"Fully automatic weapons have been regulated in the U.S. since 1934."And yet, it would be very difficult to pass even an automatic weapon ban
today.The "shall not be infringed" crowd believes in any and all
The same people who say that "the problem isn't guns, it's mental
health care", are the same people who are opposed to providing mental health
care to all Americans.
Brad, Reaonable people are for reasonable controls.Unreasonable people in this debate just dig in their heels, refuse to give an
inch out of an irrational paranoia that the 2nd Amendment is going away.
I agree the current efforts are kind of symbolic. But they're not nothing,
and that's symbolic, too. And nobody is about quashing your second
Reality:1. Obama isn't coming to get your guns - any of them -
even assault rifles.2. Most Americans WANT a background checks -
which btw, is still 100% Constitutional.3. And FYI - weapon
registration is also 100% Constitutional.4. The 2nd ammendment
doesn't specify caliber, grain, or capacity. If you Tea-Partiers want to
get technical - our right to bear arms only applies to the single shot, .50
caliber, black power, muzzle-loaders of our Founding Fathers.5. When
neo-cons can finish reading ALL of the 2nd amendment - and prove to us all where
they get their training and keep it current, I'll give them credit as to
being "well-regulated" - per the Constition. [Otherwise, I'll refer
to them what they really are - an un-organized Mob.]
EDM,What are reasonable controls? Everything currently proposed will have
no effect on future shootings. Connecticut, has one of the strictest gun control
laws in the US and it did not stop the shooting. Washington DC and Chicago have
some of the strongest gun control laws in the US and their homicides rates are
the highest in the nation. Gun homicides, robberies, assaults and home invasion
robberies are up dramatically in Australia since they enacted they gun ban.
However, gun homicides in the US is at the lowest rate in 3 decades. So just
how are gun controls, symbolic or not, going to curb gun violence in the US?
What we need is better laws/treatment for the mentally ill.Roland, you are
100% mistaken. As a retired Police Officer I can say with certainty that those
who support there second amendment rights are not the ones that are against
better health laws. The ACLU and liberal judges are the ones who make it almost
impossible to hold someone for a mental health evaluation when they are a danger
to themselves or others. Now days you virtually have to take someone before a
judge to get them committed.
About the only difference between a fully automatic weapon and semi-automatic is
how fast a shooter can move his trigger finger.It takes about four
seconds for a full auto military weapon to unload a 30 round magazine. It takes
about six or seven seconds for it to be emptied by someone with a strong trigger
finger.Mighty big difference.
@JoeBlow:"...it would be very difficult to pass even an automatic
weapon ban today. The "shall not be infringed" crowd believes in any
and all weapons, anyplace."The purpose of the Second Amendment
is to maintain the capacity to deal with a tyrannical government, should one
arise in America. In order to do this, the arms of the militia authorized by
the Amendment would have to be equal to what the government has in its arsenal.
Else, any effort to overthrow a corrupt government would meet with disastrous
failure... which would render the Amendment worthless.
Joe Blow, you have no logical response to what I said, so instead you change
the subject to something that isn't even on the table. EDM, did you listen
to Dianne Feinstein and her desire to take all guns? Also, why should we
"give an inch" on something that will have absolutely no effect on gun
violence and is purely symbolic? Give me some reasonable laws that will make a
real difference in gun violence and I will support them. LDS liberal, what can
I say. You need to stop watching CNN and MSNBC and Piers Morgan and open you
eyes. And you are the one that needs to read the 2nd amendment. It does not say
"single shot, .50 caliber, black power, muzzle-loaders." As far as
training, I am not the one who goes before Congress, touting stricter gun
control laws, holding a weapon with my finger on the trigger. Re gun
registration laws, what purpose does it serve? Would that have stopped any of
the mass shootings? No! Also, do criminals register their guns? No! We need
better mental health laws, not gun control laws.
"Instead of penalizing law-abiding American citizens by taking their guns,
our lawmakers should spend their efforts on providing better care for the
mentally ill instead of making it harder to hold and treat them."Good, then let the GOP support a single-payer health-care system that covers
all Americans. Otherwise, they are hypocrites. But the whole
"care for the mentally ill" dodge is just that. According to the
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 20 percent of
Americans experienced a mental illness in 2011. At best, 60 percent of those
received treatment. Of those who did receive treatment, most are not violent.
