 99.99% owned by law-abiding citizens that have never and will never use them in a crime. Those AK-47s made before May 19, 1986 and are fully automatic, are highly restricted by the federal government, but can be owned by the civilian population but only after having undergone very restrictive scrutiny. NO ONE in this country can own an automatic weapon made after May 19, 1986. Please feel free to substitute any named weapon or mis-named “assault weapon” for AK-47 in these sentences. Also make sure that you understand that the civilian owned AK-47 is NO DIFFERENT than any other hunting rifle used by millions of hunters today in the United States. The Bushmaster 223 used in the Newtown shooting is one of the most commonly rifles in American today, mostly used by police departments, hunters, and for self-defense. LOOK IT UP, DO SOME RESEARCH.
    Banning guns, banning magazines, restricting purchases of firearms and ammunition, and other methods have been tried in this country before, AND HAS FAILED. This is not my opinion, this is fact reported by the FBI and by the federal Justice Department and is the main reason why the federal Assault Weapon Ban was allowed to expire – the ban was having absolutely no affect on crime because criminals were not using these types of weapons except in a very miniscule amount of crimes. So people like O’Malia want to keep doing what has failed miserably. If you want a discussion, try something new. Take a look at federal gun free zones where all but one of these mass murders has happened – why do we protect our money (banks, armored cars), our political elite and their families (armed guards and security allowed even in gun free zones), airport terminals, courthouses, etc., with guns, but we do not even allow, nor even consider protecting millions and millions of children in our everyday school buildings the same way. And why do we not have a discussion on the mental health issue in this country – almost every single one of these mass murderers have some form of mental health.
    Why do we insist on trying to fix a problem (school shootings/mass murders) by blaming millions and millions of gun owners in this country who have NOTHING to do with it.

    • Bailey says:

      I won’t bother attempting to change your mind, but I just wanted to inform you that the assault weapons are not banned by the government. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired on September 13, 2004, as part of the law’s sunset provision. There have been multiple attempts to renew the ban, but no bill has reached the House floor for a vote.

      • Fred says:

        I believe, Bailey, the other Fred was talking about “fully automatic” weapons. The ownership of these weapons is in fact controlled by the Government and ownership takes a Class III firearms license. There is also a huge difference in a weapon that is “fully automatic” and one that is “semi automatic”. It is just wrong to call any rifle an “automatic” weapon without the first designator. Again, reasearch on your behalf would eliminiate these kinds of errors. And I feel wonderfully comfortable when I am at my Cousins house, knowing there are rifles and pistols all over the place that are available to us for self protection if needed. I happen to work for a large 911 Dispatch Center and I am quite well aware of the response times for major crimes after 911 is dialed. Five minutes may seem trivial to some but that is plenty of time for thugs and predators to wreak permanent havoc and damage in the lives of those they choose to victimize. The Police, as well meaning and equipped as they are, cannot be everywhere at once. We have an inherent right to self protection and self preservation which some of us thinking people choose to exercise. On a side note, the original Gun Ban of 1994 said “if these types of rifles were banned, it would cause no grief or inconvience to the average citizen or sportsman”..not verbatim but the intent is there. I move you forward to the last several years and point out “3 gun competition” where a semi automatic pistol, a semi automatic rifle, and a semi automatic shotgun (all with large capacity magazines) are used by many sportsmen in friendly competition against the clock and points scored. Any new ban would most certainly be problematic for sportsmen all over this Nation.

      • bob says:

        you should read something besides the funny papers on sunday. possibly do some research before you write an article and prove you don’t have a clue. and your most telling sentence was this would make democraps happy because it would be a step towards gun control, step? first step to all out ban. get a life

      • box-bb-car says:

        The assault weapon ban was a sham in that it banned guns based, for the most part, on appearance only. Case in point. A Ruger mini30, firing the same round as the AK47 and modeled after the M1 from WWII, would have been legal under the ban in it’s native form. However, removing the stock and replacing it with an after market stock capable of an adjustable shoulder and with a pistol grip, would have put it in jeapordy of being banned, with no change in the firing mechanism.
        The first article sates that the govt should ban all alutomatic weapons. Well, with the exception of a class3 firearms license, they are banned and have been since the 30s.
        The real problem here is that we as a nation have chosen to put ourselves as the center for moral authority, and as such, if we have decided to kill our fellow man, we have already rejected that authority so it holds no power over us. Until we go back to allowing a belief in a divine presence (I do not care what the person chooses, most religions have a reverence for life, it is the focus which matters in this case)we will continue to see such acts. Banning weapons will not matter. Heck they are even talking of banning knives in England, a weapon that even a person of average intelligence can produce in little time.

      • Anonymous says:

        Unfortunately you display a total lack of knowledge. The so called “Assault Weapons Ban” did not ban assault rifles, it banned rifles that looked like assault rifles. An assault rifle is a fully automatic military weapon. What the ban restricted were semi-automatic civilian rifles. Even then, the ban was stupid and just another attempt by politicians to appear like they were “doing something about the problem” because hunting rifles with wooden stocks were completely unregulated. Many hunting rifles are far more lethal than so called “assault rifles”. You also display ignorance about the Second Amendment. It’s purpose was not to let people “feel safe” and go hunting. It’s purpose was to have an armed population that could revolt against the government, they had just done it and wanted to make sure it could be done again. The people only had muskets, but so did the government.

      • Walt says:


        Regardless of the nomenclature that you used to describe certain guns, your concern over gun ownership and how much guns should be controlled is obviously motivated by the recent and tragic shootings at Sandy Hook.

        I would suggest that you research the following website:


        Here you will find some interesting facts about the relationship between drugs prescribed for depression and other mental conditions, as strong contributors to violent behavior by many patients who blindly and naively take anything their doctor prescribes.

        There are numbers of recorded cases where folks who committed murders and were subsequently aquitted due to the acknowledged effects of these drugs on their minds.

        Perhaps part of the solution should be to shine the light on the pharmaceutical industry for their reckless contribution to this and hundreds of other national tradgedies over the past few decades.

        Hopefully, after you read the facts on these dangerous drugs, you will realize how silly and opportunistic Sen. Feinstein’s suggestion that we ban high capacity magazines and impose expensive fees on our citizens for the right to own certain guns.

        As others on this forum have suggested, the intent by the Nadlers, Feinsteins, Schumers, and Bloombergs of the world is not to protect American citizens from “nut cases”; but, rather to pave the path for tyranny to take root in America.

      • Michael says:

        They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
        Benjamin Franklin

        • harley hooch says:

          If we only had single shot rifles the government would have already taken us over. Unless we have weapons like they have to fight back then we are doomed already. We have a few assault weapons as they call them and some pistols and that is it.
          We do not have Drones–airplanes –tanks–armoured vehicles–rocket launchers ect so we are already at a big disavantage.
          A friend of mine is a retired secret service agent and i built a home for a retired marine officer that had been in the pentagon for about 15 years. When they told me this was coming i thought they were nuts. THIS STUFF IS ALL PLANNED PEOPLE AND YOU HAVE NOT SEEN ANYTHING YET. GET READY FOR HELL ON EARTH.

      • ghy says:

        gawd dam your ignorant. all guns are assault weapons, if I assault you with them. hell I can assault you with a spoon, shoe, or any other implement I choose. what is repeatedly trying to be explained to you is that an automatic weapon is different from a semi-automatic. please look up the difference you over-educated ignoramus

      • Michael says:

        The fact is, my AR15 is NOT an “assault rifle”. The selector lever only has two positions: “Safe” and “Semi-automatic”. A true “assault rifle” has at least one additional position for “Burst” or “Full Auto”. My AR15 only LOOKS like an “assault rifle” but, it isn’t. I’ve had one for over 30 years and have never committed an illegal act with it. Why should I not be able to have it?

      • Mustang75 says:


        I have but one simple question to pose to you.

        What is your solution to this perceived problem that doesn’t put weapons ONLY in the hands of evil people?

        I say perceived because law abiding citizen gun owners don’t go around murdering children…or anyone else.

        As an aside, did you know that in 2008, at the Berlin Train Station, 41 people were murdered and several wounded, not by a gun, but by a single person with one, I think it was a semi-automatic, knife. Shall we ban all knives, remember a butter knife can be sharpened.

        I now anxiously await your response to my simple question.

    • Anonymous says:


      You have covered a lot of ground. I fully agree with your observations and hope that some of those “anti gun people” take the time to read your article and do their own research to find that your arguments are “right on”.

    • Anonymous says:

      perfectly said Fred !

    • Anonymous says:

      Just a note to inform everyone that the Bushmaster 223 was left in a car in the parking lot at the Sandy shooting. Polic e removed 4 semi-auto handguns from the school house which, in my mind, says there was another shooter. Uh, two hands-two pistols. This incident just like ALL of the others screams and reeks of false flag. But you will not get this info from the puppet media. You will have to get outside the box to understand what is really going on. I’ll give you a hint: guns are the only thing standing between our freedom[what’s left of it] and the agenda of some of the most EVIL people ever to live in society. http://www.infowars.com

      • harley hooch says:

        The pistols were 9mm. they say the kids were killed with a 223 bushmaster. There was not any 223 gun in the school. IF LANZA ONLY HAD 9mm PISTOLS THEN WHO KILLED THE KIDS ??? ARE THEY EVEN DEAD ???
        i KEEP HEARING THAT THE PAKISTANIES MAY HAVE DONE THIS SINCE OUR MILITARY IS SLAUGHTERING THEIR WOMEN AND CHILDREN WITH THE DRONES. A PAKISTAN man here told me that they are glad when we kill the terrorists but he said the military is out of control killing their women and children.
        Unless the drone strikes are stopped i fear they will start mass murdering our children to get even with us. THERE IS A LOT OF PAKISTANIES HERE AND MILLIONS OF MUSLIMS. I HOME SCHOOLED AND YOU CAN DO IT TO. THAT IS THE ONLY WAY TO PROTECT YOUR KIDS.
        Cut your living style down–have only 1 car–drop the club membership. Have one parent at home with the kids. We did and i am glad we did. My last child just graduated college. 4.0 on her ba–4.0 on her masters. HOW ABOUT THAT !!!!!!!

  • Jerry says:

    First: I would like to clarify an often misunderstood FACT. The Second amendment DID NOT give American citizens the Right to Bear Arms; it DID In Fact Merely AFFIRM our Right to Bear Arms.
    Second: It’s sole purpose was to provide the citizens of this country; should ALL other recourse’s fail; a means to rid this country of a tyrannical government through force and to replace it with another that would be willing to govern according to the citizens.
    Third: The Government of this country now Thinks, feels about it’s citizens, and acts exactly the same as the “King of England” did when the yokes of tyranny were shed at the founding of this country.
    Fourth: It only stands to reason that the Government was NOT intended to have the ability to CHANGE the very document ( Read “BILL OF RIGHTS” ) that regulates Their behavior. That’s just common sense!
    Fifth: It is my belief of these statements above that brings me to the conclusion that I Don’t Care what illegal “LAWS” they pass or enact, I am neither obliged nor inclined to follow them. As a free man I do not need their permission to bear arms, my Father in Heaven provided it.
    Sixth and Final point: The Founding Fathers understood all to well the most important thing of all, Human Nature. And that my fellow countrymen is exactly WHY they wrote the “Bill of Rights” to affirm our rights as FREE People not to Grant us those rights as a Free People. That is why the government runs the educational system, so that they can control what is taught to the citizens. That’s why most of the citizens of this country know next to nothing about it’s history!

    • Marshall says:

      Thank you, Jerry, for pointing out that the Constitution did not give us our rights – it only secures them. They are our natural, creator-given rights. If our government gave us those rights, they could certainly take them away. But they didn’t give them to us. By the way, for everyone out there, it takes an amendment to change any right secured by this constitution, not a decree, a bill, a local law, etc.. Anything repugnant to the Constitution is “null and void on its face”, meaning none of it applies. Bailey, if you want to attack a problem in this arena of mass murders, perhaps you should study countless hours about the use and issue of psychotropic drugs. The commonly known SSRI’s (such as Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, etc.) are Selective Seratonin Reuptake Inhibitors. As Dr. Julian Whitaker stated years ago, when the seratonin levels are raised above where they should be, a human’s mind becomes one without a conscience. The Columbine shooters, the kid in Oregon who killed his parents and slept in the same house with them for days, the woman in California who chewed the flesh off her mother’s face, and so many more mass killers, have all been on SSRI’s. One of the big problems in this country right now is the dispensing of drugs as if they are candy. And, in many cases, the dispensing of any prescription drugs at all, is just a massive shame on the state of this country and its collective thinking. Of course, the drugs are such a big money-maker, this will probably never change except for the worse. There have been hundreds of thousands of people killed directly by these drugs. Where is your compassion for these people who are killed by being trusting of an “approved” substance. They and their families have also been affected tremendously, as their present-day lives have been shattered and their futures cut short. In closing, there is almost never any mention of the crimes and rapes and killings that have been PREVENTED because of a gun, or guns, being in the possession of the intended victim or someone nearby. I can’t find, at the moment, a list the numbers of people falling into this category, and the comments by felons that they won’t attempt to assault someone suspected of having a gun. But they’re out there happening every day. You just don’t see it on the “news”. Incidentally, more people are killed every year by fists that guns. Regulate hands and fists and the deaths will stop? Over 1,200 people die every day from cigarettes – do they give a hoot? Just sayin’ ….. there’s a lot more behind the scenes to everything. Just look – money and power (control).

      • James says:

        Marshall, You are 100% correct .Here are some other facts .
        1- 14 recent school shootings were committed by those taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs. There have been 109 wounded ,and 58 killed .Of the 14 shooters, 7 were seeing a psychiatrist (5) or psychologist (2).
        2- Huntsville , Alabama 2-5-12. 15 y/o Hammad Memon shot and killed a student. Memon had a history of treatment for ADHD and depression . He was seeing a psychiatrist and psychologist and was taking zoloft and other drugs for the conditions.
        3-Columbine,Colorado 4-20-1999 . 18 y/o Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 12 Students, a Teacher and wounded 26 before killing themselves. Harris was on LUVOX. Klebolds record remains sealed .
        3- Springfield, Oregon 5-21-1998 . 15 Y/O Kip Kinkel murdered his parents and then went to school where he opened fire and killed 2 and wounded 25 . Kinkel had been taking PROZAC and was under the care of a psychologist .
        I think it’s time to start looking at something else other than the failed gun control program . Lets start looking at what the psychiatrists and psychologists prescribing to People . . .

        • Gerard Gingras says:

          Just info: Psychologists are PhD (doctor of philosophy) and can’t prescribe meds. Psychiatrists have medical degrees and can prescribe meds.

          Don’t fall into the anti-gun mode of thinking and lump them together. Same as a semi=automatic firearm is not an automatic firearm.

        • Reba says:

          I agree with James and Marshall. Gun control is not the answer to these shootings. I think that our young people today are de-sensitized by pharmaceuticals. They have become non-empathatic because of technology. I mean, why break up with someone in person where they have to feel the emotion when they can just text it.(example) Much of the problem is no one knows who is the bad guy or who’s the good guy. And ANY object, not just guns, can be used to kill people. I am all for a person protecting themselves, family, and their property regardless of what they use. These people that committed these horrible acts would have found some other way to carry out their agenda even if all guns were banned. They may have killed more, possibly. As for the statement made about ‘feeling safe’, it is obsurd to ‘feel safe’ or depend on a ban or law for that feeling. I want to BE safe. The only person you can depend on for that is yourself. I see our right and freedoms disappearing, day by day. Such a sad state when people see the govt created by them for them being dismantled slowly by politicians and law enforcement playing with words to change the meaning of our basic rights. And although a malitia may sound radical, I’m afraid that’s where our country is headed. Bailey-I understand the article you wrote, however, that is not the solution to the problem.
          James-Please don’t forget about the Amish school shooting either.

    • Lee says:

      Thank you, Jerry for your insight. You are correct in that the Bill of Rights does not grant us any rights – it AFFIRMS rights that we already possess naturally, from God. The government CANNOT remove or abridge (or regulate) any of those rights even if it passes explicit bans on them! Understand, the government CANNOT (not “should not” or “ought not”) change these rights. The government has NO right to mess with them, period. If the government passes a “law” forbidding the possession of guns, IGNORE it! They CANNOT do that.

  • Dave says:

    The pro comment is absolutly right-on Muskets WERE the ASSAULT RIFLES OF THEIR DAY – I’d be willing to bet 99.9% of the people out there don’t have a weapon coming even CLOSE to firing a 100 rounds a minute.This is THE PROBLEM people let the media run away with what common sense they’ve got and continue to spot off about things they know NOTHING ABOUT The tragic issue here is one of negligence – Nancy Lanza knew her son was ill – why were’nt those guns trigger-locked with her keeping the keys on her person? She’d be ALIVE today along with 27 other people – The point/issue is DON’T PUNISH THE MAJORITY FOR ONE PERSONS NEGLIGENCE!!How many peoples lives are SAVED DUE TO THE USE OF A FIREARM? MANY MORE THAN ARE EVER KILLED IN TRAGEDIES LIKE SANDY HOOK.The FBI has documented proof that VERY FEW RIFLES ARE EVER USED IN HOMICIDES – MORE PEOPLE DIE OF STAB WOUNDS – WHATS NEXT BANNING EDGED COOKING UTENSILS?

    • Jerry says:

      To Dave,

      The basics of your statement may be true but to assume the murders would not have happened because of a possible initial denial of a gun by the mom had she used trigger locks or even a safe ignores the obvious. The fact is he could have used any number of means to secure the “key” such as a knife, a bat, a mag light or even torture. The problem is a civil society tries to judge evil acts based on that civility. Those who are inclined to perform these acts of evil are under no such restraints and merely seek their own personal form of social acknowledgement thru these acts of violence that the media is only to willing and culpable to provide. Want proof.. name one victim of the following murderers: Ted Bundy, Ted Kazinski, Adolf Hitler, etc.

    • Sandy says:

      Good comment, and very good question at the. Yes that is probably what they will try to ban next. WE THE PEOPLE, NEED TO STAND FIRM FOR THE CONSTITUTION. And the God given “Rights” which it affirms.
      Maybe a first step would be to begin getting our ‘news’ from the growing number of conservative news organizations, including this one; or get on board the groundswell to get XM radio to pick up Fox News again; enough consumer complaints and they WILL do it. Money talks (and it capable of walking).

  • Vince says:

    Let’s all be frank about this discussion; the government will always be better armed than the people, but they will never have as many arms as the total populace. We have the largest armed civilian militia in the world, and if the need arose, we would mobilize this force like this world has never seen before. Just think “Red Dawn”, but without the usual Hollywood dramatics. Thats the reasoning the Japanese hierarchy decided, that to attack mainland America would be quick suicide, where there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. Don’t forget the main objectives, to be secure in your home and your country. I don’t have an answer for crazies using commomly-owned weapons to kill innocents, but I do know one thing; they will not be as successful if good people with guns are nearby to stop them. We cannot put our immediate safety in the hands of the police, they are too few and spread thinner that armed citizens. Don’t allow fear-mongering media and politicians chase us into a corner where we will be forced to give up our primary means of protection, guns. An armed man/woman is a citizen, an unarmed one is a subject.

  • ChuckL says:

    Response to Bailey O’Malia, RE; Point: The Right to Bear Arms—Within Reason

    Dear Bailey,

    You started well but in paragraph 4 you introduced a false premise. You try to limit the arms that are protected to one of the least effective available at the time.

    Revolutionary War period smoothbore muskets were quite inaccurate. Soldiers lined up in long lines and fired massive amounts of lead balls at each other. Commanders hoped these deadly volleys would break holes in the enemy line. Once the enemy line was breached, soldiers with bayonets could rush in to create panic and break the enemy’s formation. Cavalry could then ride in and hack at the panic-stricken opponents. At that point demoralized soldiers might ask for quarter and surrender their weapons.