But no mental health professional can gaze into a crystal ball and tell us just
when stress or some random event might tip someone off the edge.What
do we do, take guns away from everyone who experiences a mental illness? All
45.9 million of them in 2011? And there was a new crop in 2012, and there will
be another this year. And what do you mean, Mr. Merritt, by "providing
better care" for them? What is better care, and how will it prevent another
Newtown? You're naive.
wrzAs you point out, a number of the Founders did think the 2nd Amendment
is there to provide for an armed citizenry in case of a tyrannical ruler.
We've already seen it in action, haven't we? 1861-65? Wasn't
that a situation where a sizeable part of the country thought they were being
deprived of their rights (specifically, the right to own other human beings),
and rose up in armed rebellion against their oppressors? That happened, right?
600,000 casualties later, we saw, clearly and without dispute, what a horrendous
mistake it was. The 2nd Amendment has been tried and found wanting. It
can lead to nothing but bloodshed and misery.
Naive, I don't think so. After 36 years in law enforcement I have probably
dealt with more mentally ill people than you. What do I mean by better mental
health care/laws? It means a family member can get help when they ask for it
without having to jump through a million hoops enacted by liberal law makers and
judges. When I first became a PO you could put somebody on a 72 hour mental
health hold when I or a family member felt they were a danger. Now it's
almost impossible thanks to our liberal friends who want to make sure their
rights are not violated. Tell me how new gun control laws are going to stop the
mentally ill from going on a shooting rampage? Do you think the mentally ill
and criminals are going to abide by gun control laws? For those who want to
register our firearms, what purpose does that serve? How is gun registration
going to stop somebody bent on mass murder? I know what the intent of that kind
of law is, do you?
"The purpose of the Second Amendment is to maintain the capacity to deal
with a tyrannical government"That is your interpretation. I
believe the discussion of militias in the constitution was because of OTHER
tyrannical governments, not ours. This was at a time when we did not have an
federal army and armed citizens would be called to defend our country.Raptor - "Joe Blow, you have no logical response to what I said, so
instead you change the subject to something that isn't even on the
table"Funny, I have not responded since you posted. Want
a logical response? It is a complicated problem. NO single
solution will fix it.It is hard to argue that if automatic weapons were
easily available, they may have been used and most likely more people would die.
Is the solution smaller clips or banning assault weapons? Nope.
But they could help. Background checks? Waiting periods? Not unreasonable.
Reagan staunchly supported the Brady bill and instituted a 15_day waiting period
in California.Then you write "did you listen to Dianne Feinstein
and her desire to take all guns?"My post contain no outright
falsehoods. You cannot say the same.
@WRZ: Do you seriously think that individual citizens have the right to own all
the same weapons that our military does? ICBMs, Predator Drones, Cruise
Missiles, Tanks, Aircraft Carriers? I can not take seriously anyone who actually
believes that, although I agree that a bunch of guys with AR-15s in their
basements are no match for a Predator Drone.
It's so weird that a group that so strongly favors no restrictions on guns
is the first group to put restrictions on health care, marriage, drugs, and
alcohol.Hypocritical much redshirt, mike richards, wrz?
I see un-organized mob of angry citizens who keep loosing democratically held
elections, who keep trying to tell us their AR-15s, and AK-47s and limited
amounts of ammunition can over-throw the United States Government and
military.I beleive the Taliban had a better chance -- at
least they had -- Formal Training, some sort of Organization, numerous Foreign
suppliers, fully automatic weapons, surface to air missiles, and a legitamate
reason to fight while trying to ward off foreign invaders and occupiers.Eric SamuelsenProvo, UTJust proved you with a little History
lesson about another bunch of silly rednecks who thought they were above the
Constitution, tried to overthrow the Federal government, and take matters into
their own hands.It doesn't turn out like you saw in Rambo, or
how El Rushbo tells you.
Joe Blow. What "falsehood" did I state? Do you listen to the news? I
have nothing against a 15-day waiting period and background checks. Again you
talk about automatic weapons which are not the issue and haven't been for
decades. In my original letter I was pointing out the difference between
automatic weapons and semi-automatic weapons and that most people who want to
ban alleged assault weapons don't know the difference. However, instead of
bringing up any logical discussion about banning semi-automatic weapons, you
changed the subject, twice, to fully automatic weapons. Again, how is banning
semi-automatic assault weapons and smaller magazines, not clips, going to stop
mass shootings? It isn't. Anybody familiar with semi automatic weapons can
change a magazine in 1-2 seconds or less. I fully agree with you that it's
a complicated issue and their is no simple solution. However, this knee jerk
reaction to ban assault type weapons that have no difference in functionality
from semi-automatic handguns and sporting rifles is not the answer.
BTW - You neo-cons have it all wrong.The Government can not
"infringe" (i.e., confisgate) your assault guns.BUTThe Congress has full constitutional authority over commerce, so,
banning the furture sales is 100% fully constitutional.Infringed has
nothing to do with buying and selling.Go ahead, make an BushMaster
in your garage, keep the rifle Grandpa gave you -- but controlling the
buying and selling of such weapons passes Constitutional muster.
"you changed the subject, twice, to fully automatic weapons."My point is that banning fully automatic weapons probably did save lives. I
understand that this is not the discussion, but it is germane. If banning fully
automatic weapons is "reasonable" should not semi-automatic weapons at
least enter into the conversation?Also, please note that many feel
that there should be NO restrictions as to number, type and place one should be
allowed to carry."What "falsehood" did I state?"How about this one."did you listen to Dianne Feinstein
and her desire to take all guns?"From CNN politics."The restrictions would not apply to guns owned before enactment of any
law. Feinstein noted her proposal exempts from the ban more than 2,000 models
used for hunting or sporting purposes."And finally you write
"Again, how is banning semi-automatic assault weapons and smaller magazines,
not clips, going to stop mass shootings? "It wont. Nothing will
"stop mass shootings"Neither will a waiting period or
background checks. But of those things you write"I have nothing
against a 15-day waiting period and background checks."Measures
are meant to reduce not stop.
As usual, the liberal left has missed the entire argument. They continually
tell us that only "big brother" has the right to give us rights. They
have turned everything completely backwards.This nation derives all
of its authority from the people. The government has no power. The government
has no authority except what the people have delegated to it. The people, not
the government, make the rules. Those rules are made when the people instruct
their representatives to write laws. Those representatives have no authority
independent of the people. The government has no authority independent of the
people.The right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people, not to
the government. The right to regulate arms belongs to the people, not to the
government. No one gave the government that authority; in fact, the people
explicitly forbade the government from handling gun rights.The left
ignores that fact. The left still believes that we have a king. The left still
believes that the king bestows on us "rights".God made us
free. God gave us rights. We control the government. The government does not
Mr. Merritt/usraptor:Do you have mental illness in your family? Do
you understand from a very personal standpoint just how complex and
unpredictable this is? The answer to our gun problem is not in "providing
better care" for the mentally ill. The answer is also not in interpreting
the second amendment to mean that citizens of this country can own as many guns
of any type as they want and for any purpose. We need to understand the
solutions that other countries seem to have figured out and implement them.The salient thing about rights is that they come with responsibilities.
When enough people refuse to accept the responsibilities, we lose those rights.
All of us, not just those who abuse them. We reached that point long ago. FYI,
since Newtown, there have been at least 1,440 documented gun deaths in America.
We can stop the carnage if we really want to.
Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahAs usual, the liberal left has missed
the entire argument. They continually tell us that only "big brother"
has the right to give us rights. They have turned everything completely
backwards.This nation derives all of its authority from the people.
The government has no power. The government has no authority except what the
people have delegated to it. The people, not the government, make the rules.============ News Flash -- Mike, The PEOPLE are
the one's asking for the gun controls, and the Representatives are
listening and responding to it.Just as you say, Just as it
should be.Sorry you can't see it.
usraptor -- are you SURE it was liberals who made mental health care so hard to
get?Did you forget that St. Ronald the Reagan was the one who shut
down mental hospitals? Have you forgotten that the Privacy Act was a Republican
idea?You need to do some serious research.
Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahGod made us free. God gave us
rights.12:14 p.m. Jan. 30, 2013==========So
then, why doesn't GOD stop the mass shootings?BTW- Bro.
Richards, God also gave us brains, intellect, wisdom and the capacity to
solve our own problems.I suspect HE excepts us to use our brains and
intellect to fix problems, not use more guns.Otherwise he'd given
Adam a rifle, and tempted Eve with a howitzer.My personal belief is
we mock God being made in His/Her likeness and image by neglecting the wisdom
and knowledge uses and the gift he gave us, and not rely on guns to fix
And Mike Richards, you have, as usual, completely misstated liberal arguments.
Absolutely no one is saying that 'big brother' has the right to give
us rights. Absolutely no one believes we have king. You consistently do this,
describe your opponents positions in ways that are frankly preposterous. But no one believes that rights come without responsibilities. We have the
right, the god-given right, to free speech. But there are limitations that we
all recognize to that right--we can't shout fire in a crowded theater, for
example. The right to bear arms, I'll confess, is a right I don't
care about. But that right, like any other, comes with restrictions.
That's all we're talking about. What are responsible limitations to
the right to bear arms, on the level of responsible limitations to the right to
@LDS Liberal,Newsflash - The Constitution has to be amended. If you
really think that you can get 75% of the States to back your idea of gun control
then you know what has to be done.The Constitution protects us
against people like you who claim that "the people demand". The people
have clearly stated that the right to keep and bean arms shall not be infringed
- by the government.Until the people tell their states that they
want an oppresive government to rule and reign over them, a defacto return to
monarchy, then people like you who pretend to speak for the masses are just out
of luck.If you really took an oath to defend the constitution, as
you claim that you did when you were sworn into the military, why do you break
that oath now as you demand that government has the right to disregard the
prohibition put on it to stay out of the gun control business?
Ok then, why does it matter then? Why are gun nuts willing to pay 10 times as
much for an assault style rifle over a hunting rifle? Why are the assault style
weapons sold out everywhere? Why is the ammunition for assault weapons sold out?
Well, we know the answers. It's a complete;y dishonest
argument. I've been on the old tube watching reviews of assault
"tactical" weapons and they say they are awesomely different and more
lethal than any old rifle. You can't have both ways.The bottom
line is in actual firing power many of the modern assault rifles control recoil
and grouping very tightly while firing nearly as rapidly as a automatic weapon.
usraptor-Thank you for an experienced and insightful look at this
issue. You will find that the regulars on these pages spout a lot of anti-gun
fear rhetoric that really doesn't address the issue of violence caused by
the mentally ill. I remind the rest of you that the mother of the
Newtown shooter tried to get him inpatient therapy, and was unable to due to the
current laws. She made a terrible mistake in letting him have access to her
weapons, but which she paid with her life. I personally believe she is alive in
another realm and she is deeply saddened that her mistake allowed her son to
harm the others.The lessons we need to learn from this are that
parents have to take all aspects of parenting very seriously, that buzz in
systems in schools are completely inadequate to keep our kids safe, and that
since there are already a myriad of weapons out there that can't be taken
back, we need better ways to protect ourselves where ever we go in a given day,
and we need to address the mental health needs of people, both in prevention and
"In order to do this, the arms of the militia authorized by the Amendment
would have to be equal to what the government has in its arsenal. Else, any
effort to overthrow a corrupt government would meet with disastrous failure...
which would render the Amendment worthless."Thank you for
summing up why this argument in support of the Second Amendment is
"worthless" as you put it. Until you can buy a functioning Browning M2
.50 machine gun, Abrams tank, Apache helicoptor, F-22 Raptor, or Tomahawk
missile at a gun show, the entire "we need to be able to fight a tyrannical
government" argument is moot. That ship sailed many years ago.