    There is much more available.
    A typical rifle was .50 caliber, made of curly maple, full stock and sported a 42 to 46 inch barrel. A crescent-shaped buttplate, patchbox and cheekpiece were also common and are helpful in identifying a KY/PA long rifle.
    The long rifle was a prime factor in several Revolutionary era battles, especially in the West. Perhaps due to this heritage, Kentuckians were known as sharpshooters from the revolutionary War through WWII and even as late as Vietnam.
    Col George Hanger, a British officer, became very interested in the American rifle after he witnessed his bugler’s horse shot out from under him at a distance, which he measured several times himself, of “full 400 yards”, and he learned all he could of the weapon. He writes:
    “I have many times asked the American backwoodsman what was the most their best marksmen could do; they have constantly told me that an expert marksman, provided he can draw good & true sight, can hit the head of a man at 200 yards.”
    Quotations from M.L. Brown’s, FIREARMS IN COLONIAL AMERICA
    More on the KY Longrifle: Kentucky Rifles – How They Earned Their Name

    Your argument would have us limited to defensive arms that are completely useless for self defense against the criminals who have performed all of these atrocities.

    The facts are somewhat different. The writers of the Constitution in fact preserved the right and as shown in their writings the obligation to be well armed. As people who had just recovered their country from one dictatorial ruler, they wanted to insure that no other dictator could arise and take over the country and again reduce the citizens to slaves of the dictator. The arms that they preserved for the People, were in fact better than those of the military, not less effective. The intention was to preserve the nation, and incidentally also provide for self protection from criminals and invaders and to insure that trained persons were always available if needed to defend the country. This served us well in both World Wars.

    Your second to last paragraph reinforces the argument for an armed and arms bearing citizenry. Your statement is correct as far as it goes, but you completely ignore the fact that in each and every case of mass murders, the location was a “Gun Free Zone”. The correct name for these zones is not or should not be “Gun Free” but “Criminal Protection Zone” because in these areas the criminal does not have to worry about being stopped by an armed citizen.

    You are pushing for the disarmament of the “good guys” because guns cause violence. The problem is that you have not argued for the disarmament of the police, and despite what you may think, there are more cases of police shooting innocent persons than there are of private citizens shooting innocent persons. For this purpose, I do not accept that anyone who has broken into a home, to steal, pillage, or rape is innocent. I also do not accept that anyone should have to hide in terror while the police may or may not arrived before the criminal decides to eliminate the witnesses.

    And just in case you have not heard it before, “Freedom is NOT FREE”. It must be protected or it will be taken away. You also seem to have a problem understanding that “Safe” and “Free” are not synonyms.

    A person serving a life sentence in a jail cell is “safe”, but certainly not free.

    You said. “So when the discussion of changing the gun laws is brought up I think, what a perfectly simple solution; ban all automatic weapons.” Perhaps you are unaware, but this was done over 70 years ago.

    What you might ask is why have all of these incidences increased since Barack H. Obama has been (Illegally) placed in the office of the President of the United States. His own books provide the information that he is NOT a “natural born citizen” as required in the Constitution for eligibility to hold the office.

    You also said. “If you’re pro-guns at this point you’re probably saying “but it’s my right, and they’re taking away all of our rights.” In this I should simply refer to the Founding Fathers again and their statements that a free man has an obligation to be armed. It is not a “right”; it is an “obligation”.

    Then perhaps you should take a good look at your statement, “So before you start spouting your founding fathers crap, take a second to think about the core principle that this country was supposedly built on: freedom.”

    Your reference to the “founding fathers crap” provides us with your attitude about the Constitution which has until the last 50 years when the Progressive Party infiltrated the Democratic Party and took it over built this country which was agrarian and hunting when founded into the greatest and most productive in the world. As such we restored freedom to the world twice. Then we started to hold the government responsible for the total welfare of everyone living in the country while completely ignoring Margaret Thatcher’s warning that the PROBLEM WITH SOCIALISM IS THAT YOU EVENTUALLY RUN OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY. The comparison with slavery is outstanding, as both the citizens under socialism and slaves under the plantation owner have the following:
    Both have no responsibility for their own food; it is provided.
    Both have no responsibility for their own health; care is provided.
    Both have no responsibility for their own housing; it is provided.
    Both have no responsibility for their own job; it is provided.
    Both have no responsibility to think, only to support the “boss”.

    Words are not fungible, despite the liberal penchant to redefine them for each occasion.

    Parasites are dependent upon the host.

    • Reba says:

      How dare you compare slavery to socialism. I am sure, before the slaves were brought here they HAD responsibilities to their families. Responsibilities TAKEN AWAY from them by a capitalist society. No responsibility for their food, that’s if they were even given food.
      No responsibility for their health-the slaves had to take care of themselves. Slaves owners did not furnish aid to the sick and dying.
      No responsibility for housing-I guess you consider a shack a house.
      No responsibility for a job-job implies you get paid, slaves were forced to work for nothing.
      No responsibility to think-slaves would get killed for thinking for themselves.
      Find something else to compare to a socialist govt. That was a very bad comparison.

      • Toni Smith says:

        actually i think it is a good comparison. responsibilities taken away by govt instead of capitalist society.
        no responsibility for food. they were given food or they could not work. and they would die very quickly. dont forget that slaves also commanded a large sum of money hence why only the wealthy could afford them.
        no responsibility for their health. yes often the slaves did take care of themselves but then they did not have the medicine like we do now. back then it was all herbal remedies which all people had a good knowledge of and if they did not they were doomed to die anyway.
        no responsibility for housing. for common people a house was more a one room shack anyway at the time. it was only the wealthy that could afford nice big houses like we call housing now.
        no responsibility for a job. yes hey were given a job and payment was in all those other things they received like food, accommodation and health care which was often provided in the form of a herb garden (refer to above for what health care mostly consisted of).
        no responsibility to think. no in many cases they did not and were just told what to do. sometimes though there were slave owners that if a slave approached them with an idea that would make the work easier and more efficient the slave owner would make use of the idea and reward the slave with better conditions… more food. better bedding etc.
        as it is these days in business there were good and bad slave owners. the bad ones often went bankrupt cos of the cost of replacing slaves that were not well cared for, while the better ones made fortunes by having less turnover of slaves (eg buying new ones from slave traders who made the lions share of the slave trade cos they captured them, imprisoned them and carted them to where they were to be sold which also cost money btw cos the slaves had to be in saleable condition when they got to where they were going.
        in business today owners that take a dictatorial approach often fail with high turnover of staff, theft, etc. good bosses that listen to staff ideas and work with them on solving problems often go ahead. there is less cost on business in that they do not have to provide the necessities of living and maintain those properties though they do have to provide a wage that will cover living expenses and the cost of getting to and from work cos they are not living on site.
        yes the ideal of socialist society does not contain the downfalls but that is the IDEAL of it which would need every person in power to be a complete altruist and not in it for what they could get out of it (power, money, etc). sadly for most people that is not the case at all and is especially true of those that seek to be in govt. usually it is only those that are pushed to those positions by peers who dont really want the position but just want to see the best for their peers who make the best leaders. this is why i do not like the party system but would rather everyone in politics was an independent and had to take full responsibility for how they vote in session on bills and fully answerable to their electorate. what we have in the party system is much the same as organised crime where individuals find it very difficult to follow their conscience and what their electorate wants but rather has to follow the party line.

        think long and hard about this.

  • Gina Collins says:

    Bailey you are so far off base it is ludicrous. The idea that the forefathers had in mind with the right to bear arms was the defense of the nation against a tyrannical government. If they come to your door with harmful intent… do you want to have a musket in the face of their automatic weapons???
    And, neither our forefathers nor their intentions are crap in my book.
    Get a grip here.

  • Don says:

    I’m from Australia and we had one of those ” Mass shooting incidents ” where a mentally disadvantaged citizen was supposed to have perpetrated an impossible amount of carnage. The media whipped up enormous hysteria among the population and in that heat of the moment, convinced the population on a
    “Gun Buyback”. Now our law abiding population is totally hamstrung with extreme gun controls, and for the criminals, it’s business as usual. In fact I am pretty sure that there have been more drive-by shootings than ever before. It was never about ” protecting the people “, but EVERYTHING about disarming the population and leaving us defenceless should we become dissatisfied with the powers that be. See through it America, and see it for what it is, your government has the same agenda as ours. Keep your weapons.

    • paul young says:

      there are many good points made here backing the 2nd amendment , but the most important are the reasons listed by our founding fathers, washington , madison and jefferson , who all stated “it was to proect us from the tyranny of our OWN government” that very government who is now trying to take our rights ,liberties, freedoms, and now our weapons…………………….the only thing backing up the first amendment is our 2nd amendment………………..from a retired peace officer

  • Grandma J says:

    Too bad we don’t have a ban on speech by people like Bailey until she gets her facts straight. (Just kidding of course because we have a First Amendment right too). I am just guessing but she is probably under 30 0r 35 years old and a product of our brainwashed Public schools who no longer teach kids how to think, get their facts straight or even know the Constitution or Bill of Rights. To say our founding Fathers wisdom is crap shows she know nothing about history.
    Thank you Jerry for pointing out the fact that the 2nd Amendment did not give us the right but Affirmed our right to bear and keep arms against a government who wants to take all of our rights including our religious rights. I am in my sixties and this present administration is like no other I have seen in my life and we should be fearful of losing all of our rights in a very short time. If they come for your guns, you will not have any rights left. This is why I stand in awe of the wisdom of the Founding Fathers wisdom to see hundreds of years in advance and write the Constitution and Bill of Rights to protect us from dictators.
    No so called assault weapons ban will work because the one we had did not. The Columbine shooting happened during the ban so how do they explain that? And thank you Tas for bringing up the fact that our government is buying up all kinds of ammo. Why are they doing that? The fact that more people die of stab wounds should be enough to make one think before they speak.
    I do fear a government that wants to take away our rights but more to be feared are the people that voted them in!

    • Ron R says:

      Good point Grandma. If we are going to ignore one amendment to the Constitution, how about ignoring most of the others? For example, we could start with ignoring the First Amendment and shut down Ms Bailey’s speech? Or perhaps we could ignore the Fifth Amendment and just start convicting criminals via secret panels with no recourse for the convicted person? Or perhaps we could ignore the amendment giving women the right to vote? The problem is that many individuals are not being taught the basis for the freedoms they enjoy. They do not recognize that the framework for all their rights is the Constitution. If you can ignore part of it, you can ignore all of it in the end (‘you’ meaning the government).

    • Sandy says:

      Right on, Grandma. I’m a Grandma too and very proud of the fact that my two grandsons are well trained in handling guns as well as proficient hunters. I recently read an article that laid all the blame for our present condition. He is to blame, in that his “Change” is going in the wrong direction; but the fact of the matter is, it didn’t start with him.
      The real problem we need to change today is the fact that years ago we let lobbists (supported by big business) start influencing ALL of our elected officials at every level,from local to federal.

  • rick beyer says:

    Of course Ms. O’Malia has a right to feel safe. Wolves are happy to find defenseless sheep that feel safe. Sheep dogs, having fangs as well, among the sheep deter rash behavior of wolves, even rabid ones. Ms. O’Malia should feel very safe in a fang free pasture, like Chicago.

  • Mark Buffington says:


    Its early Morning here in Minnesota. I am a constitutional law researcher and have an extensive background in areas of law that few lawyers or judges understand. The subject matter is property rights and their associated constitutional judicial protections. To understand gun control, you MUST understand the system and how it functions. As for federal gun control, the(second amendment) right cannot be reached.

    Its a bit rough, but see below as comments I posted on several website forums.

    Lets ban “assault rifles. Hmm word play. Isn’t “assault” a crime or
    phrase associated with criminal activity? So lets reclassify weapons
    necessary for self defense and yes that includes weapons needed for
    defense of self AND the State as those which would have not fit that use
    therefore their only purposes would be for criminal purposes. Yes, the
    courts have laid out the distinctions. One class can be prohibited under
    the States police powers. The other, falling within the protection of
    the second amendment.
    Then, lets create federal gun laws that only allow possession of all
    firearms via transfer. Place that control within the hands of an
    administrative agency (BATF originally under department of treasury). And understand
    that the treasury involves plenary power of Congress to lay and COLLECT
    taxes. A power outside of judicial interference.
    Regardless of who is actually required to pay the tax along the chain
    of transfer, USSC opinion along with statutory language recognize that
    the act of “transfer” is a taxable privilege upon those engaged in the business of
    manufacturing and dealing.
    Regulate those so properly classified in a business/occupational
    privilege that affects a (second amendment) right not possessed by the
    licensee. (FFL) Impose federal regulations under the license for the
    purpose of the collection of the tax and use
    incidental powers (commerce) to regulate the movement of the property for the primary purpose of collection of the excise AND to aid the States in the
    enforcement of their police powers. (IN OR AFFECTING INTERSTATE
    Provide federal aid to the States in the enforcement of
    those police powers. Apply conditions to the receipt of those funds and then
    rely on federal preemption laws UNDER THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE for the
    purpose of taxation and administrative control.
    Again, the second amendment does NOT apply to those engaged in
    manufacturing and dealing. The administrative concept of transfer is
    judicially recognized as an activity subject to taxation and commerce
    control. IN COMES THE GUN CONTROL ACTS. Do not allow the firearm to be
    sold to the public upon which the second amendment directly applies, but
    require it to be RE TRANSFERRED as a CONDITION PRECEDENT to mere
    possession. Require the transferee…THE PUBLIC…to sign paperwork in
    the process of TRANSFER that is nothing more than a sworn statement that places absolute conditions on the property (waiver that creates due process exceptions)
    getting the citizen to admit that he/she fits those engaged in a taxable
    activity in which the second amendment does not apply. IN LAW, A
    subject to administrative oversight authorized under the plenary powers
    of the political branches. THINK PEOPLE…ITS ONE OR THE
    AND MAGICALLY, the PROPERTY, the second amendment, and the
    constitution including the prohibition against the imposition of ex post
    facto laws have been REMOVED FROM JUDICIAL REVIEW under the doctrine of
    Then bring in Executive orders pre authorized by Gun control Acts.
    Apply administrative seizure and forfeiture laws….for the protection
    of the public. (NFA of 1934 “destructive devices classification”) Seize
    all firearms thus prohibited. The property right cannot be reached so
    the fact that property cannot be taken without just compensation now HAS
    Whats stopping them? Whats stopping them from imposing a tax on
    manufacturers and dealers so great that it “indirectly destroys the
    right? As the USSC recognized long ago, the power to tax is the power to
    destroy. “its not a question of amount, but one of power”. Congress has
    NOT gone directly against the second amendment but has used its taxing
    commerce powers either through the statutory mandated misapplication of
    administrative powers or by an unchallenged and alleged “power to
    prohibit”…here before recognized and ridiculed by the USSC…….. to
    accomplish what they cannot do directly.
    It has also effectively preempted the tenth amendment. And for those so
    properly classified as being subject to a “political question”
    administrative power (BATF)….what second amendment??? Who has standing? The public…the citizenry? NOT
    In any possible challenge, how would a court sit in relation to the “RIGHT” as that
    right was affected by the enforcement of the law?? JUDICIALLY?? No
    Whats stopping them? Civil war? Yes. So lets use the power to
    destroy….as a means to manipulate the “right out of existence. Death
    by 1000 cuts…..and the courts are removed under the doctrine of
    separation of powers. A doctrine which by the way, was created by the
    judicial branch.

  • Deb Broughton says:

    The Constitution gives us the right to bear arms, not the government. No one can take away that right. That’s the simple truth of the matter. Automatic weapons are no more dangerous locked up in a safe or hanging on a wall than the fly that crawls past them. We need to spend more time legislating how we should take care of our mentally ill population and less time being afraid they might shoot us. We’re far more likely to get hit by a car. The liberals in this country are following the progressive idea that an unarmed populace is one that is far more easily overrun than one that is heavily armed and well able to defend itself. We will not be cowed into giving up our weapons. We will not be subdued by either our government or others who don’t like the idea that we can protect ourselves. It is said Japan did not invade our mainland because they knew we were all armed. It’s important to be as well-armed as the bad guys because they aren’t going to pay attention to any gun laws. Ask the shop keepers in London whether or not they’d have had an advantage with a gun when their shops were torched by rampaging mobs last year. If all you have is ball bat, you’re too close to the person intending you harm. My advice to people like Bailey is to stop spreading fear. You’re only harming yourself. When the bad guys start shooting you’d better hope someone with a bigger weapon is there to stop them.

  • Wayne Wright says:

    Every civilization evntually collapses under the weight of tyranny. Our Forefathers knew this, so they tried to let the people KNOW they have the right to try to stop it. They did not give us that right, nor does any document. God does.

    In every case of Government sponsored genocide, the people were first disarmed. Every time the people are dosarmed, genocide follows.

    The Government has purchased over 1.4 BILLION rounds of ammo in various calibers over the last couple of years or so, much of it the aforementioned hollowpoint pistol ammo. All for CIVILIAN agencies, not the military.

    To see what Governemnt is capable of, one need not look far, even in this country, let alone world-wide. Waco. Ruby Ridge. New Orleans.

    Most, if not all, mass shootings in recent history were perpetrated by individuals on psychotropic drugs. Even the labels warn of the side effects that lead these deranged persons to their heinous acts. Also, in most cases, when the perp is confronted at last by armed resistance, they shoot themselves. Running into armed resistance early on in the form of an armed school staffer would stop most dead in their tracks (pun intended) before the body count escalated.

    It behooves us to look at these situations with our eyes open to the underlying causes, not the tools used to accomplish the killings. Evil will use any tool available, whether that be guns, knives, video games, TV and movies, even the education system. And cowards will always choose to attack the innocent and defenseless, preferably in “GUN-Free Zones” where resistance is unlikely.

    People, our downfall is PLANNED by those whould oppress us and rob us of our freedoms, dignity, money, and yes, our lives. A “civil War” of gunowners against those who choose to back the oppressors in their desire to disarm us is EXACTLY what they want. The military has been training in recent years to quell domestic uprisings, in conjunction with civilian law enforcement. Not for nothing, or with any good intention.

    The Fema prisons and multiple body plastic coffins await. The oppressors care not if the bodies loaded into either died of bullet wounds, disease, or starvation. But unarmed serfs die easier.

    Our biggest problem is believing the lie that “it can’t happen here”.

    It has, and it is, and it will. Revelation and Daniel tell of the incredible carnage of the End Times. I believe it, and that those times are coming to fruition.

    And God doesn’t lie.

    It isn’t “Conspiracy Theory” when you have proof.

    • Randy says:

      Good for you Wayne you are right on, History tells a story about man and his sin time and time again. Remember we need to look at human history as a warning to what man is capable of doing to man. If not for His Story (History) we would all be doomed to hell for eternity.
      A God given right to protect one’s self, yes and our Founding Fathers understood this because for the most part they were God fearing men.
      As the Flag of long ago states DON’T TREND ON ME.

  • charley says:

    The founding fathers and nation as a Christian society with the absolute law of the Bible to guide their morals….Did not fear individuals as much as they feared governments….Benjamin Frnaklin quote is appropriate here

    “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” …

  • John says:

    I have no issues with law abiding citizens owning leagel weapons. The AR 15 when purchased new from a licensed dealer are not fully automatic. They are to remain that way and yes I’m aware they can be easily converted and then they are illeagal.I do feel for innocent people that lose their lives from senseless act of rage.
    I believe we have a greater problem with the availability to purchase intoxicating beverages at gas stations. Although most auto accidents involving overconsumption of intoxicating beverages don’t normally have the mass loss od lives in a single accident. The media runs with sensationalism.

  • richard says:

    Oh Tim my man YOU ARE SO CORRECT I don`t recall the first time I ever knew of a criminal that obeyed the laws (Ithink that just might possibly be why they are reffered to as CRIMINALS). I am only with you on this 1MILLION% My only regret is that there are not more people like your self it it ONLY COMMONSENSE. But I am guessing that it is so easy to figure out that it escapes the use of both logic and that nasty little word COMMONSENSE. That is probably what keeps the schrinks in business.

  • Joe says:

    Well, everyone else weighed in eloquently and thoroughly. All I can add is that you should probably fire her. Honestly, do you need someone with this sort of mentality in an organization with your stance (Absolute Rights)? Sound’s like a very weak link in your organizational chain.

    • Doug says:

      You Forget that the Democrats are Masters of Debate, what is good for them no matter if it is wrong they will make it look O K and if a Republican gives the same thing before the Democrat says it, it is all wrong because they did not get the Credit in the first place. Giving them the option of doing away with the Automatic weapons is just a foot in the door to do away with other types of guns. I am sure this President has something cooking on the burners right now that will erode more of our rights.