-Prohibit lethal fire arms or devices that can be made lethal from being
purchased or possessed by anyone under the age of 21 years. (I would suggest
that weapons owned and posessed by a person of at least 21 years may be used by
another person over the age of 16 years, provided that the juvenile's use
of the weapon is under the direct supervision of the gun owner/licensee.)-No person who has a firearm licensed to him/her may loan the weapon to
any other person without directly supervising the use of that weapon at all
times.-Prohibit lethal weapons from being in the posession of anyone
who is not a citizen of the United States of America for at least 10 consecutive
years, and from being poessesed or used by any individual who has a felony
record of violence.-Prohibit all automatic weapons, weapons that can
be converted to automatic weapons, from being posessed by any citizen; that such
should only be controlled or possessed by active military or law enforcement
personnel.-All lethal weapons will be licensed through a state
agency and licensed to one owner.
Do you use your bayonet mount deer hunting. Do you like to shot 30 or 40 rounds
in a row at the range to be rambo like?
J ThompsonSPRINGVILLE, UTIf you really took an oath to defend the
constitution, as you claim that you did when you were sworn into the military,
why do you break that oath now...?2:06 p.m. Jan. 30, 2013=========== I sworn to defend ALL of it, not cherry picking
snippets to suit political agendas.The 2nd ammendment clearly states
a "well-regulated militia".When your type proves you are trained,
and "well regulated" -- then I'll consider you a militia.Until then, you are precisely what you claim you are -- "unregulated",
"no-regulations".In other words, -- a Mob.Furthermore;Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution: "To provide for
calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress
Insurrections and repel Invasions"Note that the purpose of
militias is to suppress insurrection, not to foment insurrection.Article 8 section 2 makes the President the commander in chief of the militias
at any time they are called to serve.If you read the constitution
you will find no example of militias being authorized to act against the
government.I will defend the Consitution...ALL of it.against
all enemies, foreign and Domestic - So help me God.
OMM/LDS Lib,Only you would claim that others "cherry pick"
when you cherry pick which Supreme Court decisions are binding on you ad on
your oath to protect and defend the Constitution. There is
absolutely no link between belonging to a militia and keeping and bearing arms.
You twisted both the Constitution and the Supreme Court rulings to pretend that
there is a link.You also know that the President works for the
people. The people do not work for the President. He commands the military to
keep the generals from enslaving us by force. The President is forbidden from
legislating and he is forbidden, by the same Constitution that you have chosen
to ignore, to inhibit any citizen from keeping and bearing arms.You,
Obama and his followers think that Americans can't read, can't think,
can't comprehend. You are all sorely mistaken. Government did not give us
the right to keep and bear arms. We prohibited government from passing laws
that do that very thing.
J Thompson,"Absolutely no link between belonging to a militia and
keeping and bearing arms"Except for the specific linkage directly
stated in the language of the Second Amendment. "The President is
forbidden . . . to inhibit any citizen from keeping and bearing arms."Nonsense. No one's doing that. Sensible regulations are needed for
every Constitutional right.
Re Lew ScannonYou forget about all the lives that guns save along
with the peace of mind they provide, especially to women.You also
forget that the second Ammendment is still part of our constitution.Perhaps you also forget or perhaps never knew, ..taking guns away from law
abiding people does not help protect law abiding people. In fact quite the
J ThompsonSPRINGVILLE, UTOMM/LDS Lib,You twisted both
the Constitution and the Supreme Court rulings to pretend...=========== Funny, coming from a man who can't accept
this same Supreme courts Consitutional ruling 7-2 in Roe v. Wade.
usraptor:You counter your own argument when you point out that fully
automatic weapons haven't been legal - or really present, with very few
exceptions - since the 1930s. Wouldn't the same thing happen
over time if easily modified AR-15 and AK-47 weapons were outlawed today, along
with magazines over 10 rounds? Eventually those weapons would dry up and be
less accessible to crazy people. Most people don't realize that AK-47s and
AR-15s can be modified to become fully automatic. Couple that with the giant
clips, like the 100 round "drum" James Holmes used (along with body
armor), and you have a mass killing machine that makes Virginia Tech look like a
school yard fight.As outlawing Tommy Guns showed, it's more
than symbolic, although nobody should pretend that any law, or waiting period,
or modification to mental health laws (or access to mental healthcare) would
prevent mass shootings. These events will occur again, because we have too many
crazy people and too many guns. But nobody in elected office is talking about
to meJoe Blow, it's common knowledge that in 1995 Feinstein stated
shesupported a ban on all guns. A position she recently reiterated.Goggle it.I find it interested that Brad points out the fallacy of
a assaultweapon ban and instead of providing any viable rebuttal to what
hesaid the gun control advocates resort to the typical liberal tactic
ofchanging the subject; health control, civil war, ICBMs, automaticweapons,2nd amendment and the tried and true name calling(LDSLiberal).
Nobody offered one viable answer as to how an assaultweapons ban, limited
magazine size, and gun registration will preventfuture mass murders. They
also continue to ignore that since the gunban in Australia gun homicides
and violent crime have dramaticallyincreased. The 1994 ban on assault
weapons did not stop Columbine justas the current proposed legislation
will have no effect on future massmurders. This is a social issue, not a
gun control issue.Lew, speaking of hypocrites, if Obamacare is such
a good thing, whydid Congress and Obama exclude themselves? And why does
Feinstein have a concealed weapons permit and hire armed guards to protect her?
I'm willing to accept the "guns are protection against government
tyranny" argument, but can someone supply examples of when it actually
worked? Whiskey Rebellion? Nope. Civil War? Nope. Weather Underground?
Nope. Oklahoma City? Nope. Symbionese Liberation Army? Nope. AIM occupation
of Alcatraz? Nope. AIM occupation of Wounded Knee? Nope. Black Panthers?
Nope. Montana Freemen? Nope. The 1987 Kamas seige (forgot the family's
name)? Nope.Contrast that with with peaceful nonviolent tactics
such as civil disobedience and street protests. Civil Rights Movement? Yes.
Anti-arpartheid divestiture movement? Yes. Viet Nam War protests? Yes. Gay
rights movement? Yes. Feminism? Yes. Clamshell Allaince? Yes. Utah MX
missile protests? Yes. Nuclear testing? Yes.Armed insurrection
may be enshrined in the Constitution. It just fails as an effective strategy
for accomplishing an end.
To all you "Liberals" and "Conservatives", I carry a smooth bore
musket with me in public which makes me the most manly hipster American out
Lagomorph,Perhaps Armed insurrection is enshrined in the
Constitution because our country gained it's independence through it.
CBAX: :Perhaps Armed insurrection is enshrined in the Constitution because our
country gained it's independence through it."The
Revolutionary War was about the last time the citizenry had rough parity in arms
with the government authority. Further, there were not the democratic
institutions we have today (as a result of the revolution) available to the
colonists to effect political change.My point is that however useful
armed insurrection may have been in the past, today it is obsolete as a strategy
to accomplish change. As others have pointed out in this forum, unless you have
tanks, fighter jets, drones, and other big weapons, the citizenry is literally
outgunned by the government. For most political conflicts there are nonviolent
means within or outside the system to effect change (lawsuits, legislation,
citizen initiatives, protests, civil disobedience, etc.) that have proven to be
more effective than taking up arms. Please show me an example in America from
the last century where armed citizens have successfully fought back against
government overreach.The "armed citizenry is our defense against
tyranny" line rouses our Braveheart fantasies, but it is so 18th century and
works about as well as a flintlock. There are better ways now.
CBAX: "Perhaps Armed insurrection is enshrined in the Constitution because
our country gained it's independence through it."Another
response-- The place where insurrection actually IS enshrined in the
Constitution is Article 1, Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power…
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions..."The Founders
anticipated the possibility that the people might rebel against the government
and made it the express constitutional duty of the militia to fight against
insurrection. The Constitutionally mandated job of the militia (however you may
define it as individual or collective) is to protect the governmental authority
and oppose rebellion, not the other way around. In other words, the militia is
on the side of the Storm Troopers, not Luke and Obi Wan. Also, Article 2,
Section 2 makes the President the Commander in Chief of the militia. It makes
it pretty hard for the militia to fight against the government in the name of
the Constitution when the Constitution makes the government the commander of the
militia. How do you follow your oath to uphold the Constitution in that
99% of the gun banners couldn't tell you the difference between a magazine
and a chamber in a gun. Most have never hunted or shot anything other than a
friends BB gun when they were 7. This is total ignorance at work here and look
no further than Barack who couldn't describe the difference between a shot
gun and what he called a "6 shooter" to shoot pheasants. This is
laughable but unfortunately factual. Ignorance is rampant in liberal-ville and
we will just have to fight it.