      • Randy says:

        He already has Doug, with over 16,000 rules and regulations in just the past few days how much more is cooking in the next few.
        Wake up America wake up people Tyranny is ready to step through the door. According to the Holy Bible these things will come about before the Return of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
        God said it, It will be done.

  • As has been restated over and over again…the 2nd Amendment bears our right to possess arms. Very few citizens can afford the “fully automatic weapons” of which you speak. Most ARs…AKs etc that citizens own fire one bullet each time the trigger is pulled. Even when I was a cop I had an AR in my patrol vehicle because guess what the “bad guys” dont care what the gun laws are and its better to match them gun for gun than be outgunned. An armed populace is not easily overthrown. As previously stated the importance of us to have firearms is to prevent a tyranical government from overthrowing us. Just look around the world where law-abiding citizens have been disarmed: UK, Australia, etc. Now the State of IL wants to ban all firearms all together…why so they can have more murders? Chicago is the most dangerous city in the world with over 500 murders last year and no legal clause for citizens to be armed. Now with a total statewide gun ban possible…lets see what happens. No personal attacks here but I think you started off well till your terminology got out of whack.


    • roguehunter says:

      The Illinois bill died because the We The People spoke up. Chicago’s official homicide by gun count for 2012 was 532. Aurora, IL second largest city, does not have a gun ban, and did not have a single gun homicide last year. However, a state bill some years ago that was primarily about women in business had a rider tacked on it that outlawed the AR-15 by name and a number of other weapons for all of Cook County. Never advertised of course. But watch out if you are caught with one. Good excuse to take everything you own.

  • mike says:

    so that we can fight a tyranny government, if the government was armed with sticks and stones so should we! our government is armed with weapons that no civilian can get their hands on so bail out baily

  • Gustyj says:

    The problem is thee people shootoff there mouth without doing the research. I am an Aeronautical engineer and helped design the Saturn-5 Moon rocket, it had 7.5 million pounds of thrust. Now the problem started with the U.S government in 1990 they made a law that to not allow guns on school property and as a result the Five, Six snd Seven year old children were left in an unsecue position while the dam congress had armed guards all around them and the same with the president, he has spent 14 million dollars for his security just in the last two weeks. The COWARDS that do these mass killings know where to go where there are no guns so they no one will shoot back at them. The solution to this problem was solved by Israel Forty years ago and as I said if the IDIOTS had done a little RESEARCH they would not have MURDERED hundersds of people in the last 13 years. The solution was to arm the teachers and all other adults that worked at the schools and they have about one student killed per year. IT WORKS so why not use it, The congress should be charged with these murders the made the stupid rules and I am all for gun control ( all guns shoud be in the responsible hands that control the gun instead of in the hands of the COWARDS that do these mass shootings. And the assuld weapons the are in the homes of every home in Swizerland as many as three or Four per house and the have the lowest ceime rate and murder rate of any country in the entire world. Michelle Bachmann has one in her home and we should peromote conceled and if we could get 20% of our people with conceled carry we would have a policeman on ever corner and it would stop 90% of the crime. I believe Senator Feinstein has a conceled carry weapon even though she has armed guards around her.

  • Brian says:

    Bailey if you hadn’t noticed muskets at that time were the up to date assault weapons, THINK WOMAN get your head out of somewhere it shouldn’t be , the next thing is that anyone can buy an automatic if you have the money to buy the gun have it registered with the gov. and pay for the stamp that goes with the gun for ever.Everyone mis leads the term automatic anautomatic weapon is a weapon that when the trigger is pulled can empty the mag. in seconds or be changed to fire short bursts or single shots from a selector switch.The weapons that we or most of su own are SEMI AUTOMATICS meaning that the weapon will only shoot ONE SHOT PER PULL OF THE TRIGGER, you people have EVERY ONE THINKING WE ALL OWN FULLY AUTOMATIC WAEPONS TO SPRAY BULLETS EVERY WHERE WHAT ARE YOU PEOPLE THINKING TELL THE REAL FACTS

  • David says:

    Now more than ever we need true gun control, what I mean is the training and practice to control your firearm to shot when needed and safely keep it out of untrained hands. Now our goverment is acting like England at the time of the revoltion, congress voteing on bills without knowing what is in them is that not the same as TAXSAION WITHOUT REPSENTATION

  • Tom O'Neill says:

    First of all let me set the record straight. The majority of gun owners do not have military grade assault weapons. They have single shot (Semi-Auto) weapons which means they have a weapon which looks like a military grade weapon but can only fire a bullet every time you pull the trigger. Automatic weapons are against the law (Sullivan act of the 1930’s) to own with out a special permit. A pistol (COWBOY GUN)carries six shots in it magazine but you don’t consider thay an assault weapon so why do these so-called political experts consider an AR-15 an assault weapon just because it looks like a military assault weapon. Now I agree something must be done but with the people who procure weapons. Sellers need to have a better way to tell if a purchaser is mentally stable. Would you consider a single shot 50 Caliber rifle an assault weapon? It meets the same restrictions as a musket. Long rifle, single shot but this is a military assault rifle. Go Figure. I am concerned that this President and his liberal Congress will take my Constitutional Rights am I will not allow that to happen with out a fight. I am an American and the Constitution is my birthright. The 2nd Amendment is part of that document. Remember, their are about another 93 million gun toters who will not give up their rights just because so crazy old woman like Sen. Feinstein and old man like Mayor Bloomberg wants to take my weapon away.

    • roguehunter says:

      The gun seller is not trained or licensed to evaluate mental competency. It is required of a mental health professional, who is, to report a person as incompetent which would come up in a back ground check. But a conflict for some are the HIPPA laws and confidentially. However, as a result of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14 (Cal. 1976)it became a mandated and legal requirement for mental health professionals to report a person who was a threat to self or others. The law is in place, it just is not being followed.

  • James says:

    Like president oboma said we don t fight with muskets and
    baonets anymore . We the same fire power.

  • charley says:

    Tim ONeil quote:
    Now I agree something must be done but with the people who procure weapons. Sellers need to have a better way to tell if a purchaser is mentally stable.”

    This defies logic. If we claim individual liberty….then how can we put sellers responsible for the mentally stable…. individuals need to do this…or we are on a slippery slope to where we are….

  • RGW says:

    I was right there with Bailey until I got to this sentence:

    “In the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy Americans and politicians have spent time reflecting on gun

    Therein, I believe is the crux of the problem. We
    should not be reflecting on gun control. The
    government has no authority to impose gun control.
    Without the meddling of the government in this
    issue there is a good chance these types of crimes
    would have vastly different outcomes. Others have
    made substantial arguments in this forum against gun control so I will not rehash them.
    What I have been reflecting on is the destruction
    of our moral code that creates these monsters who
    prey on innocent and defenseless people. I have no
    intention of getting into a theological debate. The
    way I see it mankind is a created being that was
    given a freewill to obey the Creator’s rules, or not.
    Adam and Eve chose not and thereby began the decline
    that brings us to today. We all have within us the
    capacity to commit these horrific crimes. What keeps
    most of us from doing so? It is the moral code instilled in us as we grew up. None of us needed to
    be taught to be bad, it just comes naturally. We did
    need to be taught what is good and acceptable. When
    we remove the Creator’s rules and replace them with
    what each of us deems to be right or true we get
    what we now have, unspeakable evil.
    Fingers can be pointed to every degree on the compass
    as to where the fault lies, including the churches.
    Until we return to the rules of the Creator, which He
    left for us in the Bible, I’m afraid we can expect
    only more of the same.

    • roguehunter says:

      There are over 2000 laws at various levels in place now. Most are reasonable. We don’t need more laws, we need people to know them and follow through. Where they are not, we can indeed look to the crumbling of the moral code.

  • Miki says:

    One neighbor of mine has several assault rifles. I know he will let me use one if needed in our area. I know the problem isn’t owning the weapons and I will never give up what I have. However, why don’t they come out with the danger these kids and and are watching on all the game shows and then think they can do it without any problems.
    Both my sons (who are adults now) were taught how to handle a weapon. They got to practice to see what can really be done with one. Used melons for them to “kill”. They know what would happen if it was used wrong. My weapons have always been easy to get to and loaded. I never had a problem with my kids.
    Too many people refuse to let them see reality and then they watch in games and think they can do that to. If the government wants to really help it’s people, take off the damage being done on games and TV. But don’t slowly take away what I have for protection so you can rule the world.
    (sorry if it doesn’t sound right, I’ve had a bad accident and still getting my wording right, but am not releasing any of my weapons)

  • Anne says:

    “Feeling” safe is NOT one of my rights. I could be stabbed by a lunatic walking down the sidewalk – we are NOT safe, not on the sidewalk, not in our homes.
    However, we can be prepared to cope with threats by being alert to our surroundings, perhaps keeping other people between ourselves and that guy who really looks strange and hostile. The problem is that once we’ve identified a threat, what do we do? For those of us who are physically sub par, a gun is one of the things that can put us on par with the hopped-up tall muscular home intruder.
    A video made in England, where they’ve taken all handguns out of civilian hands, people talked about home invasions, in one of which the invader was shot, the homeowner went to prison, the invader is now free and he is suing the homeowner. People talked about being unable to protect themselves, being broken into multiple times. Many people said what a mistake the gun ban had been. One person they interviewed had advice for Americans. He said that we are on the same path as they were and are. He said, “Don’t give up your guns. Don’t give an inch.”
    In my state, I’ve already compromised. I had to fill out multiple forms, getting character references from my neighbors, getting fingerprinted, having them check to see if I have been treated for mental illness, and then I had to wait for months for permission to pick up the gun the dealer was holding for me. I begin to think that Brit was right – we shouldn’t give another inch.

  • BILL says:

    She cant think of a single reason why anyone would need an assault rifle? She apparently has no concept of having to defend herself. Apparently she does not know that the gangs and bad guys already have them and are not giving them up no matter what law you pass. That will leave the bad guys with the guns and the good guys disarmed. So – as a “Good Guy” I need an assault rifle to defend myself against the bad guys with equal force as the Founders invisioned it. It is people like her that are going to get me killed. I have been shot at 4 times, 2times with assault rifles. So – dont tell me the threat is not real. ON MUSKETS – Many of the Americans had “Rifled” Muskets – the most advanced weapon of the day and were encouraged to take them home – under the 2nd Amendment concept. Now does she think she is smarter than the founders? Poor, uninformed, dis-illusioned little girl – if she was not so dangerous to my life with her ideas I would pity her. She needs to come down here in Dog Patch USA and see how things really are and why people are buying guns. She clearly does not have a clue.

    • roguehunter says:

      The Kentucky rifle was a flintlock muzzle-loader, with a rifled barrel that ran to three or even four feet in length. The long barrel gave black powder more time to burn, increasing muzzle velocity; it also allowed for finer sighting, resulting in much greater accuracy at greater distances. Most of the rifles came in .40 or .45 caliber. The British didn’t stand a chance against a frontier rifleman who not only had a much better weapon, but was a crack shot. They were NOT muskets.

      Speaking to the notion that since muskets were in use at the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment it doesn’t apply to today’s weapons, one could insist that we must dress the same way the founding fathers and mothers dressed. It is a silly argument. No doubt that is the reason the TYPE of firearm is not mentioned in the amendment. I also suggest, Ms O’Malin, that you read all of the Federalist Papers before you pronounce on what the writers could have meant on anything, and you will find it is not crap.

  • Randy says:

    I think it unfortunate that we have lost the capacity for civil discourse. Although I disagree with Baileys’ argument and those similar arguments from the anti-gun lobby, she is obviously not a stupid person.
    Like many like-minded people today, she has been taught to rely on the government for protection and the thought of defending against that same government is very difficult or impossible to imagine.
    As others who have commented, I believe the intent of the Founders via the Constitution was to arm the populace in order to protect our citizens from violence; be it from other individuals or from the government itself. We call them patriots, but please bear in mind that these gentlemen were revolutionaries. They had fought a war of liberation and were trying to insure that the citizenry of this nation would always be able to defend themselves.
    In these times, the Political Class is increasingly isolating themselves from “We the People”. They have passed laws pulling the teeth of the protections found in the Constitution. They have passed laws allowing us to be incarcerated without Due Process or Habeus Corpus. Just one example is that we have many existing drone control sites in the continental United States with more on the way. These are to designed to watch us, not to “Protect & Serve” us.
    The military has weapons far more sophisticated and beyond the capabilities of the assault weapons we are discussing. Weapons that can see through walls, destroy an entire home with one round, and kill at incredible distances. Should these ever be turned against us, the only way our assault rifles would be able to defend us is by sheer numbers.
    Like many, I pray this day never comes, when once again brother fights against brother. And many would say this could never happen. But many of the actions that we currently witness (or worse, aren’t even aware of)the President and Congress taking would have been deemed impossible 50 years ago, even 30 years ago.
    I’m sorry if others are “offended” but I would much rather have an assault weapon and not need it than need it and not have it!

  • Joy says:

    The simplest reason in the world for Americans to have arms is sitting right now in Washington: a sell-out President and Legislative body. They aren’t going to protect us, since they’ve managed to remove a good portion of most state’s National Guards to fight in Afganistan and points east. After what went on after Hurricane Katrina, I’m not going to sit around and wait for ‘the establishment’ to make sure I’m safe. The Federal government of the US is rapidly becoming a very bad joke, and so bloated with bureacracy it can’t get out of its own way, much less get you help if you ever need it. Forget investing in 401K’s or municipal bonds: buy bullets. Theyr’e a lot harder for the Feds to seize than your retimrement accounts are going to be.

  • Anne says:

    One more point on the topic of “need” and what kind of gun someone “needs” for self defense.
    You realize, of course, that we civilians don’t need cars that go more than 65 miles per hour. So let’s restrict them; after all cars kill a lot of people every year. And part of the problem is alcohol. Who needs bars? Let’s close them all. And while we’re at it, cars would be cheaper if they were only made in one color. We don’t need all those colors. So let’s mandate black as the color for cars.

    I have a problem with somebody else deciding for me what I need. And the problem gets scary when the “somebody” is the government.

    • roguehunter says:

      Well said! I feel more and more suffocated with the Nanny state putting out over 60 rules a day. Of course, they don’t apply to the government. We are on a slippery slope – it won’t take much to move from telling me what to eat or drive to telling me I can’t live any longer because I am taking resources from the working drones.

  • Robert Seddon says:

    Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in the hands of those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear. Quote from Pravda Russian Newspaper

    PLEASE define “AUTOMATIC WEAPONS”? Unless you have a class three FFL FEDERAL firearms license you CAN NOT OWN AUTOMATIC WEAPONS under an EXISTING LAW. What this lady, in error I might add says is an automatic assault rifle, is NOT ONE. The AR 15 that I own is totally incapable of firing 100 rounds a minute, as it is a semi automatic rifle, and it is NOTHING LIKE THE FULLY AUTO CAPABLE WEAPONS THE POLICE AND MILITARY USE.

    Now, on to second amendment. We have the right to bear and keep arms as a fail safe for security and protection of farm and family. What if the government falls? What if the police run out of ammunition? Japaneese Admiral Hirohito said that he would NEVER attack the American Homeland proper, as there would be a crazy American behind every blade of grass and tree with a rifle aimed AT HIM. He was NOT as afraid of the military.

    I have a right to keep and bear a firearm to protect MY FARM. What happens when the police are 15 minutes away and death is 30 seconds away? I carry a pistol because a cop weighs too much. I would get real tired lugging one around.

    As the first paragraph here states, I am SURE that you are NOT listening to what I am saying, as many voices like mine have spoken up, but your position HAS NOT CHANGED ONE BIT. Where is all of this compromise you speak of?
    Robert Seddon
    Mineral, Va.

  • Joe Dienstag says:

    No need to argue here I see. Everyone is wide awake and their eyes are open. I do like the simple explanations best though. The 2nd Amendment is not about any type of gun anyway. It’s about being ARMED to defend against all enemies both foreign and domestic. To have the ability to fight on as equal a playing field as possible. Sure, a shotgun is great for home invasions but a bit weak against an invading army or out of control government. THAT is what the 2nd Amendment is all about. Geez, they used to teach the Constitution and it’s intent in school. It would seem that she either missed those classes, forgot them, or just never received them.

  • Wallace says:

    I think this marine’s letter says it all:

    Senator Dianne Feinstein,

    I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime.

    You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

    I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.

    I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.

    I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

    We, the people, deserve better than you.

    Respectfully Submitted,

    Joshua Boston

    Cpl, United States Marine Corps


    • Wallace says:

      I hope we all realize, if this should happen (voluntarily or by force), the last bastion of freedom is finished and there will not be one to replace it. Ever again.

      I’m willing to give my all to defend my neighbor’s right to protect themselves, their property, and their future, from those who are knowingly and dishonestly working to destroy our country. That leadership in every ecclesiastical and political institution who work to keep the people in ignorance, and have them stand down, are not being removed by whatever means necessary and appropriately dealt with under law has not happened is beyond belief. Our ‘leadership’ won’t speak to any of this and the silence is deafening. I don’t care about their reasons anymore. Their credibility is long gone. Wolves in sheep’s clothing. Theives and murderers. Killers of babies and of society.

      Don’t look for anyone to speak up for the truth in any institution. Your religious, political and even family leadership have betrayed you and your posterity. To speak the truth of this now would only show their complicity in the problem and expose the complete fraud that has been perpetuated upon the people and those responsible. And they are often as close as your family, your neighbor, and your Pastor/Bishop.

      I will stand and be counted. Even if I stand alone. I will not be responsible or in any way complicit in the final death blow to this country. Nothing is more important than my integrity before God and loyalty to the principles upon which this nation was founded, which principles came from God Himself. Whatever consequences follow, this is where your true level of faith in God demonstrates itself. It’s easy to speak of faith and trust in Him, but not so easy to live it.

      The Declaration of Independence is clear regarding the nature of government and the inalienable rights of the individual to defend themselves and their family from one or many predators, be they the local thug or a gang of thieves. And that includes a usurpatious government operating under the color of law. If government oversteps its bounds, it is my right to withstand it. And I’ll not give up the one and only thing that allows me to do this and stands between me and complete and total slavery.

      Evil does not compromise. Whatever you give in to it, it will always take more. This is its nature. Make no mistake: unity and peace are only possible on the foundation of real truth, which comes from God. Anything else is an illusion and a fraud. Any perversion of the means will always result in a perverted end. Compromise with evil does not work. I hope we get this figured out before it’s too late.

      Forgive the disjointed nature of this. It was written in a hurry.

  • jim says:

    “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, their is liberty.” by Thomas Jefferson.

  • DaveB says:

    Wow… the [gun control] issue seems to be getting further polarized each time it comes around. Remember everyone, this is not the first time the control advocates have tried to abolish, by way of small steps, American gun rights and ultimatly all American rights.

    The media again weighs in with emotional press carefully designed to advance the cause of their masters. Anger and fear are powerful neuro toxins that have been scientifically proven to block rational thought processes. It’s not even new science as Hitler used the same to a population of otherwise sensible, humane, loving, family people. Spreading a campaign of fear, then anger, to blame a whole race of people for the economic woes created by a government against it’s own populace.

    Now they [the media] seem to have successfully polarized the american people into focusing on only two options, both of which take the heat of focus off the government’s own culpability for our present instability. Guns and the mentally challenged.

    Think about this for a minute… Suppose the government could limit your very existence by merely declaring you “mentally” unstable. Who among us has not suffered, in any measure small or large, the stresses of the past decade. Taxes, job loss, debt, inflation, etc., etc.. Has anyone on theis forum consulted their family doctor or a psychologist for stress related symptoms. How about our veterans returning home with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder? Heck, even school age children are being diagnosed and prescribed medications for stress related “illnesses”.

    Anyone see a way for the government to “control” segments of the population who don’t “toe the current party line”?

    Alright… look at the other side of the argument as constructed by the liberal controlled media. Gun Control…

    We already have laws that supposedly prohibit someone from using ANY weapon in the commission of a crime. How’s that working for us? Our own government has been exposed for circumventing these laws to provide “military style assault weapons” to drug cartels in order to advance some political agenda. Do we prosecute these offenders??? Are they any less mentally challenged than the young guns recently making media headlines?