patriotCedar Hills, UT3:19 p.m. Jan. 31, 201399% of the
gun banners couldn't tell you the difference between a magazine and a
chamber in a gun. Most have never hunted or shot anything other than a friends
BB gun when they were 7. =========== I've bow,
black power and rifle hunted. I'm also fully M-16 ceritfied,
qualified, and have a Marksmanship Military Ribbon.I'm
certified and qualified to inspection, install, and deploy conventional,
chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and weapons systems. ...and
I'm a Liberal.This is laughable but unfortunately factual.
Ignorance is rampant in patriot-ville and we will just have to fight it.BTW - I'm still waiting for an honest reply patriot -- What branch of the military did you serve in?
To all those who support and agree with part or all of Obama and
Fienstien's gun control objectives & rhetoric I pose these question due
to the vast subjectivity, nebulousness & lack of agreement on specifics
inherent to the current objectives & rhetoric of Obama and others calling
for "reasonable" or "common sense" gun control. 1.At
what specific point of infringing upon the rights of lawful gun owners will you
stand up and say-Obama/Congress you have gone too far, you have overstepped your
bounds?2 What specifically in terms of executive orders would you
find as too extreme and as a violation of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution
and more specifically the separation of powers inherent to our system of
government. 3. In the event that Obama's gun control measures
did reach your threshold a president overstepping his bounds through executive
fiat, would you take a stand to have his orders repealed and push for Obama to
held accountable & deprived of such unconstitutional powers? Please be serious as these are very serious questions that MUST be answered
before a real honest good faith discussion of reasonable gun control can take
Lew Scannon,I see you have resorted to the liberal tactic of name calling
instead of providing answers in calling Mr. Merritt mentally ill. Since those
who commit mass murder are obviously mentally ill, I think that better treatment
for them would be a good start to the problem. Approx 36K people were killed and
many more injured in car crashes last year. Should we ban people from owning and
driving cars because of the small percentage who drive recklessly or drunk? What
you keep ignoring is that crime in general and homicide rates in particular,
except maybe in Chicago which has some of the strongest gun laws in the nation,
are down significantly. Mass murder is a social issue that lies squarely at the
feet of the moral decline in this country in the past 20 years. Also, why is the
crime and murder rates the highest in the Blue States? In the Red states, where
the strongest supporters of the 2nd amendment live, crime and homicide rates are
LDS Liberal: "If you Tea-Partiers want to get technical - our
right to bear arms only applies to the single shot, .50 caliber, black power,
muzzle-loaders of our Founding Fathers."And the First Amendment
only applies to newspapers, pamphlets, and people shouting on soap boxes.You'll be tickled to know that a recent Supreme Court decision
described your exact argument as "bordering on the frivolous." The
justices were being kind. There's no "bordering" about it.
I keep seeing the argument made that the Second Amendment's original
rationale as a hedge against tyranny is outdated, because civilians
couldn't outfight the United States military.But we don't
*need* to outgun the military. A truly tyrannical government -- one openly
defying the Constitution -- wouldn't dare call out the United States
military to suppress American citizens. The officer corps takes an oath to the
Constitution, not to the President. If the troops don't fire on civilians
when ordered, that's the end of the regime. Happens over and over. On the other hand, if the regime has civilian security forces to do its
work -- and it can always find at least some -- it can stay in power, so long as
they're the only ones with guns. Consequently, I want the American public
to have every weapon available to them -- with reasonable background screening;
I'm fine with that -- that civilian enforcement agencies have. We
don't have to outgun the military -- we just have to outgun enough people
that any illegitimate government would *have* to call out the military, which
would mean its end.