    Forget gun laws for a second and consider that the largest financial meltown in history can be traced to a handful of individuals. The aftermath of bogus bailouts and unprecendented theft by the government to prop up political cronies is unheralded, and also unprecedented.

    While the average jane and joe struggle to find jobs, pay for rising food prices, and educate their children, etc. the government is taking their hard eaarned money and distributing it to greedy campaign contributors (and yes voters) to support their bad business decisions.

    While the average person is struggling, the government is giving away our future earnings wholesale so these friends can enjoy record bonueses.

    But let’s keep the people’s emotions focused on something else like anger and fear regarding guns and the mentally challenged affecting the safety of our children.

    I will offer several alternative foci but they would not advance the real cause or ambitions of the political elite.

    What about the thousands, perhaps millions, killed on federal highways every year (hundreds times more than are ever killed by firearms to be sure).

    Do the liberals advocate the restriction of driver’s licencing and access to automobiles? NO… quite the opposite! Millions of drivers on our highways and byways don’t even speak english or have a grade school level education. Alcoholics are routinely set free to drink and destroy some innocent family. And let’s not forget the “mentally” challenged… How many drivers are allowed to operate lethal vehicles under the influence of perscription drugs??? [sure there are laws againt these things but how effective are they… really]

    One final point of view before ceding the soapbox…

    What about the violent nature of video games and theatrical entertainment so prevelant in our society. Has anyone tried playing one of these without getting nervous or agitated?

    We live in a country where the government restricts the viewing of a graphic depiction of lovemaking (a hint of T or A), yet allows for the depiction of the most graphic of violence against men, women, and children to the point where young people are completely desensitized to the inhumanity.

    What’s wrong with THAT set of standards???

    The REAL issue here is how do we protect society from itself.

    Churches didn’t do it throughout the middle ages, governments have not done a stellar job throughout recorded history… both have tried and re-tried the same approach of attempting to control every aspect of the lives of their constituencies.

    Prohibition did not stop the consumption of alcohol nor it’s indirect effects on the lives of innocent millions. Our current drug war has not, and will not, stop the production and use of illicit drugs, nor the misuse of legal prescription drugs; and their direct and indirect effects on millions of innocent lives.

    Stop and seriously consider, has ANY government law, rule, mandate, tax, etc. worked as it was supposed to with no unintended negative consequences to the people? [I’m sure they advanced the cause of the politically aligned and special interest groups responsible for their creation]

    What we need, and the government with the help of their puppet media would like you to overlook, are rational solutions where people are allowed to take up more and more responsibility for their own lives.

    I don’t currently have a packaged solution to offer. However, there is ample historical precedence which clearly demonstrates that further restrictive law making will not solve these societal issues but will in fact destroy the fabric of our nation and set us on the same path of dictatorial leadership that we speak so openly and strongly against when it is demonstrated or even remotely implied to occur in another country.

    Just some food for thought…

    To paraphrase Stuart Chase; For those who believe, no exlanation or proof is required; For those who do not believe, no explanation or proof is possible…

  • Robert says:

    Banning assault weapons is just a way of “getting their foot in the door.” They are already trying to allow the UN to dictate our gun ownership policies. If that happens we are in really deep trouble. Few know that a treaty over rules our constitutional rights. In essence we can actually lose ou 2nd ammendant rights if the small arms treat is ratified. With the political climate,food shortages,financial climate and fresh water shortages existing today disarming the American public will disallow citizens to protect themselves and their families.

    • So Mo Bo says:

      You have hit the nail on the head.American people are just now yawning starting to wake up from a long and not so restful sleep.They smell the smoke but but do not realize how bad the fire is.If we lost the second amendment everything else goes with it.Pull Handle & flush our children
      and grand children future.

  • So Mo Bo says:

    It matters not muzzle loader or semi auto the intent of the second amendment was to protect the American people.In such times as what we are seeing unfold before us.Over reaching government and outside(united nations)influence.

    • Paul Wortman says:

      What too many of the opinionists tend to forget when they raise the “modern military firearms” arguement is the very simple fact that the flintlock, blackpowder musket in the hands of the unorganized Americans’ hands WERE the identical firearms in the hands of the mercenary and well trained national Armies of the time. Therefore, their basic premise that my opwnership of a SEMI-automatic version of a FULLY-automatic or SELECT-fire M4 is spacious! I cannot own military grade weaponry without jumping through many more Federally imposed hoops. The arguement therefore also becomes vacuous!
      The whole point of the Second Amendment is to be the ultimate in the seriously considered (by the Founding Fathers) series of ultimate checks and balances.
      “Progressives”, whether fascists or communists cannot survive with checks against them, hence their first move is always to attack the Second Amendment and any understanding of it.

  • Farb says:

    Contrary to the opinion of O’Malia, the Second Amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting and next to nothing to do with personal protection.

    The Second Amendment, through the visionary thinking of our forefathers was put into our Bill of RIGHTS to be able to defend ourselves from tyranny, both foreign and domestic. PERIOD!

    Regardless of the weaponry of the time, the founders knew that in order to defend this country, the people would need the same types of weapons the government or hostile interlopers would have. Therefore, our government has ALREADY curtailed our Second Amendment rights by limiting our access to the same weaponry our military has access to.

    If, as a taxpayer, I am forced to fund our military then I too should not be denied the RIGHT to own the SAME weaponry!

  • Steven Coy says:

    I am a Veteran and have several weapons and haven’t fired one of them for 40 years and I have them for several reasons and one of them is the right given to me by our Founding Fathers for not only Protection but for the very reason that I see today with this OUT OF CONTROL GOVERNMENT. This Administration has written Illegal Laws bypassing our 1st, 5th and 6th Amendment rights and is trying right now to destroy our 2nd Amendment rights. What did HITLER SAY IN 1933? “IF YOU WISH TO CONQUOR A NATION YOU MUST FIRST DISARM ITS CITIZENS” anyone remember what happened after THAT? He took complete control of the German People and started the 2nd world war killing an estimated 55 Million people and mamed another 35 million. History has repeated itself 20 times over on every government that has disarmed its citizens, citizens that disagreed with that government disappeared and the count is in the hundreds of millions in the last 200 years. Switzerland trains every citizen how to handle a weapon and issues a rifle to every citizen and they have the lowest crime rate in modern history. Ask your representative if he has a gun and WHY?? Diane Frankenstein has a carry permit and why should she have an automatic weapon is she better than you or me? Lets hold our Congress and President who by the way is surrounded by weapons to the same standards, because only Criminals in D.C. and on the streets will have guns and we are at the mercy of them, taking a Knife to a gun fight. Viet Nam Vet 67-68

  • Steven Coy says:

    Bailey your a Marxist Idiot, freedom is not FREE if you haven’t noticed and it took guns to get it and guns to retain it. Or haven’t you noticed the History of the world?? Guns just like Nuclear Weapons have kept this Country from invaiders and now we especially need them to protect us from the very reason the Founding Fathers wrote the second amendment for, AN OUT OF CONTROL GOVERNMENT!!!! I don’t trust 99.99% of Congress and really don’t trust this Illegal Marxist Sunni Muslim Half Breed President who has signed into law taking our 1st, 5th and 6th Amendment rights and destroyed our Constitution with his Executive Orders by passing Congress and placing 55 Illegal Czars all Raqdical Liberals, Marxists, Muslims and Black Panthers and his right hand man is non other than Bill Weather Underground Ayres a murderer and America Hater. So I’ll keep my guns no matter what Illegal Laws they pass and when somebody breaks into your home and threatens your family you can pull your Knife and possibly watch as they murder or rape your wife or daughter and possibly kill all of you I will just shoot them when they try that here at my house. Viet Nam Vet 67-68

  • Chip says:

    I concur that the reason for the second amendment is to enable the citizenry to remain free.

    My wife thinks that a dictatorship can not occur in the United States. It is nice to think that no one wants to subjugate the rest of us, but history discloses example after example where this occurred because the citizenry allowed itself to be disarmed and was unable to offer resistance to their government. The mindset of thugs, robbers, and others who visit violence on others is to subjugate their victims to their will. Their motivation to subjugate is just on a smaller scale than those that want to subjugate and dictate to a whole country. There are indeed people who wish to subjugate a whole country. Let us not be so foolish as to say that it can not happen here, that there are no such people here, in the United States with so many examples to the contrary in the rest of this world. How can this country be the only exception to such human nature and depravity in this world?

    As for having automatic and/or semi-automatic weapons, I point to a recent story of a teenager who successfully defended his home, his sister, and himself against multiple assailants. While this may be an isolated incident, it serves to point out that the need does arise and having such firepower is invaluable when it does.

  • skorrent1 says:

    Bailey seems to be reasonably intelligent, but her lack of knowledge of the subject she writes about is apparent. I’ll not repeat the good points in the above comments, but add a bit of historical perspective.

    On the day the militia of Massachusetts fired “the shot heard round the world”, the British had set off to confiscate the canon and gunpowder stored at Concord (as well as arrest some troublemakers) and available to the State militia. The “well-regulated” (trained) militia of the time was perfectly capable of operating this crew-served military weapon. The founders surely had this in mind when they spoke of the necessity for the State to maintain such a militia. They wrote of Congress granting “letters of marque and reprisal” to private vessels, well armed with canon and other weapons, to assist the Navy in securing the seas. In short, they were quite familiar with heavy weaponry, in addition to personal firearms, being available to the citizenry.

    Of course, the technology of warfare has changed over the centuries, as has the structure of our defence forces. We now have a large standing military, an “organized militia” of civilian National Guard and Reserve forces, as well as the traditional “unorganized militia” of able-bodied persons able to be called upon, if necessary. Those who posit the futility of conflict between a well-equipped, robotic, standing military obeying the orders of a tyrant, and the untrained, poorly-equipped citizenry are ignoring the value, and the sentiments, of the neighborhood mechanic, salesman and plumber who comprise the National Guard, under officers appointed by the State, and the training and equipment available to them. My neighbor, who regularly drives tanks, fires canon, and shoots m-60’s, can surely be trusted with an AR-15 in his home.

  • Dallis Miller says:

    The First Ammendment didn’t take into consideration Iphones.social media or the internet but the priciple reamins the same. So to the 2nd ammendment was written when only muzzleloading firearms existed it does not have a different meaning today because weapons are modern. That dog won’t hunt. Besides ther is nothing in the 2nd ammendment about types of firearms or mgazine capacity. It is about the RIGHT not the instrument.

  • Dallis Miller says:

    A good spirited argument not withstanding I do think the best way to argue the 2nd ammendment is RATE OF FIRE.

  • Brent says:

    Point #1: At the time of the writing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, Muskets were military-grade weapons.

    Point #2: The road to Hell is, indeed, paved with good intentions. The good intentions behind infringing on our unalienable right to bear arms are no different.

  • Dr. Brad says:

    If we want to know what was “meant” by the founding fathers intention of the 2nd amenment, then we simply need to read their own words on the subject. Such as:
    1)The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.
    — Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.
    2)Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?
    — Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.
    3)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 ruined… The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.
    — Patrick Henry.
    4)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
    5)Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property… Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.
    — Thomas Paine
    6)Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn’t.
    — Ben Franklin
    7)What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.
    — Thomas Jefferson
    8)Laws that forbid the carrying of arms, disarm only those who are neither inclined, nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
    — Thomas Jefferson, 1764
    9)The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation… (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
    — James Madison.
    10)The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.
    — Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-B.
    11)To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them.
    — George Mason
    12)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, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (1787) in Pamplets on the Constitution of the United States (P.Ford, 1888)
    13)The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.
    — Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
    “Gun control is part and parcel of the ongoing collectivist effort to eviscerate individual sovereignty and replace it with dependence upon and allegiance to the state.” – Lawrence Hunter, writing for Forbes.com

    Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038527_Dianne_Feinstein_Alexander_Hamilton_betrayal.html#ixzz2H1frhNGE

  • For close to sixty years, I have been professionally involved in firearm training as well as having had a decade or so as a private detective. That experience has firmed up my understanding of two important facts:
    1)living in a free democratic republic entails certain risks, and that those who wish to avoid those risks, seek to live under an autocratic/totalitarian government;
    2) the current attack against firearm ownership is just the latest in a long series of similar actions

    For many years, our government supported firearm training for civilians, supplying rifles and handguns, as well as targets, under the Director of Civilian Marksmanship program. This funded training was highly successful, and did not produce a generation of psychotic individuals who went out on killing sprees; in fact, is those times, mentally ill individuals were more easily committed to institutions than can be done now.

    I will add one other fact: Pennsylvania’ Act 235 – the Lethal Weapons Act 235, for armed security personnel, required as part of the hiring process, completion of the MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory) to determine, not intent, but the possible anger, et. al, mental process of security personnel; this pre-employment testing was, in my experience, effective.

  • Tony says:

    I have noticed that most of the people against military style firearms are horribly uniformed. More often than not, they swallow whatever they are told by the mainstream media. The founding fathers knew that to protect and preserve the free country that we live in we must be willing to fight and possibly die for it. That must be done by eternal vigilence. I am constantly flustered by the success of the “dumbing down” of the american people. The lady that spoke first said that we didn’t need any “automatic weapon”. Why doesn’t she seem to know that the forefathers of this country meant for us to have the same weapon as the government. We were told to be prepared to throw off this government if went bad. If we have only hand guns,rifles and shot guns and they have “automatic weapon” then it will be like bringing a knife to a gun fight. And don’t forget that the very government that we need to watch over is the very same entity that demands that we (the people) should not be allowed to have the same weapon they have. Things that make you go “hmmmm”. Why is their only answer to the shootings have to be to disarm the people? Not the criminal but law abiding people. More people are killed every year from hitting deer with there cars or from automobile accidents than deaths from guns! you don’t see anyone calling for the extermination of all deer or to take our cars! why don’t people know the difference? We used to know! There was a time is our history when 7th (seventh) grade student were required to know what is required of now 1st year law students! It is not an accidnet! If you doubt it then read a book by Charlot Iserbyt called “the dumbing down of america”.
    Thank you for letting me rant. Be well,live free and Blessed.
    Remember, an armed society is a polite society.

  • Al says:

    I grew up on a farm. I had a gun when I was 10. I never shot anyone and would never consider it. I was taught gun safety.

    That crazy kid that killed all of those students would have used another destructive means to do what he did. He could have used a bomb asd did the first idiot that killed students years ago.

    As for all of these libs that say we only had muskets when the Constitution was written, I say what if we had automatic guns back then. What would it have been like. It would have been just the same. Good people defending themselves. Not a nation of idiots wanting to shoot kids.

    The Libs always see an advantage to further their cause when a crisis comes along. This current one is a good example.

    That idiot newspaper back east by publishing the names of registered gun owners gave bad guys and idiots a good way the target the non gun owners and exploit them rather than the gun owners who would defend themselves.

    It isn’t having a gun so we can defend the new nation any more. But then think about what is happening in the near east where insurgents seem to be able to stock up on what they need to fight the established army of a tyrant. Who knows what ingenious American Citizens would come up with the fight a tyranical despot from taking over USA. It is obvious that, with weapons available from almost any place on earth, anyone that wants to shoot with an automatic weapon for any reason, can get that weapon. So why do people like old “what’s her name” Diane Feistein keep trying to limit arms of Americans when the rest of the world, or a big part of it, has a good supply of weapons available to any idiot that want one for bad purposes. People like her will do anything to limit our freedom so that they can “do good” according to their misguided beliefs.

    I have a shotgun now and with probably get a .223 ranch gun semiauto soon. I may never use them but they are there is case. And they will be locked up and secure.

    An another thing. That kid that killed all of those school kids got his mothers guns. She got killed because she didn’t do what the law says and lock them up. She knew what her son was like. She, of all people, should have had enough sense to keep those guns secure. God rested her soul because she was obviouly an untrained gun owner. Hurrah for the NRA. They teach that stuff. She should have been a member of NRA

  • Tas says:

    I like to look at history when looking for answers.

    “. Hi-capacity semi-autos can help decent people to defend themselves
    Los Angeles riots: Many of the guns targeted by so-called assault weapons bans are the very guns with which the Korean merchants used to defend themselves during the 1992 Los Angeles riots.(124) Those firearms proved to be extremely useful to the Koreans. Their stores were left standing while other stores around them were burned to the ground.

    The Korean merchants would probably agree with Capt. Massad Ayoob. When one is facing mob violence and the police are nowhere to be found, one needs a gun that shoots more than just six bullets. A ban on large capacity semi-automatic firearms will only harm one’s ability to defend himself and his family.”

  • bob says:

    Walt, I agree with most of what you said but I think you unfairly criticize the pharmaceutical industry as a culprit. These drugs have helped many people control their disorders when the only other option was being institutionalized. The problem we seem to be having with them is over-prescription which is rendering a society of drugged children.

    • roguehunter says:

      Big Pharma has its own agenda. Why else paste ads in magazines and on the buses and trains … ask your doctor about this or that drug.

      The problem is not just legal drugs, or even street drugs but the chemicals in our food and water. Read about the effects of fluoride for example. It will make you sick that the government INSISTS on it being added.

      An unintended consequence of the medications that emptied out the Mental Institutions was that many of them ended up on the street, forgetting their meds and reverting to active psychotic states, or manic, or whatever. Most bi-polar don’t like their drugs, for example. Nothing is ever simple.

  • Mark in AZ says:

    How about the government start taking away just SOME freedom of speech rights? You “progressives” would have a screech-a-thon over that.
    Liberals worship the 1st amendment, trash the 2nd amendment and wear out the 5th amendment.

  • Lee says:

    The fundamental problem we are facing is that we have all been indoctrinated into believing that we are not responsible for our own wellbeing. We were founded as a nation with the idea that each individual would rely on his or her (Christian) religion to impart a self-regulating moral code that would keep bad behaviour (sin) in check. In such a nation, huge tyrannical government was utterly unnecessary. Today, however, we have mostly eliminated the spiritual internal regulation of behaviour in favour of external governmental regulation. With such an external model, the volume and complexity of legislation required to keep behaviour in check grows exponentially. No amount of external legislation will eliminate the basic selfish, corruptible human nature that is in all of us. Eventually, we will all be confined to monitored, tightly-controlled prisons, because that is the only way to totally regulate human behaviour and ensure “safety”. The only safe human is a dead human.

  • paul says:

    A study of world history will reveal something about the nature of human government that is mostly ignored. When a government obtains the ability to rule by force alone, it eventually will.

  • John Carlson says:

    In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control,from 1929 to 1953 20 million dissidents unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. 1911 Turkey established gun control from 1915 to 1917 1.5 million Armenians unable to defend themselves were rounded uwere rounded up and exterminated. 1938 Germany established gun control 1939 to 1945 13 million Jews and others unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. 1935 China established gun control from 1948 to 1952 20 million political dissidents were rounded up and exterminated. 1964 Guatemala established gun control 1964 to 1981 100,000 Mayan indians were rounded up and exterminated. 1970 Uganda established gun control from1971 to 1979 300,000 Christians were rounded up and exterminated. 1956 Cambodia established gun control 1975 to 1977 1 million educated people were rounded up and exterminated. In the 20th.century 56 million people were exterminated because of gun control. With guns we are citizens,without them we are subjects. During WW2 the Japanese decided not to invade America because there was a gun behind every blade of grass. Switzerland issues every household an assault rifle and trains how to use it, and they have the lowest gun related crime in the world.

  • Dr. Prepper says:

    Here’s the one and ONLY question. IF gun control works, then SHOW ME your shining example of how it works?

    Chicago? Just passed 500 murders for the year [Gun deaths].
    NYC? Mayor Bloombucket’s Gestapo [Policemen] shot 8-10 unarmed citizens [depending who is reporting]. This is who you want carrying arms? While Doomberg, Feinstein, and all the rest campaign for gun control[total], they have armed bodyguards to protect THEM [Paid for by us]. So they are saying “MY life is WAY more important than yours” or mine. Is your LIFE less important than theirs? I think not. THINK–
    if this IDIOT Boomberg can pass laws that keep you from drinking soda—what is next?? Anything that POPS into his pea brain.

    So, just where is this “shining example” to prove your point? Their is NONE in the world.
    Norway? 70+ kids shot to death in a supposed gun free country.{ Security guard sent to protect them had NO GUN—What was he going to use–Harsh Language?]

    Bottom line: There will always be guns in this country, so what are we gonna do about what we got-guns?
    Ban them completely and the drug cartels will just switch to gun running and -AGAIN- only the criminals will have guns.

    The way the Government is heading these days it is even more important for us to keep our guns.
    Why do we, joe average American NEED Ak 47’s and Ar 15’s? It’s really simple. Because the “BAD GUYS” have ’em. I don’t want to take a pistol of any kind to an AK or AR fight. Equal firepower equals equal chance to survive. Ask yourself, why do Police departments issue Ar’s? Because that what the “BAD GUYS” have. Cops used to go to these gun fights seriously undergunned and guess what-a lot of them were killed. Now they have equal firepower- they adjusted to the circumstances.

    One of the reasons the second amendment was put in place was to keep a tyrannical government from subjecting it’s will on the people-we are close to that now. If you think that the Government could easily take us over at any time, think again. The WORLDS BIGGEST, BADDEST, Military machine can’t even defeat one small country in 10 years of conflict, against a bunch of poorly armed sand people. Guns are our right as given by the constitution, but more importantly, it is our God given right as free men…..Lets be smarter than they think we are!

  • bob says:

    { Security guard sent to protect them had NO GUN—What was he going to use–Harsh Language?] How about a strongly worded letter from Dianne Feinstein?

  • Rabelrouser says:

    What most who argue against personal firearms ownership fail to real;ize or want to realize is that the Second Amendment remains the citizens last hedge against a tyrannical government, PERIOD!
    They fail to read and understand the Militia Act of 1792 which defined both the right and the Militia.
    The founders saw how firarms evolved and stated that those called up as the citizens Militia would show up bearing “Like weapons of the times”
    That part of history is conveinently ignored for the argument of hunting, which was a natural way to feed a family during that time and the self protection was not against the ocassional criminal, although that was part and parcel of the Second Amendment: which translates into the God given right to self protection and preservation.
    So the arguments are framed today as a narrative to presuade those who lack knowledge the rationale for restricting firearms ownership

  • CaveAdsum says:

    In spite of the overwrought, emotionally charged arguments to the contrary; the statement that no one ” needs” a rifle possessed of the capacity to accept a thirty round magazine; regardless of the general public’s misunderstanding of the Second Amendment, this issue was settled in part by US v. Miller in 1939. A militia is defined as any make physically capable of acting in concert in the common defense; and a weapon is defined as a weapon common in the military that would be of use in the common defense. DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago established our right to own and bear firearms for self defense.

  • Ian says:

    This columnist can’t get her facts right: the musket was the leading edge technology of the day; and, as Tim points out, the Framers believed in revolution. I think Thomas Jefferson said it best: “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.” And “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (Quoting Cesare Beccaria) And finally, “The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.”

  • larry says:

    bailey, you must be a VERY happy lady! since, as you may have heard – IGNORANCE IS BLISS! and you demonstrate a huge amount of the former. many here have told you – correctly – that AUTOMATIC weapons have effectively been banned [w/o a special federal permit] since the 1930’s!! if you do not think semi autos are needed, watch the clip of the koreans defending their shops and themselves from thousands of LA rioters [search koreatown]. and, if your lack of due diligence leads you to think rifles are a threat, read the latest FBI statistics which show that MORE PEOPLE WERE MURDERED EVERY YEAR [i think since 2006 – AFTER the silly ban expired] with hammers, clubs, and, FISTS! that is DATA; NOT hyperbole! please do some RESEARCH before you again prove the old saying – some people are thought to be fools; others insist upon opening their mouths [or, their typewriters] and PROVING it!



    it is NOT about sport/target shooting/hunting; it is about the people DEFENDING themselves from the bad guys – including the government, should it stray from the principals of our US Constitution!

  • larry says:

    the very peoople screaming you don’t need a semi-automatic weapon are the very people you need an semi-automatic weapon to protect yourself from, starting with that facist sack of shit in the white house and his head whore clinton… now, while all the puppets in congress are crying (vainly) for more gun control, the sack and the whore are counting on the u.n. to do their dirty work with the small arms treaty which would, by trumping our constitution, give them the right to seize your guns… one solution, though not terribly practicle, is to kill off about half of the fascists/socialists pushing to end your freedoms… but aside fron lowering ourselves to their level, they would just get a new supply of fascist sell-outs… no, this is one issue that could render all others mute, and we have to push like we’ve never pushed before to assure the senate does not sell us out… call, write, find one of them in a dark alley, whatever it takes, because if we lose this one, we lose all the marbles…

  • John Kolodziejski says:

    Good morning,
    I just read an article written by Baily O’Malia entitled “The Right To Bear Arms — Within Reason.” Although I cannot challenge Baily’s intelligence I do challenge her facts. She has fallen into the same misinformed rut that most uninformed Americans have. So I have interjected her article with my two cents worth (JCK).

    The Right to Bear Arms—Within Reason
    by Bailey O’Malia

    In the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy Americans and politicians have spent time reflecting on gun control.

    (JCK – Most Americans are not concerned with gun control they want criminal control. It’s the liberal, left, politicians who are clamoring for more gun control. I would like to point out that this has nothing to do with gun control. Gun control is the vehicle to achieve PEOPLE CONTROL.)

    We often hear that our founding fathers wrote our right to bear arms into the Constitution as a way to protect ourselves from harm; that they wanted us to have that right, even today. But that’s not something I’m so sure about.

    (JCK – This is only half true. Baily makes this sound like our forefathers were only concerned about personal attack or home invasion by individuals. Of course, today, we have even more threats from personal attack by gangs, drug dealers, rapists, thugs, and mass killers. So, certainly, we have to be able to protect ourselves from them because we cannot count the police. They cover way too much territory to do that and the Supreme Court ruled that “protection” is not part of their duty. They are there, only, to enforce the law. And the average response time from a 911 call is 20 minutes. So when seconds count they are 20 minutes away. In reality, our founding fathers did want us to be able to protect ourselves from harm but, that protection was mainly from the harm of a tyrannical government.
    That is something Baily should be sure about. There is a popular saying that states; “When the honest citizen gives up their guns, only the criminals will have guns”.

    One of the biggest proponents of gun control, and the author of the strongest gun control proposal in American history, Dianne Feinstein, has a canceled carry permit and carries a hand gun where ever she goes. Yet, she wants you and me to give up our guns.)

    When the founding fathers wrote our constitution their idea of a weapon was a musket. Not an automatic weapon. The gun they had in mind would be used for safety or for hunting.

    (JCK – First, the musket was the most modern firearm of its time so they wanted the citizens to be as armed as the government for reasons that I explained in the prior red paragraph. So for us to have single shot weapons and the other guys have illegal, semi-automatic, and in some cased fully automatic, weapons is ludicrous.)

    With this in mind I wonder, what the fathers of our nation would have said about civilians owning military-grade weapons that can shoot a hundred rounds in a minute?

    (JCK -I think they would feel that we should have the same fire power as our opponents, no matter who they are. Now to clearify Bailys statement about “military grade weapons”. Civilians ARE NOT ALLOWED TO LEGALLY OWN MILITARY WEAPONS! The civilian model of these weapons are simi-automatic “look alikes”.

    The military has fully automatic weapons, rocket launchers, grenade launchers, high caliber heavy machine guns and weapons like anti-aircraft guns. THESE WEAPONS HAVE BEEN ILLEGAL FOR GENERAL PRIVATE OWNERSHIP SINCE THE FIREARMS ACT OF 1930 was invoked. Yes, a private individual can own these weapons but, the law imposes strict requirements, heavy control, and diligent scrutiny of the persons who would own one of these weapons,in addition to a $200.00 registration fee and a $50.00 per year renewal fee.)

    Surely there is no need for a civilian to hold that kind of power in his hand. In fact, why should anyone have that much power over another human being? Do we really trust each other’s judgment?

    (JCK – I don’t know where Baily comes from but, if the government and criminals have these weapons I surly want one. do i trust my neighbors jucgment? Yes, and here is why. In Florida there is a very comprehensive set of requirements to get your concealed carry permit. When I lived in Illinois there was no such thing as a CCP but, in order to purchase a gun or ammunition you had to have a Illinois firearm Card. In both cases a stringent background check was conducted. In Florida the applicant had to take a state accredited firearms course which covered safety, responsibility, laws, and liability. Than you had to show firearms proficiency.
    This is the same type of thing that happens in most states. In addition to all that, the federal NICS system has to be contacted to check the background of EVERY APPLICANT FOR GUN PURCHASE AND FOR EVERY GUN PURCHASED.
    So, yes, we can trust the judgment of 99.99% of our neighbors. There is that 1% that might be .001% that might be “iffy” but, most of them don’t, and wont, own a firearm. Take a look at who committed the mass killings. Every one of them had physiological disorders whose doctors were bound by law the report to the government so the NICS system would work properly. I failed because the conditions were not reported.)

    I’ve been thinking about this for days and I can’t come up with one good reason that a person would need anything more than a handgun or rifle for “safety.”

    (JCK – One good reason is to have the same firepower as your opponent. A good example of this is the fact that the gangs, and drug dealers, were using ILLEGAL FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS against law enforcement with 9 millimeter hand guns and pump shotguns. The police were getting shot up right and left. So they made a case to the political power at be to upgrade to the same type of weapon. Because to political correctness, and politicians dragging their heals, this took a couple years. Meanwhile more cops lost their lives. I would like to ask Baily if she was being raped would she want a cell to dial 911, and patiently wait for the police, or would she want a gun big enough to stop it immediately?)

    So when the discussion of changing the gun laws is brought up I think, what a perfectly simple solution; ban all automatic weapons. This appeases the Democrats because they will have made steps towards gun reform, and the Republicans because they won’t be fully losing their right to bear arms. If you consider shooting an automatic weapon a fun hobby, they could still be available to rent at a gun range.

    (JCK – Baily, AUTOMATIC WEAPONS ARE ALREADY BANNED since 1930 except for some instances that I outlined in a previous paragraph.
    Most who have them, have them illegally. So this adds to my statement about criminals having guns. I talk to people from all over the world and what we hear from OUR media is a gross twisting of true facts. Jamaica banned guns (all guns) the criminals, and the corrupt part of the government ran ramped against the citizens. They now allow private gun ownership. Australia banned guns and there are more gun crimes that before the ban. England had a very strict gun ban. Same thing there. Every country that has gun bans is seeing an increase in violent crimes. What these gun bans have accomplished is the establishment of very large firearms black markets.
    Now, a comment about Democrats taking more gun control steps. This is not the first time the democrats have initiated, and demanded gun control. Gun control laws, in America, were originally promulgated by Democrats to keep guns out of the hands of blacks. This allowed the Democratic policy of slavery to proceed with fewer bumps and, after the Civil War, allowed the Democratic Ku Klux Klan to menace and murder black Americans with little resistance. Now, I must say the all democrats wer not KKK but, it has been proven that all KKK were democrats.
    It was the NRA who helped the honest, law abiding, blacks to form gun clubs and qualify to become firearm’s owners. This action by the NRA was a great help in allowing blacks to protect themselves from the wrath of the KKK. Don’t believe me do your research.
    Now, when a group of protesters, thugs, thieves, or anyone who is about to break, or broken, into your home I think it’s a ridicules suggestion to have to go rent protection from your local gun range.
    But this is a compromise. A concept politicians and Americans are unfamiliar with these days.
    Yes, we are unfamiliar with seeing compromise from our politicians but, this is not new. And gun control, in any shape or form, is not about safety or guns. IT’S ABOUT PEOPLE CONTROL. Disarm the citizen and you have total control!
    If you’re pro-guns at this point you’re probably saying “but it’s my right, and they’re taking away all of our rights.”
    Correct on this one. In fact, the first really correct thing you said. They will be taking away my rights. My CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS! Remember this; THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS IN PLACE TO PROTECT ALL THE OTHERS.

    But it’s also your right to feel safe…

    (JCK – I do feel safer knowing that my neighbor could own a semi-auto AK-47, large capacity shotgun, or like weapon. Right now 99.99% of the people can feel safe with the comfort in knowing that any one, or maybe many, of their neighbors have a gun. The criminals are not as brazen to break into occupied homes because they don’t know which home owner is, or isn’t, armed. Take that threat away and you have now emboldened the criminal because they know the occupant is unarmed. The home owner’s baseball bat, or golf club, is no match for the criminal’s gun. It’s like putting a sign on everyones front door that says “THIS HOME HAS NO PROTECTION.” I had the occasion to interview a career break-in man who told me that he and his friends would love gun control and, better yet, a complete ban because it would make his job safer. He in in jail because he broke into a home where the owner was armed and was ready to protect his wife and two pretean daughters. He threatened the homeowner with a knife and the homeowner shot him in the stomach area. The criminal is now spending 20 years in jail with a colostomy bag and no spleen. Now that is true justice! And that’s why I feel safe. By the way the police got there 10 minutes AFTER the ambulance.

  • Tim Young says:

    Bailey is one of the smartest people I know… so don’t get too personal with comments about being stupid. Disagreeing with someone doesn’t mean they’re dumb folks…

    • larry says:

      tim, i didnt suggest that her IQ was below par [ie, stupid]; i stated that she had failed, miserably, to do basic journalistic RESEARCH and get the FACTS straight! she may be one of the smartest people you know; however, she has shown a major deficiency in the “review the FACTS’ arena. i might play chess with her; but, i would NEVER ask her opinion on any current events.

  • Bill Gamlin says:

    As scary as this sounds, this is exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind. You nailed it Tim.

  • Unless I am greatly mistaken the weapon of the British Soldier was a muzzle loading musket, and the weapon of the Colonial Citizen was a muzzle loading musket. A musket is a one-shot weapon. After you fire the weapon you have to pour in the powder and ram it down the barrel, then you have to put in the ball or lead shot and ram it down the barrel, then cock the gun, aim, and fire, then repeat. Both the Colonialists and the British had to do the same!!!!

    If the Federalies do not want us to have the same modern weapons they have, then they should give up their modern weapons as well. It was the citizen soldier of the Colonies who fought the British and gained our freedom.

    I am a soldier of the TEAPARTY BRIGADE
    I am a soldier of the BLACK ROBE REGIMENT
    I am a Retired US Navy Veteran trained to use the M1 with Bayonet, the M-16, riot shotgun, 38, & 45. I am a sharp shooter. My last Navy job was that of an MP. I am a graduate of the Military Police Academy with special training with the FBI and CIA. I received training as part of a Riot control team, and as ship’s self defense force for repelling boarders and hostage situations. I was designated by the Navy as a Surface Warfare Specialists.
    I know what the military is capable of. When the forces of the Federalise come calling you will have no defense unless you have equal power to resist. Amendment #2 has nothing to do with hunting or sports shooting.


  • Dallis Miller says:

    @Tim Young: I agree, but intelligence does not assume that someone will always make intelligent statements. To make a statement that you know will stir emotions,is inflammatory and then cry foul when the kitchen gets hot is somewhat disingenuous.

  • [email protected] says:

    Regardless of all the legal technicalities,(explanations of which may be hard to teach to a majority) the common-sense fact sticking out like a sore thumb is that there is an obvious sudden “push” in the news media to convince people to give up their long standing rights and permissions of self defense in emergencies by sensationalizing and “beating to death” in the news certain events involving citizens running amok killing citizens in “gun-free” public venues.

    The most repetitively publicized events seem to be weird, shocking events which are relatively “small potatoes” compared to other carnage in the world hardly mentioned, or even covered up by minimizing or misdirection of attention. Consider the controversy around events like the destruction of the embassies overseas supposedly under the protection of our department of Defense. This violent event is not repeated every day many times over and over, or lovingly dissected by debates on the radio news. It makes no difference whether the shootings and bombings are perpetrated by psychopaths who are military mercenary soldiers, criminals dressed as police, or not dressed as police, whether the violent event was spontaneous or planned. Or even if the “event” was a lack of proper defense support which was desperately called for but denied!

    If the media/politicians quack suspiciously, walk suspiciously, the evidence is directed or misdirected suspiciously, the events are suddenly over-publicized or covered up suspiciously, should people just accept it all without being suspicious of a hidden agenda by somebody, somewhere, for some reason besides just public safety or national security?

    The message coming from both sides of the debate is that Citizens need to be able to quickly defend themselves against sudden attacks by criminal Psychopaths (AKA “terrorists”) both foreign and domestic, whether they are drug addicts, gangsters, or “lone-wolves”. Whether dressed with black leather jackets and ski masks, or in official uniforms, or in SWAT team outfits, legitimate, counterfeit, or war surplus. Without having to wait until hoped-for armed support arrives because they followed the officially recommended alternative of “just calling nine-eleven!!!”

  • Mike says:

    It sure upsets me that the people of this country are so ignorant to the history
    of this country and the intent and reasons given by our founding fathers.
    Nowhere does it say anything about muskets in the constitution or the amendments.
    Our country was founded because we wanted freedom from the kings religion, that’s
    why the first amendment GUARANTEES or freedom of speech and religion. When
    the kings (British) army tried to rule by force by confiscating the weapons of the
    colonist it became obvious to the framers of our government that the people
    MUST be able to arm themselves against a tyrannical government. One of my
    favorite founders is Thomas Jefferson and perhaps one of his quotes says it best,
    “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”.
    Notice he said “people”.
    It can’t be any plainer than that!!

  • mike says:

    The beutay of the 2nd amendment is that we will not need
    it until they try to take it away.
    Thomas Jefferson

  • Dr. Larry W. Lindsey says:

    If you think our Founding Fathers ideas and the Constitution are “crap” as you so eloquently state, then why don’t you leave the country and see how much you love some place where their citizens do not enjoy the freedoms and Rights that you enjoy. The only crap being spewed here, is from you. Your ignorance is readily apparent, as automatic weapons have been and continue to be illegal in this country, since the automatic weapons ban of 1934.

    The Founding Fathers were afraid of a tyrannical government and also of the power of a standing army. Their intention was that each citizen be armed with weapons equal to that of the standing army, so that if necessary they could be called upon to either assist in the defense of our nation against a foreign army, or against a rogue standing army. That premise applies today, just as it did when the Bill of Rights were written.

    The privately owned muzzle-loading rifles of their day were state-of-the-art weaponry. These were the “assault weapons” of their day and they were every bit the equivalent of and in many cases superior to those issued to the standing army.

    Unlike you, I trust my neighbors and fellow citizens, because I believe them to be honest, law-abiding and responsible citizens, and I absolutely do feel safer knowing that they are armed, as I am.

    Perhaps you should consider changing your political affiliation, since your elitist views would be welcomed by the Liberal who are trying to take away our Constitutional Rights.

    If you think disarming the law-abiding citizen is the answer, then perhaps you should first visit England, Mexico and Australia where private ownership of firearms is unlawful. These countries have been declared by the UN to be “gun free” nations, yet their crime rates soared after gun confiscation. Please ask the people of Mexico how safe they feel since the only ones who have guns now are the drug cartels, the standing army and local law enforcement – any one of which is just about as corrupt as the other. Ask them if they would feel safer knowing their neighbor had a firearm to use in their defense of those who would murder them for little or no reason.

    If you will sacrifice this Right, just how many more are you so willing to give up?

    With “friends” like you, we don’t need enemies. Get out of the Republican Party.

  • Mik3h says:

    The founding fathers CLEARLY meant for the populace to be AS WELL EQUIPPED as the military/government. Here’s a timely list of quotes that I just received TODAY!


  • Dr. Larry W. Lindsey says:

    A little over two years ago, two armed individuals broke into our apartment. I happened to be home at the time and met them with my .45 auto. They gave up without me having to fire a shot because they were met by an armed citizen. Long story short, I didn’t get robbed or get hurt and they went to jail. They also ratted out more than 40 other individuals in their organization who also went to jail. I am a former combat Marine, expert marksman, international handgun, rifle and shotgun competitor for 30 years and former law enforcement officer. Ask my neighbors if they feel safer that I have a gun.

    • Henry says:

      Glad you asked! !. This is not about guns, it’s about controlling people. 2. Pravda says: Americans, keep your guns! And they tell why.
      3. The shooting at the Sandy Hook school was, in my opinion, done by orders from someone high up, to
      create an anti-gun atmosphere. The Police found the automatic rifle in the trunk of the Nut’s car.
      Was it recently fired, we’ll never know! The Nut was found inside the school with 2 hand guns. Were they fired, we’ll never know. All shell casings found in the school were from a rifle, not a hand gun! How could the Nut kill himself with a pistol, & not leave a spent pistol casing?
      We’ve been lied to far too often, by every news source in this case. This was well planned & executed by certain authorities. They killed the Nut’s Mother too!
      You are more correct than Bailey, & so is Pravda!

    • Tim Young says:

      You also didn’t have to harm anyone with your guns… Another thing that people don’t think about. Responsibly owning guns is much different than owning guns and shooting at everything in sight… which is what the left wants people to believe will happen.

  • Citizen says:

    @Dr. Larry W. Lindsey, Sir, I could not agree more. The “crap” that is being foisted upon us is that the Second Amendment was about “hunting” and “sport shooting” and “self-protection”. The left is pushing as hard as they can to make gun-ownership appear weird and sick; that gun owners long to shoot people; that gun owners are uneducated whack-jobs who shoot up towns and pull their guns if someone looks at them strangely. The truth is that the Second Amendment was actually considered an unnecessary redundancy back in the day, since it was commonly understood that one automatically has the right from God Himself to be armed with state-of-the-art weaponry. They had a strong concern for the new govermnemt getting out of hand and they intended for the people to have recourse, if necessary, to use arms to secure their INDIVIDUAL liberty.

    We have been “taught” to think in the collective, and to believe that guns are only for violent people (murderers, child killers, terrorists, etc.) and that the godlike government is our provider and protector. Now THAT is crap!

  • Lee says:

    I want drones, submarines and perhaps a tank or two.

    • Tim Young says:

      The magic of the time when the Constitution was written was that the government was JUST AS POOR as the people… maybe it was because we weren’t printing money like we are today at that point… I say that to say that if times had NEVER changed, we’d probably all have the similar finances to buy these things.

  • Palancar says:

    I agree with what you say Tim, except for one little item – There is no way on God’s Green Earth that you can blow something like that tragedy all out of proportion. The Media and the Government took advantage of a terrible tragedy. They used it to further their cause, and to prove their point. In effect, they “profited” from that terrible tragedy. I believe that is what you meant to say.

  • Robert says:

    Bqiley misses the point entirely. As many of you have pointed out, the Founding Fathers wanted us to be safe from the government, but also from each other. Think about it, the government isn’t doing this mass murders or shooting people (at least not yet). The availability of guns are first and foremost, defense against other people who do not obey the laws of society. When I walk down the street with a 9mm strapped to my waist, I’m not afraid of some military tank coming out of a dark alley to rob and kill me. There isn’t a platoon of soldiers trying to beat and rape my wife or daughter. The danger (as I said for now at least) is from ourselves. The killings, the rapes, the murders are done by citizens of these United States. Unfortunately there are to many “bad” people walking the streets today that have no respect or concern for others. This is the primary reason we carry weapons – – – to protect ourselves against bad people (which, unfortunately, we have a goodly number of). AS far as the Founding Fathers specifying the type of weapons, they would have said whatever weapons were available at the time. I truly believe they would have included so called “assault weapons” had they been available then. The argument for gun control does not stand the test of truth. History tells us over and over that societies without guns will become societies ruled by tyrants and dictators, as well as the unlawful. We can argue these points until the end of time. As a free society we must not give up our right to defend ourselves. No matter the cost.

  • Frank says:

    Ms. O’Malia argument is fascinating. By her logic at the time when the founding fathers wrote our constitution their idea of a weapon was a musket. Not an automatic weapon. At the time the constitution was written there were only printing presses. If we apply Ms. O’Malia logic to the 1st Amendment there was no radio, TV, phone, twitter, internet, blogs, etc., so that mean that the 1st amendment does not apply to this type of media. So do need to band or regulate this media.

    The 2nd Amendment was put in place by our Founding Father to protect the citizens from a tyrannical government. No other reason. The government and Law Enforcement should not be allowed to have any weapon that a U.S. Citizen cannot own.

  • White Mike from Oakland says:

    As it stands now, we’ve already allowed the automatic weapon ban. Now they wanna ban semiauto weapons. Give ’em an inch and they keep taking yards, but at what end? I’ll tell you what end. The end where only the criminals will have guns and the end that leaves honest citizens with no way to legally protect ourselves from criminals or from an unjust government.
    They say if when the Nazis came to the door of the first Jew when they came to take them to the camps, had that first victim unloaded a 22 handgun into that soldiers head, the holocaust would have never ocurred! I don’t wanna allow anything more than what’s going down already, which is too much as it is.
    Anyway, what if they do outlaw semiautomatics and the next nut goes into a place with a shotgun and starts blowing people away? Will they think back to the ban of semiautos and think, “Thank God we outlawed semiautos. Now there are 10 fewer people dead”? Hell No! They will say one dead or injured person is too many and unacceptable! They will once again use it as ammo to ban the next gun on the list and they will not stop until all guns are banned!
    We already are at a disadvantage should we have to fight against the government. Why should we continue to allow their advantage to grow?
    It’s bad enough that they will have armies against a few brave americans who have the guts to fight while many others hide their heads in the sand or just stand and watch thinking, “That will never happen to me” until they are the last ones standing and then they hear that knock on their door! But it will be too late.
    I was brought up around guns and taught by my father never to play with or touch our guns, and to respect guns and as a result, that’s just what I did!
    Without that right to bear arms, I am very concerned about our future!

  • Ernest T. says:

    When a kook or a terrorist murders with a gun, they can only kill a hand full before someone takes them out. More armed citizens make that faster so less deaths happen. Armed citizens save lives see the recent theater shooting in San Antonio only one death and that was the Kook with the gun. If only an armed citizen had been in the theater in Aurora or in the sandy hook school. I believe there would have been less deaths. When Tyrannical governments murder they exterminate hundreds to millions at a time. I think it is up to 60,000 in Syria now. We need to protect our’s and the country. The United States government’s military and militias have killed Americans several times in our history. Note the Indians, Veterans after WWI, Labor Union organizers,Mormons and the Branch Davideions. I’m sure there are other examples these are just the one I could think of off hand.

  • John says:

    Let’s define some terms here: Most of us own FIREARMS, not WEAPONS. Firearms have many uses, for hunting , target shooting, collecting, and, in very rare instances, against our fellow man, either for good or bad reasons. In this last instance only are they deemed to be weapons. ASSAULT WEAPONS Are capable of full automatic fire but were you to fire them at 100 rounds a minute they would soon overheat and become unusable. Very few private citizens have full automatic weapons of any kind. Those that do, have to pay exorbitant sums for the ‘privilege’. Rights were not given to us by our Founders but by GOD. Our Founders sought only to guarantee those Rights, since every man has the God-given right to protect his life and that of his family, as well as his property, from assault by others, including, most especially a tyrannical government. It was just such an assault on rights that prompted our Revolution and ultimately, our Constitutional Republic.
    Progressives et all are very clever at using fear and hate words to put across their agenda, even when those words are false. Lenin said, “We can and must write in language that sews among the masses, hate, revulsion and scorn, toward those who disagree with us.”

  • Keene L. says:

    If we need to take guns away from law-abiding citizens then we need to also take away hammers and bats. The FBI reports that twice as many murders are committed with these “weapons” as the rifles that the liberals in Congress (and even some left-leaning Republicans) want to ban. Sorry kids, no more bats for you. Well, maybe plastic ones. And sorry carpenters, you’ll have to find another “weapon” to use to hammer your nails. And btw, be prepared to give up your nail gun too. Certainly the magazine clip carries way too many nails to be considered safe.

    The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.

    • larry says:

      keene, your only problem is that you are using FACTS and LOGIC! these left/liberal anti gun fanatics have no concept of either.

  • CAJUNMAN69 says:

    I know I’m getting in late in this discussion, but if you read the Second Ammendment it saws “MILITIA”, not “HUNTING or COMPETATIVE SHOOTING”. This defines the type of weapons we are intended to possess by the writers of the Constitution.

  • A.R. says:

    Ms. O’Malia said: Surely there is no need for a civilian to hold that kind of power in his hand. In fact, why should anyone have that much power over another human being? Do we really trust each other’s judgment?

    My thoughts exactly when you put that kind of power in the hands of government, that is why the citizens/civilians must be armed to repel a government gone bad. Have you not studied history? Have you not seen the massive power grabs of late within our government? I don’t know of any saints in D.C.! As a matter of fact, our government has declared war on us citizens through massive taxation (theft) and redistribution. Now they want our guns, I don’t think so lady…

    Mr. Young, you are absolutely correct on all points and I stand at the ready to repel any enemy of freedom, foreign or domestic!!!

    Semper Fidelis

  • Charles says:

    Baily proves the weakness of her argument when she says, “…before you start spouting your founding fathers crap…” She simply can’t avoid being insulting, because that’s all she has. She can’t rely on her pseudo-intellectual noise, so she relies on insults.

    I would rather rely on people who have extensively researched the questions about the 2nd Amendment, people like those at GunFacts.info. Here is what they found regarding U.S. vs Miller:

    Specifically the court said:
    “The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.” And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”

    Note that this is what the COURT said. Note also that the Militia is defined as private civilians. Finally, note that the private citizens were expected to have the latest, most up-to-date weaponry.

  • Roger says:

    Our Second Amendment is very clear, citizens shall have the right to bear and keep arms in order to protect themselves and their families from a despotic tyrannical government.

  • Norm says:

    The founding fathers wrote the second amendment for the sole purpose of Americans being able to protect themselves from a tyrant within their own Government. Type of weapon has nothing to do with it advances were made by the civil war more advances were made by WWI and WWII no one thought of any change then.So I guess you would think to keep our country ours we could defend a tyrant with a musket while they have automatic weapons

  • DJ says:

    According to the Center for Disease Control, the 10 Leading Causes of Death in 2010 were:

    Heart Disease – 597,689
    Malignant Neoplasms – 574,743
    Chronic Low. Respiratory Disease – 138,080
    Cerebro- vascular – 129,476
    Unintentional Injury – 120,859
    Alzheimer’s Disease – 83,494
    Diabetes Mellitus – 69,071
    Nephritis – 50,476
    Influenza & Pneumonia – 50,097
    Suicide – 38,364

    Of the 2,468,435 people who died in 2010, less than 4/10th of 1 percent, or .004 percent, died as a result of a gun-related homicide.

    So, let’s be mature adults and teach our children, just as the founding patriots did, that muskets are not toys. Muskets are kept loaded and handy because there is danger and evil in the world.

    We have armed guards in banks to guard our money….are our children of lesser value?

  • Rick says:

    A couple of posts that caught my eye was that that fully automatic weapons are banned they are not but to buy or posess one you must have a Class III federal license. and that before 1929 not even these were unregulated. Why the big changes? One is the fact that more people lived in cities not the rural areas. And two, being told by the liberal media that we not longer needed them. Read the book or see the first 40 minutes of Starsip Troopers. Not for the special effects or for the story. But pay attention to the civics lesson in the classroom, and remember this book was written in the mid 1950’s.

  • Rick says:

    The second amendment does not specify what arms to bear for good reason, because the founders had already seen the progression of weapon technology through history.It also does not give the government the right to ban or define what arms to bear. A tyranical government or over reaching government could then define the arm as nothing more than a slingshot and ban all other means of defence,thereby rendering the citizens completly defenceless against government.It was also not written for hunting only, because in that time if you didn’t hunt you didn’t eat.It was spicifically written to arm the public thereby creating an army of citizens far greater in number than any army the government could muster. Thats why it is spicific, brief and easily understood.This right shall not be infringed.Baning spicific firearms is an infringement.

    • A.R. says:

      You got that right…Infringe= to violate, usurp. What part of infringe do they not understand??? They are the masters of violating everyone’s right’s, privacy and property. This has got to STOP NOW.

  • Virgil says:

    Bailey should make sure she is friends with her neighbors. Is she aware that drunk drivers kill many more times the number of children (& adults), than do the few idiots that seek a few minutes of fame (or martyr-ism)? Is she aware that the news media blows anything about guns, out of proportion? What about Kent State? You never hear about that situation, every time some idiot wants to make a point. How come the college educated idiots running this country into the ground, aren’t intelligent enough to figure out that making the schools less accessible to people who have no business being in them, would have prevented the Newtown tragedy.

  • JJM says:

    Bailey – even I know that if I wanted to own a fully automatic weapon I would have to acquire a FFL. Banning semiautos would not stop someone from attacking with several revolvers or another type of weapon. What you are proposing is to radically disarm the american people to be radically disadvantaged in opposing a tyrannical government (ours or others) and including well armed criminals.
    If the founding fathers had our current weaponry, I am confident they would argue that we should be able to own (and bear) full autos, rocket launchers, tanks, fighter aircraft, etc.
    It is unfortunate that some Americans would readily turn against our constitution and if not disarm us completely but to limit us to single shot or even black powder defense.

  • Rob Evans says:

    Dear Sir: Yes I can appreciate your point of view. If I knew my neighbor had a loaded AK 47 beside his bed just beside my house. In Canada if the Police caught you with an AK 47 ,loaded or not,you would be in “Deep Do Do”so the chance of the man in the house next store is not a real threat. However, if he and his wife have lots of guns and ammo,then a quiet call to the Police would take care of this problem gun problem and here we refer to the world courts and specifically those founded by the Unit Kingdom.
    Just like the fights today verses about 200 years ago. Near the end of my hunting career I killed a male=woodcock. When a Psycho. in Montreal still not put the Possessionion of thid gun against. This is kind of “angry because the majoriy



  • Marine4Ever says:

    After I read the second paragraph of Ms. O’Malia’s comments, I was having some reservations. Before I finished reading the fourth paragraph, it was a done deal. In all fairness, I did read her whole ‘argument’… with a yawn.

    Sorry, Ms. O’Malia — you loose.

    Tim, you (and others) have said it all. No reason for me to take up a lot of space on things that have already been said so well.

    I would like to emphasize one thing that I feel very strongly about, though: I want to be armed with the same firepower as my government — they’ve got a 30 round mag, then I want to be able to have a 30 round mag. I feel I’ve given a mile by conceding to their having fully automatic weapons and I can only have semi-auto (even though full-auto in the hands of someone not trained is pretty ineffective.) And, yes, I know that for a nominal fee and a license, I can possess a fully automatic weapon (at least, in my state of Texas) — that’s NOT my point.

    That said, I’m all for gun control — as long as there is only one gun in the world and I control it.

    Semper Fi.

  • Jim says:

    Most of us have semi not auto & the main reason of the 2nd amendment was to keep us save from our own government. Bailey sounds more like a liberal & her ideas would not stop the problem but would increase it & many other problems

  • Chris says:

    Bailey, Have you READ the Constitution? What makes you think you have a RIGHT to FEEL safe? You do have a right to Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of Happiness, but nowhere are given a “RIGHT” “to Feel Safe” by God or anyone!
    As many above have pointed out, the rifle of the Minutemen were muskets or flintlock rifles that were the same Military Arms of the day in 1776. The Founding Fathers knew what they were saying and I believe they fully intended the “People” to be armed with the same weapons availible to the military today, INCLUDING FULLY AUTOMATIC machineguns, but we have already allowed our government to deprive us of. The peoples right to bear arms was meant to include ALL weapons as would be needed to defend against a tyranical government.
    Also you state a fear of a tool in the AK 47 as one would fear a rabid dog? This is the typical gun-grabber line of assigning evil traits to inanimate objects. An AK 47 is no more dangerous to you or anyone else than a car, a hammer, or an ice cream spoon, each of which can be blamed for killing far more people than my AK 47.

  • Jean says:

    Like many people I think anyone who owns a gun be it a pistol or a rifle and practices with it could probably kill a person with one shot and not need an automatic weapon. I personally do not own a fully automatic weapon but do own semi-automatic. I also own a sniper rifle. It’s not the weapon that is at fault here, it is the lack of understanding and follow up of those that are mentally challenge and the lack of proper parental upbringing to understand right from wrong.

  • PAUL 2 says:

    To ban guns is the wrong way very wrong. Criminals are criminals because they donot obey laws. The Ten commandmments say donot kill criminals donot obey any laws. Almost all of the school shootings were by kids or adults being treated for behaviour of depression problems. Side effects 1. depression worsening risk of suicide 2.Abnormal behaviour ie. confusion,agression,hallucinations, aggitation. All school shootings were in gunfree zones (shoot me I am unarmed zones).
    Our founding Fathers included the bill of rights as a list of English Common Law rights recognized to be given by God and not to be regulated by man.

  • Kelly Keith says:

    I’m with Tim on this one. I just wish I could get a M1 Abirion and a V-22 in my yard. That would help level the field.

  • Lawrence Drummond says:

    I appreciate many of the comments made but feel that several things have been overlooked. Some related to guns and some to our government.
    I am not a lawyer but I find a fundamental problem when one is needed to define what the Constitution means. The language is plain and simple – it has been twisted by the courts to mean whatever the government wants it to mean.

    The Constitution is a contract between the people and the government formed by it. The interpretation of the Constitution belongs to the states and the people, not the courts or the government. They get to enforce it not redefine it.

    We have not elected people to send to DC to be our leaders but to be our representatives. It is not their place to tell us how we should think or what we should do and we abdicate our responsibilities as Citizens when we let them do that. We are Citizens of the United States not United States citizens. We are the government not government property.

    As stated before in these comments and in the Declaration of Independence we have certain unalienable rights and life and the right to protect our life is certainly one of them. This ‘right’ does not come from any constitution or government.

    The Constitution was created to define what government may do. These items are specific (granted that they may require some definition to implement them) and limited. The states are only limited in that they may not do what the federal government is supposed to do.

    The Bill of Rights is an unfortunate name for the first 10 amendments in that they are often construed to be a limited list of our rights. In fact the rights that we enjoy are those given to us by our Creator (or as fundamental rights due to humanity). Often left out of the printed Constitution (as a separate document or as contained in various texts) is the Preamble to the Bill of Rights.

    The Bill of Rights was created because the people and the states did not trust the federal government and these were enumerated to further constrain what the federal government may do.

    By defining what speech is the government is able to bypass the First Amendment. By defining what a weapon is and stating a purpose and need for those weapons the government is attempting to bypass the 2nd amendment, According to the Preamble to the Bill of Rights the government has no business addressing these items.

    What we need to do is to remember that the persons that we elected are our representatives (servants) not our leaders (masters) and we need to remind them also.

    We need to read and understand the Constitution and other founding documents and we need to share what we have learned with others both for their education and ours. Discussion helps remove misunderstandings that we have acquired through our own interpretation and the interpretation that those who would be our leaders have given us.

    We also need to address our individual State representatives and encourage them to assert our State’s rights and to hold firm to them when the federal government tries to deny them.

  • Rhonda Vieth says:

    I beg to differ with Bailey. She may be a very nice person and intelligent to boot…but she is misintepreting the intent of the Founder’s. They did not say we may have the right, no the duty, to keep and bear arms until, oh, say 1825 or 1910, it is forever. Keeping with that, as the armaments of the “government” progressed so should those of the people. To be as equally armed as a tyranical government is the only way to keep that tyranical government from taking over and keeping them “in fear of the people” so they adhere to the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence. I, as an American, with this God given right of self protection and defense, have been given the right to have any tool of self protection up to and including a jet fighter, tank, drone, AK, AR, sword or whatever other means I can afford and have the room to keep. I will never understand WHAT PART OF “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” do these people not understand? I do not believe we should have to have a permit, register or in anyway be “kept track of”. I do think background checks so the mentally ill and “wackos” do not have guns is the only restraint that should be put on firearms.

  • Elton says:

    Here’s a concept for you. Let’s ban murder by any means. Let’s ban assaults, robberies, rapes and home invasions. Surely something as simple as a law prohibiting these acts would make them go away. Everyone here has made great points. The problem is that they are most likely only being read by people who agree. Changing the minds of the liberals is a daunting if not impossible task. Send your thoughts to your newspapers editorial page, send them to your congressmen, senators and representatives at state and federal levels. Let them know you won’t tolerate their ineptitude. Vote in EVERY election! Gun control isn’t about Guns, it’s about Control!

  • Cris says:

    The “the founders only had muskets” argument is ridiculous, because criminals only had muskets as well. There has been 2 comprehensive university studies on what factors decreased gun violence and the number of people killed by guns. The findings were clear, that the only variable added to a jurisdiction which reduced gun violence and gun homicides was “concealed weapons carry permits” – not the death penalty, not long prison sentences, not ‘people control laws’ (better know as gun control laws) and absolutely not gun-free zones. Every single mass shooting in the United States since 1950, but one, has happened in a Gun-Free zone. The exception was Congresswoman Gabriel Gifford. Therefore, If you believe that a criminal (someone who would rob you at gun point, or murder another human being)is actually going to follow politician “mandated” gun control laws – you really are some kind of stupid.

  • Tippy says:

    Arguing with a liberal or progressive is like banging your head against the wall. You will get quotes that never existed, statistics from some magical land, and much more. I think that just printing the information and let them argue it out is best. If you try to reason it out, “not gonna happen” as to the right for the citizens, Liberal dont need rights, they have government!!!

  • Dallis Miller says:

    Well Rob Evans since u are a Canuck you shpuld really keep out of what doesnt concern u.
    U have no rights. Most surely u have no busoness in this debate so dummy up.

  • Dave says:

    Bailey said, “Do we really trust each other’s judgment?”
    No, and that’s why I’ll keep my gun.

  • Tim S. says:

    The comments made by Ms. O’Malia were quite bizarre,as anyone with even a modicum of knowledge of history or guns would appreciate. In her reference to muskets, the only military or indeed CIVILIAN weapon available at that period of time was a musket! Certainly in the 2+ centuries since then,weaponry has advanced greatly. Also, the citizenry WAS the military in essence. The militia was (and still is) we the people! Again I fail to comprehend how anyone seems to think that fully automatic weapons are readily available to just anyone. Class III firearms are rigorously regulated…you just can’t go to your local gunshop and buy one! Her concluding statement was just as patently absurd…go and rent a MACHINE GUN at a gun range??? In the words of Jar Jar Binks Watcha you been thinkin!!??

  • Roger says:

    Progressives….Socialist……Communist all share the same goal to destroy that which they themselves do not possess. Their inability to present a coherent discussion using supported non convoluted facts will always reveal these individuals….when presented with the truth these reprobates resort to the very actions that they accuse those of us who are conservatives of…..always blaming others for their actions, name calling, issuing threats, and even violence!

  • Paul says:

    From 93 to 2003 we had assault weapons ban on and we had Columbine shooting all done with assault rifles and the also had the beltway sniper during the ban. If outlawing assault weapons will get them off the streets then maybe we should outlaw Crack cocaine and Meth? The point is that the gun free zones is the problem. A gun free zone is only gun free until some nut realizes that it is a easy target and that he will not have much resistance.So to enforce a gun free zone you need guns which then becomes a not so gun free zone. The whole idea of a gun free zone is dumb always has been.

  • Paul says:

    In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were round
    ed up and exterminated
    In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
    Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
    China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated
    Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
    Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
    Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
    Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
    You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
    Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
    Take note my fellow Americans, before it’s too late!
    The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
    With guns, we are ‘citizens’. Without them, we are ‘subjects’.
    During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
    If you value your freedom, please spread this antigun-control message to all of your friends.

  • Paul says:

    Join your local Militia every state has one you can go no line to WRAM to find and contact your local Militia.

  • themerryinfidel says:

    The founding fathers didn’t include the right to bear arms in the constitution so that we could protect ourselves from harm, but so that we could protect ourselves from TYRANNY! Nowhere in the constitution does it say we have the right to bear arms only for safety or for hunting. If you’re not so sure about that, try reading the constitution. While you’re at it, read some of the “Crap” (as you put it), that our founding fathers wrote while composing this great document.

    When the constitution was written the “Musket” was state of the art technology and was used by civilians and military alike. The framers of the constitution certainly understood that both military and civilian technologies would evolve and improve over time, yet they didn’t specify that the right to bear arms be restricted only to muskets! They understood that in order for our citizens to stand up to tyranny, they would need to be at least as well armed as the tyrants. Owning a military style weapon does not give one “Power” over anyone, it simply makes one equal.

    You obviously failed to do your homework before writing this article or you would know the difference between a semi-automatic weapon and an automatic weapon. You would also know that automatic weapons were banned in the 1930’s and it is stil unlawful for the average citizen to own one today.

    No theorist I’ve ever read has suggested arming every person in the country because “that’ll scare’em!” It’s a proven fact that communities with a high percentage of gun owners have less crime that communities with a low percentage of gun owners. Again, do your homework.

    Perhaps the reason that the “Lunatics” are shooting up movie theatres and schools is because they are, well, Lunatics! What about all of the violent tv shows, movies and video games they are exposed to on a daily basis? Maybe we should ban those…

    So before you start spouting your liberal, left wing crap, maybe YOU should take a second to think about the core principles that this country WAS BUILT ON: FREEDOM!! And I don’t know about you but I feel very “free” knowing that my neighbor is armed and will come to my families aid if and when he is needed!!! Keep your powder dry!


    • Paul says:

      Bailey you might want to give the name of those crap papers that you are talking about cause most of the people probably dont even know of the federalist papers.

  • Paul says:

    Go here to find your local Militia http://wramsite.com/

  • CaptTurbo says:

    I hope and encourage my neighbors to be armed. In fact I gifted one of them a revolver. He is 93 years old and lives alone. This is how neighbors should treat one another. We should cover each other’s backs.

    I would like to think that when the day comes that the many years leftist mismanagement coalesces into roaming gangs of hungry criminals looking to prey on the timid and the weak, that they will not find a soft target near me or my neighbors.

  • Rick says:

    It is clear Baily has never read any supporting documents of those who wrote the 2nd amendment, that she has never read the Supreme Court decisions upholding and support the 2nd amendment, and that she does not comprehend what ‘RIGHTS’ are intended to be…

    The “right” of the people… …”shall not be infringed” is very clear in its intent and meaning. While the 2nd amendment’s purpose is to prevent ANY government from limiting ANY aspect of the population, the assumption many have that they were referring to only ‘personal protection’ is WRONG. It’s PRIMARY purpose is to prevent ANY government from limiting the RIGHTS of the PEOPLE to protect themselves FROM the GOVERNMENT. And, to do so by force of arms if necessary! It is also clear, by any reasonable person, that those who wrote the 2nd amendment also recognized that anarchy follows without rules… That is why they inserted the phrase “A well regulated militia”… By doing so, they put forth a GUIDE for us to follow, that every freedom loving PERSON should be excercising (and protecting) their RIGHTS by being involved in the protection of their country and ALL other RIGHTS.

    What has gone wrong is that the PEOPLE haven’t listened, have forgotten the lessons of our fathers and forefathers, and generally DONT GET IT – that every PERSON has a responsibility to protect THEIR RIGHTS and everyone else RIGHTS. There are far to many SELFISH and irrisponsible people that fail the test of being a CITIZEN of the U.S.

    If every PERSON was taught, trained, and educated in being a CITIZEN and the PEOPLE were held accountable (vs. the current norm of the selfish blame game) for their actions – events like CO, PA, etc. would not happen nearly as often. MEDIA is actually encouraging these events by sensationalizing them – the PSYCHOlogy of these disturbed people gives them a guaranteed outlet for their distress! STOP IT! Media – YOUR are largely to blame! STOP dramatizing these events! Instead – Sensationalize the old style PUBLIC HANGINGS of the Old West – have your reporters and cameras at the executions of these criminals. SHOW that harsh crimes are punished even more harshly! Demonstrate that taking another’s life means ENDING YOURS! See how many mentally disturbed attention seekers crawl out of the woodwork in THAT environment.

  • Paul says:

    Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don’t you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough.”
    ? Frédéric Bastiat

    98 percent of the criminals that are in prison Identifies themselves as liberals maybe we would be better off outlawing liberalism.

  • Paul says:

    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?”
    ? Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

  • A.R. says:

    Mega-kudos to your post…I wholeheartedly agree with every word you wrote.

  • Gary says:

    I’m not convinced that the young perpetrators of the mass killings are not victims or should I say “deployments” of psych-ops to achieve the agenda of disarming civilians. After the murders en mass, the perps all seem to kill themselves. There’s no way to get in their heads to find out the true motive.

  • DaveB says:

    Well put Paul, Oh… Oh, sorry. That was our faonding father’s crap. You were just repeating it… 😉

    • Steve says:

      Many people think the second amendment is to ensure the right to hunt. Nothing could be farther from the truth! As a descendent from Hessian blood, and later born again descendent of Jesus blood, the second amendment IS to ensure that the People (all Americans) have the ability to defend against an evil/tyrannical government. Jesus said that if you live by the sword you will die by the sword, but even his disciples had a number of ‘military arms’. The size of the armament is not the problem, it’s the potential need to use them against the ‘biggest bully’ on the block, in the aforementioned case… the government. I am all for a constitutionally cognizant, confident and confined government. But when they seek to usurp their ‘granted’ power, the ‘Grantors’, you- me-every other voter, are held in proper conscience to un-elect them as constitutionally able. I would be wary of a little old lady with a pistol, not that she doesn’t have a right to tote one, but only the ability to use one well enough being the old lady she is. I know it takes a bit of strength to use one properly, and that with practice!, but none the less can you trust the government of the Katrina raveged towns confiscating the citizens protection? Many of those townsfolk were robbed at gun point after the fact, why? They were unarmed and the robbers knew it. Another Biblical quote from Jesus… Math.12:29 “How can any one enter the strong mans house and rob him of his property unless he first binds (or disarms) the strong man?”. Or do we so easily forget the disarming of the German people before and during the Hitler regime? Unless one is a true socialist, the public ownership of firearms has NEVER been a problem.

  • Gary says:

    I’m not convinced that all the young mass murderers who all seem to kill themselves after their crimes are not victims of psych-ops agendas to disarm civilians by fostering a demand for gun control. No one can get into their heads afterwards, that’s for sure. Our wonderful governments would never do anything so heinous? Sound crazy? It’s no crazier than the shooting, napalming and bombing of people all over the planet by most of our wonderful governments. I.e. USSR-Afghanistan, Stalin’s murder of millions, Imprisonment and/or execution of thousands of dissidents behind the Iron Curtain and countless other atrocities of inhumanity too numerous to list. USA-Vietnam, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea. CHINA-murder of millions of internal dissidents, thousands of Japanese, Cambodians and others, murder of 10,000 students in Tianamen Square. The list goes on and on.

    Who the hell is kidding who? I damn well want a gun when some govt. guy shows up on my doorstep with a gun and tells me that I’m off to a relocation center…like it or not. If I’m wrong than no harm done, I’m a peace loving guy who bears malice to no person. I wish neither to rule nor be ruled. Gun control where the govt. has guns but the people don’t is a non sequitur in a free society. The nice people don’t kill wantonly. The crazies can kill dozens with a glass gallon jar full of gas and powdered laundry detergent. Shall we ban gasoline, glass jars or matches? The whole argument is B.S. They want you disarmed without any control, while they have all the control. If we allow it we might as well as kiss it all good-bye because the inevitable result will place that govt. guy, issuing orders, eventually on your doorstep.

    By the way, to all you who argue about the necessity for gun control, the 2nd amendment was created solely to allow the citizen to protect himself from a tyrannical govt…nothing else. It had nothing to do with hunting or any other B.S. Try reading the writings of the Founders in conjunction with the Constitution if you are deluded and think otherwise. Of course the idiots produced by the education system of today, if they can read and have even a rudimentary power to think, will never be encouraged to read the Founders or the Constitution.

  • Anonymous says:

    I scrolled down once I read about the Militia may be the way to go! I have to say this and am at Peace with God to do so!

    The MAIN issue with the World in past and present is the Bankers, 100%! The number of ammo is 1.4 Billion+ by DHS alone!


    Go to infowars.com, get informed and spread the word! They show proof of everything…

  • bjd says:

    Why do Syrian, Lybian and Egyptian citizens have automatc weapons, RPG’s, rocket launchers, artillery, hand grenades and on and on? They didn’t like their government so they were free to do something about it. Do we not have the right to reserve the same force for ourselves? Whether we use that method to redress our grievances, do we not have the right to retain that power? Are we less to be trusted with force than someone in the Middle East or North Africa? Do we not have a Bill of Right expressly written to recognize this God given right? Did we not exercise this right to become free in the first place? What fools would freely give up the safeguard, what short sighted fools

  • Shawn says:

    Reflect on these points: The militias had cannon – several of which the British went to Lexington and Concord to relieve the citizens of. So the founding fathers were familiar with and approved of crew serviced weapons. Several inventors of that time were working on reapid reloading rifles and even multi-barreled guns (the British even fielded one rapid loading rifle). So the founding fathers were aware of advancing technology and wrote nothing to discourage or limit the application availability of these new weapons. Instead they added “shall not be infringed”. And this also in context of rapid firing, multi-shot, semi-automatic, lethal air powered rifles (Girandoni Air Rifle circa 1780). Further, their use of “well regulated” in the language of the time meant well trained, proficient, and familiar with the weapons (note there were no no other laws written until the first racist motivated gun-control laws were passed). When the militia of 1812 didn’t follow this simple advice of being “well regulated” the British easily routed them and burned the Capitol to the ground.

    The founders knew the Constitution does not “grant” any rights. The Bill of Rights states the inalienable rights we have as human beings and that the government cannot by fiat or legislation sweep away although they may have attempted to do so on several occassions. Those who attempt to take away or subvert those rights I believe are properly classified as domestic enemies. As Torries they should be, as was done after the Revolutionary War, put on ships back to England.

  • Anonymous says:

    This is about the best explanation of this I have seen. Needless to say, I don’t agree with Bailey, and neither should any reasonably minded individual.

    “The Gun Is Civilization” by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

    Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.
    If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either
    Convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of
    Force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories,
    Without exception.

    Reason or force, that’s it.

    In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through
    Persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and
    The only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as
    Paradoxical as it may sound to some.

    When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason
    And try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or
    Employment of force.

    The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal
    Footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with
    A 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload
    Of drunken guys with baseball bats.

    The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between
    A potential attacker and a defender.

    There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force
    Equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all
    Guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a
    [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s
    Potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative
    Fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

    People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the
    Young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a
    Civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful
    Living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

    Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that
    Otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in
    Several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the
    Physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

    People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal
    Force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with
    A bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works
    Solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both
    Are armed, the field is level.

    The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian
    As it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as
    A force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

    When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but
    Because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot
    Be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because
    It enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who
    Would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would
    Do so by force. It removes force from the equation… And that’s why
    Carrying a gun is a civilized act.

    By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

    So, the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed
    And can only be persuaded, never forced.

  • Jdetroit says:

    Bailey, you have good points and I thank you for presenting them logically. But you need to also look in terms of reality. The genie is already out of the bottle. You will never remove “weapons” (substitute any word here you like) from society. If not guns, there are knives. If not knives, there are clubs. If not clubs, there are hands. In order to stop any senseless death, you have to remove the violent aspect from human nature. As humans ourselves, that would be impossible.

    Second, and most importantly…

    Let’s say that your neighbor does indeed have an AK-47 in his garage. How many people does it kill in a year by being in the garage? Zero. Does your neighbor show signs of possible intent to harm society? Focus on that. If people had done the same with the recent tragedies, the gun would still be collecting dust and the person would be getting the treatment they need. How many news reports do you see on how they are improving mental heath compared to disarming Americans?

    I have an AK-47. In my safe. In my basement. Behind a false wall. Most people keep theirs secured in a similar fashion and if they do not, they are the few who make good gun owners look bad. I have killed no one with it or any of my firearms and I plan to kill no one with them. That is not what I bought it for. I bought it for the historical value and it is fun to maintain and take to the range. Do I need it? No. Technically, we do not “need” the Internet in which we use to have this debate. I hope to never “need” any of my firearms as mentioned, since humanity (and government control, if you want to go that far) is unpredictable. Look at the riots and looting and murder that happen frequently in America. Those are also tragedies where the unarmed are also victims. That can happen anywhere. If the need does arise, I deserve my “fighting chance” as an American to protect myself and my family. That is freedom to me.

  • themerryinfidel says:

    Jdetroit, You have a couple of good points, but you better hope no intruder enters your home with the intent to do you and your family harm because by the time you can get to your weapon you and your family will be dead! Keeping it in the basement, in a safe, behind a false wall might be a good place to hide it from the authorities, but it will be useless in a situation where you truly need it. My pistol is on my hip when I leave the house and on my nightstand when I retire for the night. I might be one of the few that make “Good” gun owners look bad, but at least I don’t make them look foolish!

  • Duke says:

    “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms … disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. … Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants.” –Cesare Beccaria, quoted by Thomas Jefferson in Commonplace Book

    “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”

    — James Madison, Federalist No. 48, February 1, 1788

    “Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace.”
    — President James Madison

    “Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpation.”
    — President James Madison

    “When the people fear the government, there is tyranny;
    when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”
    — President Thomas Jefferson

    I could go on and on with the wisdom of the ages with which these men, who brought about this great nation through the ultimate sacrifice of their families, fortunes and lives and well as lively hood through the years of war and defiance and determination to achieve that which in their hearts, minds and souls they knew to be a better form of government upon these shores for all future generations.
    I will not now nor ever formulate the thought that we should give up essential liberties granted us by those who’s wisdom and forethought far exceed mine, for any form of temporary governmental security at their hand which left my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as well as my families in the balance of whichever way the wind blow according to their desire at that particular moment or the sway of the populace under their influence by way of smoke and mirrors trickery.

    Nuff Said.

  • BRO says:

    Has anyone noticed how. “over the top” equipped even the local Swat teams have become. Fully automatic weapons, grenade launchers, flash grenades and every accessory known to exist. Hell, some even have their own tanks and armored vehicles. Money is no object, after all it’s on the taxpayers dime. My question is why? If you take a close look, we’ve let them create highly trained groups of “Storm Troopers”, much like Hitler’s SS. Even the outfits have a strong resemblance to Nazi Germany. They’ll try to convince you that it is all about your protection, homeland security and etc. Well maybe, but how does the average citizen defend himself if one day we find this “high tech” force turned against us. Don’t be fooled, your government is trying to get your guns. That will be a tough challenge, which I have no doubt, since it will only get all gun owners in an uproar. So how do they circumvent this problem? They start by quietly buying up the bullet manufacturers in the name of a dummy companies controlled by the Government. So when bullets become scarce and outrageously expensive how do we stand up for ourselves.

    The liberals say we don’t need semi automatic weapons with high capacity magazines to protect our property and families, then why is the president and his family protected by more automatic fire power than we can possibly imagine. Let one shot or something that sounds like a shot ring out and I think the average American would be dumbfounded by the the barrage of automatic weaponry that will be pulled from under trenchcoats and out the of roofs of the surrounding SUVs. Are our lives and the lives of OUR loved ones any less important?
    One mentally disturbed idiot pulls an “assault rifle” and they should all be banned? What if he had thrown one pipe bomb though a window, creating equal devastation, do we ban all steel pipe?

    We all know that this kind of tunnel vision thinking only affects the honest citizen and the crazies go about business as usual with a lot less opposition. Why are they so blind that they can’t see what happened to the Countries that adopted this lame way of thinking.

    Lastly, try to understand why our Government was supplying even more deadly military weaponry to the Mexican drug cartels and then cover it up by executive order, but American citizen shouldn’t have the right to protect himself with even a lesser technology.

  • Jerry says:

    To Bro…..

    Don’t think for a second that the citizens of this country could not Defeat the so called Government. That is exactly why the gun bans are back in the limelight. The government of this country are no different in it’s thinking than the King was just before and during the american revolution. The “Fast & Furious ” fiasco was not a poorly thought out idea, it was calculated. People always underestimate the government! The only chance we as citizens will ever have is if we can get the media “Back” on our side. They are the Key to this issue. It’s no accident that the two Biggest owners of the media are major players in the anti-gun propaganda machine. We need true reporters on our side to expose the links to these things. Kinda strange how all of a sudden during the last few months before the election up to now the number of high profile “Mass Murderers” that have conveniently surfaced to lend their support to the “Cause”. Social Change thru contrived crisis!

  • Dale says:

    If you look at when they were writing the Constitution, you should read what Ben Franklin and Jefferson wrote about the right to bear arms. Point #1 They said that was added to protect the people from a tyrannical government. Point #2, the government as already ban automate weapons in 1938. Point #3, People blame the gun, but the gun is not to blame, it is an inanimate object. The gun does not kill someone picks it up to use to kill. It is usually the criminals and people with mental health problems. It is time to enforce the laws that we already have on the books. We should also increase the penalties when a gun is use to kill someone.

  • John Halden says:

    Bailley O’Malia must believe that you could protect yourself from some criminal with a musket. The criminal would have a semi-automatic weapon and you would be toast. The same is true of an out of control government, though the anti-gun crowd think that argument is insane. While the founders could not envision all new technology, They were well aware that firearms would evolve, having seen, even in their day, the evolution in weapons. I wonder if Bailley ever tried to own a fully automatic weapon? I’m sure she has not, because the hassle and cost make it quite restrictive. She then goes on to say that no one would need a “so called assault weapon” for hunting. Anyone familiar with an AR-15 knows that they are increasingly being used for hunting varmint with the .223, and larger game with larger calibers like the 6.8 and .308 cartridges. It is almost perfect for hunting in dirty and wet conditions, since the stock is not wood and the design is lightweight and proven to be reliable in most conditions. However, this wonderful design is also the very thing that makes people think of it as an assault weapon. How backwards is that thinking? Any person with a firearm could reek the same carnage with a so called hunting rifle in 30-30 or 30-06 with a smaller magazine if they are proficient with that firearm. We practice “tactical reload” many times, and whether the magazine holds 30 or 10, it would not matter for an experienced shooter. Somehow, anti-gun people can not fathom that thought. I think I know why. Most, if not all anti-gun people do not own guns. They have never even fired a gun! They know next to nothing about how a firearm works, nor do they care to. They sell a bag of goods to the public about firearms that is all bad. They look at black guns and tell people how bad and terrible they look. Somehow, a 10-22 with a wood stock is ok, but put that 10-22 into a synthetic black or camo stock, and it becomes an assault weapon! Same caliber, same inner workings, but in the synthetic stock it changes everything! It is because they are ignorant. What makes it worse though, is that they have no desire to learn about the very subject that they think they can make judgement on. When I hear them talk about firearms, I can tell that they do not have a clue about them. I’m sure people reading these comments know this is true. Anti-gunners just espouse their ignorance and think that most people will believe what they say. They use fear to turn people against guns. They use fear to turn people against those that own guns. I think it is disgusting!

  • Bel says:

    I’m so tired of hearing about all the lunatics. If they didn’t have guns they would use bombs. I have a right to bear arms against home invastion and a tyranical government if that sad fact ever came to pass. Hitler got rid of all the guns before he loaded those innocent people into box cars and poisened them. Are we really going to allow that here? Killers will find a way to kill and people who are smart will find a way to protect themselves.
    Stop second guessing what the constitution meant. It means we can bear arms. Get it?

  • Hank says:

    One fact about our 2nd Amendment rights, which never seems to bear mentioning, is that the concept has its origins in English Common Law. This harkens back to a time when “arms” consisted of swords, knives, flails, and battle axes.

  • Larry H says:

    Didn’t read through all the comments and just have one. Tim is right, we all need 50 nuclear bombs in our basement so we have the same military capibility as the government……

  • Fred says:

    January 6, 2013 at 8:03 am
    Jdetroit, You have a couple of good points, but you better hope no intruder enters your home with the intent to do you and your family harm because by the time you can get to your weapon you and your family will be dead! Keeping it in the basement, in a safe, behind a false wall might be a good place to hide it from the authorities, but it will be useless in a situation where you truly need it. My pistol is on my hip when I leave the house and on my nightstand when I retire for the night. I might be one of the few that make “Good” gun owners look bad, but
    …You made an assumption. I keep my ar15 secured in my gun safe at all times when I am not using it but I always, as you do, carry my 1911 on my hip and have it on my nightstand when sleeping. He never said he did not carry a pistol.. His comment was well placed I feel.

  • Jeffrey Jon says:

    The right to bear arms was given to us not only for our personal protection,
    but also against a tyrannical government. It seems to me that our government, which
    at present is wanting to broaden its powers at the expense of the people and the
    constitution, is becoming what the Founding Fathers feared would happen, hence providing
    us with the power to defend ourselves. Knowing that this power is in our hands, our
    government wants to take it away, at all costs, and will use whatever means to get what
    it wants. These stories of these senseless killings are emotional and certainly are upsetting
    to all Americans, even those who have guns in their homes. Again we realize that the
    stories that prove that good citizens who can prevent these tragedies such as the case in
    San Antonio, are never brought to the forefront because it would prove the opposite
    to the case the government is pushing for, which is “guns kill people, and it’s out of control”
    Compromise is a good thing, but if we lose sight of the big picture, the government wanting
    to expand its powers and to lessen ours, then we can see that compromise will still
    lessen our rights and privileges. We will lose. If they take one thing away, they will go
    after it all incrementally. If we give in on one, then we will eventually give in on all. With
    our rights, where do we draw the line?

  • John says:

    I believe our founding fathers were right on the mark. They wanted us to have the right to defend ourselves. If you come and take every weapon I have today
    I could replace them all tomorrow on the black market. Why should criminals
    have rights that we don’t. Go ahead and take our weapons and you will be
    taking our lives with them. America has never been invaded simply because
    other countries know we will beat them down. Take our weapons and any nutcase
    can still get a gun if they really want one and still kill. A person could
    still do a lot of damage with any gun if they wanted. I have sent a letter
    to Governor Haley in SC and the NRA outlining a way to ensure the safety of
    children in schools. We have enough law abiding citizens that have already
    passed a S.L.E.D background check to carry a weapon to form a all
    volunteer security service for our schools. It would only take 10 people for
    each school. Two a day working only 4 hours one day a week and two people to
    stand by incase someone could not make their 4 hours shift. The school would
    be locked down and the volunteer guard would sit at the front door with a 40
    cal Glock. If anyone started to the school with a weapon this guard could
    keep them from entering until the police arrived. This would not cost the
    state any money and it would ensure the safety of our kids. Tell me what you think
    John at [email protected]

  • larry says:

    now i where to relocate to! finally, a politician who makes SENSE!

  • larry says:

    that was a reply to paul’s link.

  • Anonymous says:

    I was searching through all these post looking for one person who was in favor of gun control and got tied of looking- everyone one agrees don’t take away our guns. Oh currently I don’t own one put all this talk of taking them away in the media makes me want to go out a buy one. I like my knife its the same as Navy Seals use and I’m advanced in the martial arts so a gun is just a extra for me. And just to set the record straight I’m not right or left I’m A-political but live by a high code of honor.

  • Robert M. Anderson says:

    According to her “reasoning”, then, we should be able to pass laws outlawing computers, TVS, radios, and all the other technological advances that weren’t avaiable when the First Amendment was drafted. More importantly, she does not seem to understand that WE granted the government a limited set of powers; government HAS no rights. Only INDIVIDUALS have rights, and it is the primary duty of the government to PROTECT those rights. As the German playwright Freiderich Schiller wrote in his play “Joan of Arc” “Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain”.

  • Rosabel says:

    I don’t read the lady complaining about the guns that took Osama b. Laden out. Did she mention Fast and Furious? Or the Border guards who were killed by Obama/Holder’s game? Who and what have kept this country free from now speaking German and Japanese? In Alaska, we came close to it, but thanks to our men and women with guns, we avoided that. Why aren’t these people working as hard at giving us answers to Bengazi? Thesee issues are being swept under the rug. These people who have open minds by appointment only, are so close to brain dead. Can’t think or reason beyond their nose. Settle the standing problems before trying to cover up with something none of us have control over. Think of what these ‘progressives’ are doing to the families of the children who are the losers. Have they no pity for them? Shame. The Progressives have no mercy except for the wrong reasons. And if the gun chasers get their way (God forbid) people who rely on their guns to hunt and provide subsistence food for families year around, will be hurting. Where would their food come from? Would they send help to us? These people don’t know the words ‘help thy neighbor’.

  • Peter J Laserinko says:

    I love and support my Second Amendment right, it’s granted to me and every other law biding citizen across America and protected by the Constitution of the United States of America….the Second Amendment allows me to own a firearm, protect my self, family, friend, community, and country if need be, and I will do just that….

  • Paul says:

    Another reason to allow people to carry a concealed weapon without a permit. If that woman would have been carrying a loaded pistol she could have stopped this from happening. If you have been checked out through the data base and have no felony against you or no resent mental illness then I see no reason for you to need a permit to carry a concealed weapon. The background check that is required when you buy a pistol should be all you need to say its ok for you to carry.

  • John says:

    I am certain that the framers of our Constitution intended for citizens to have availability to advancements in technology regarding firearms. After all they had the latest weaponry available at that time. Their foremost goal for the 2nd Amendment was for citizens to be able to protect themselves from out of control and non-responsive government. The framers were very intelligent and if they had wanted limitations on the 2nd Amendment they would have indicated that when they wrote it. Having served in the Marine Corps during Vietnam I can tell you that any weapon that is going to be considered an ASSAULT WEAPON, must have the CAPABILITY of FULLY AUTOMATIC FIRE. It doesn’t matter what other features it has, if you can’t fire it FULLY AUTOMATIC it IS NOT AN ASSAULT WEAPON. And fully automatic weapons have been illegal for around 80 years except under special conditions and only with a permit. Our M14s had only 20 round clips and even when we joined two (in a way I won’t mention) did we have the capability of more than 20 rounds and even then it still required a clip changing procedure between the two joined clips. I believe we now have an out of control and non-responsive government led by a man who isn’t even eligible to hold the office he currently has. Now more than at any other time after the war between the states the citizens truly do need their firearms. And that brings up one more point, WE MUST NEVER ALLOW A PERCEPTION OF NEED TO BE A PREREQUISITE TO ANY OF OUR RIGHTS!!!!

  • Jonathon says:

    I want whatever the military has.

  • I’ve been browsing online more than 3 hours nowadays, but I never discovered any fascinating article like yours. It’s lovely value enough for me. In my view, if all website owners and bloggers made good content as you probably did, the internet might be a lot more helpful than ever before.

  • RL says:

    Standard arms for infantryman of the British Military from 1722 – 1838 was the .75 cal smooth bore flintlock musket which was reliably accurate up to a distance of 75 meters.

    Most militiamen of the Continental army used the same musket as the British infantryman, but many used their own personal Rifles which were reliably accurate up to 300 meters.

    So during the time our founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment many of the citizens of this fledgling nation were equipped with better more advanced weapons than their military.

    The goal of our forefathers was to guarantee a well armed and equipped populace that could if necessary rise up and defend itself from an oppressive government. (hmm that’s kinda like what they just did)

    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.

    Nothing there about having to own a gun or that if you do it is for hunting or that it is to protect yourself from some nutjob. The purpose of ensuring that the people are well armed is to ensure the security of a free state.

  • wanunche says:

    well you may be right about the founding fathers and the style of weapons that were at that time, all being flinters. Now 200 years in future, we need to keep up with the powers that could take away all our rights from the constitution. If you say we cant have semi-automatic weapons to defend ourselves, then we will pry them from our enemies cold dead hands. So once again we will have semi-automatic weapons.

  • Rafe says:

    Name me only one:
    Criminal who will register his guns
    Bad guy who will ask for a back ground check of another bad guy so he can sell him a gun
    Gang banger who will report his gun stolen or lost
    Terrorist who will subject themselves to a background check to buy a gun
    Weapon that jumped up, loaded it’s self and ran around shooting
    Politician who dosen’t know 98% of the people are law abiding, 2% are criminals and politicians

  • Warfighter says:


    It’s VERY SIMPLE really, “A Well Regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the RIGHT of the People to KEEP (Own) and BEAR (Carry on your person, in a manner of YOUR CHOOSING) Arms (NOTE: NO distinction is made by the Founders, as to type, caliber, size, mode of operation, or ammo capacity, therefore WHAT RIGHT does BIG GOV’T have to do so??) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED (Impeded, Interfered With, made subject to LICENSE, PERMIT,ETC!!) My question to ALL of these LIBERAL GUN CONTROL @$$HOLES is this…WHAT PART OF “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” do y’all NOT UNDERSTAND???? I believe the Founders made it CRYSTAL CLEAR, that We the People have the INALIENABLE RIGHT to OWN and CARRY ARMS OF OUR CHOOSING, UPON OUR PERSONS IN WHATEVER MANNER THAT WE AS SOVEREIGN INHABITANTS OF THIS LAND, SEE FIT!!! ALL of these PERMITS, LICENSES, FEES, ETC are nothing more than INFRINGEMENTS, and INCOME PRODUCING SCAMS perpetrated by the proponents of BIG GOV”T, who wish to WEAKEN WE THE PEOPLE




    To do NOTHING at this most CRITICAL point in time, IS TANTAMOUNT TO TREASON!!

  • D.R.Willie Lanham says:

    Very well said, WarFighter, there are way too many citizens that do not have a clue about God given rights to self preservation and the right to protect oneself and family, whether their blood or neighbors. Sheeples are so rapped up in their own little world that they believe anything their government tells them. Very few have spent any time researching our heritage or spent any time in the military to know what it feels like to honor the country and believe in the Constitution. Our schools have even stopped teaching our children about our history.
    When the government stopped the draft and went to all volunteer military, I felt so betrayed and soon realized how much it was going to change this country and how the citizens looked toward the 2nd Amendment and how the government might have a charge @ trying to disarm the citizenry.
    Well, now we all know. But, the citizens have a chance to stop all the dishonesty and corruption, if they stand up and study whats going on and VOTE, we have to get our Representatives in Washington that really want to stop this and stand behind them and fight with all our might. Otherwise, this whole country will resemble Chicago, or Detroit.

  • Anonymous says:

    To keep government in check and be able take care of my security here…

  • Anonymous says:

    This country is getting out of control!!! It has been for some time now. Americans have the right to bear arms. Period…

  • Jack Weaver says:

    I can’t say it any better then Warfighter did.. the 2nd amendment is for we the people to be able to protect ourselves from a “Tyrannical Government”……

  • Dragonfairy says:

    Our founding fathers created our right to bear arms to keep us safe from a tyranical government much like the one we have now!

  • mark willbur says:

    I’m always armed. My wife is always armed. I encourage all sane responsible Americans to arm themselves and be ready for whatever is coming. I’m afraid that with all of the unrest in the world, ISIS, radical Islam, Illegals, we are going to be faced with real life and death decisions right here in the U.S.A.
    BTW, the first article mentions “automatic” weapons. Would somebody please inform all of the clowns that talk “automatic” weapons, that they have been unavailable to the general population for decades. Just because a firearm looks “scary” doesn’t make it an automatic.

  • Roy says:

    I am sick of this “only for hunting” crap!
    It is a fact that Congress once called civilians to battle a navy, and we did it, with what we have, that was not supplied by the government. And we defeated them.
    Imagine us doing that with shotguns if an enemy navy does the same thing today?

  • Nancy says:

    How many anti-second amendment people know that automatic weapons are already banned for general use? Only people who are specially licensed for them can own one. Semi-automatic weapons only fire one shell per trigger pull, and semi-autos are in general use. Most of these anti-2A people don’t know the difference between auto and semi-auto, and call magazines “clips”. One CO politician even thought that once a magazine was empty it was worthless–she had no idea it could be refilled. And these idiots have political and media power!

  • I am actually pleased to read this weblog posts which consists of lots of helpful
    data, thanks for providing these statistics.

  • Name says:

    Th ey going to do what they want any how wy doe’s it mater v

  • Ruth Lawler says:

    Governments have murdered hundreds of thousands of their unarmed subjects during the history of man. Unfortunately, history is not taught any more in our public schools since Jimmy Carter gifted us with the Federal Dept. of Education. We’ve given away our children to our government, and that was stupid. They are thoroughly indoctrinated in socialism and communism but know diddly squat about American liberty.
    We cannot expect brain-washed subjects to recognize that governments are far more dangerous than any drugged psychopath on pharmaceutical poisons. It’s time for us to become citizens again and take back our Constitutional freedoms.

  • My right’s to bear arms shall not be infringed, do you people really understand what this means?

  • duke says:

    the 2nd amendment calls for a well regulated militia
    not a bunch of paranoid a holes
    who answer to no one

  • Allan Yates says:

    Bailey O’Malia has no clue what she is talking about. Her idea of the government letting the people keep arms that are “within reason” as she says does NOT square with the original intent of the Founders: “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, AND EVERY OTHER TERRIBLE IMPLEMENT OF THE SOLDIER, are the birthright of an American…. [T]he 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.” (Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.) The intent of the Founders is undeniably obvious: Coxe specifically wrote the words, “EVERY terrible implement of the soldier;’ he did not write “SOME implements of the soldier, as long as they are not too terrible and do not pose a threat to the absolute domination of the Political Class over the people.” At the end of the day, that is what this issue boils down to: CONTROL. Politicians loathe the idea that they must answer to anyone or anything. They chafe under the restraints of the constitution and resent the citizens who maintain the ability to remove them from office by force if necessary. That is the EXACT reason for the Second Amendment: To make it possible for the people to revolt against a tyrannical Political Class – and to prevail in that revolt. You do not prevail against a standing army that is armed to the teeth by using revolvers and O/U bird shotguns, but then the Second Amendment was never written with hunting in mind. As Mike Vanderboegh observes, “The Second Amendment is a political issue today only because of the military reality that underlies it. Politicians who fear the people seek to disarm them. People who fear their government’s intentions refuse to be disarmed. The Founders understood this. So does every tyrant who ever lived. Americans forget it at their peril.” Judge Andrew Napolitano is more to the point in his observation: “The Second Amendment was not written to protect your right to shoot deer. It was written to protect your right to shoot tyrants if they take over the government.” While Bailey O’Malia may recoil with horror from these assertions, they are in fact EXACTLY what the Founders intended with regard to the people and their right to arms in America.

  • rodrob43 says:

    I’m on the side of gun ownership. The founders put the 2nd Amendment into the Bill of Rights immediately after the right to free speech. The 2nd preserves the first and the rest of the Bill of Rights. If the government becomes oppressive, the 2nd is there to protect the people from the government. I see the government leading us into bankruptcy and as many of us have read a change in international currency. This may lead to extremely difficult times, especially for 90% of the population. The need to defend your family and property and to find food and water will become paramount.

  • badbob85037 says:

    I stopped reading after the Sandy Hook line. Putting all the evidence aside showing a false flag our government has been known for for over 100 years the parents of the supposed victims was all that was needed. The death of one’s child is the worst pain any human can bare. In that time only close family and closer friends can come close to easing the pain. I seriously doughty any, let alone all, of these parents of the so called victims would want to talk to media. Yet all these parents did. When they did I never saw one tear. As a matter of fact these parents acted like they had won the lottery not lost a child. Anyone who has taken a close look at Sandy Hook and the people involved know this was just another try at taking the only means to protect us from the government our founders warned us about.

    Fast and Furious didn’t work. An Atrtorney General of the United States for the first time in history was found in Contempt of Congress for what has grown to over 400 murders. With a stroke of a pen these real victims go without justice and all involved in their deaths go free

    I put the blame both a media that can be call only treasonous and criminal that has let this president get away with selling arms to our enemies to genocide and everything in between and the Congress of Enablers.

    Anyone telling you he wants to disarm you for your protection is dumber than a tree stump or a criminal tyrant. After Fast and Furious this president has proved to be both. Any attack on a document you swore to protect is grounds enough to kick a traitor to the curb. So we shouldn’t even be talking about the Second Amendment. We should be screaming this administration and members of both parties be tried and answer for their crimes. Not just Fast and Furious but Libya, Iraq……………..

  • DEFENDER88 says:

    The gang down the street has AK’s, AR’s, Mac 10’s and access to pretty much what ever weaponry they want.

    As long as they have access to these weapons (and they always will) I and my ‘good neighbors” should have access to these weapons as equal power to repel them as necessary. And this includes repel the Govt. as may be necessary.

    And if the “System” ever fails, like many of us feel is possible, it becomes paramount to have these weapons for self defense.

    The difference is, neither I nor my good neighbors are going to go to the stop-and-go or school down the street and start shooting.

    I demand and “WILL” keep my AR around for these reasons.

    Try to take it and you can expect(molon labe) ie a fight to the death.

    ie over my dead body.

    If you can find it.

    Better to go down in a hail of bullets than tortured to death.

    I don’t want to shoot or even hurt “anyone” but if you try to take my guns it will get ugly.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.