Legal Issues

New Legislation Proposes Gun Confiscation

Senator Dianne Feinstein holding an AR-15

Have you ever heard the one about the politician offering assurances that no one is out to take away your guns? Well, a handful of Democrats from California can’t make that claim any longer. Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein are leading a new charge.

In true political anti Second Amendment fashion, and not wishing to waste the opportunity to capitalize on a tragedy, U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has introduced the “The Pause for Safety Act.”

Barbara Boxer
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer is leading the charge, but pulling several of her Democrat colleagues with her, to enact new gun control measures.

According to Boxer, The Pause for Safety Act would help ensure that families “and others” can go to court and seek a gun violence prevention order to temporarily stop someone close to them who poses a danger to themselves or others from purchasing a firearm.

It would also help ensure that families and others can also seek a gun violence prevention warrant allowing law enforcement to take temporary possession of firearms that have already been purchased if a court determines that the individual poses a threat to themselves or others.

Last, but not least, it would help ensure that law enforcement makes full use of all existing gun registries when assessing a tip, warning or request from a concerned family member or other close associate. National gun registry? The shortsighted Democrat’s proposed legislation misses the mark on several levels. First, she recently said the following when discussing The Pause for Safety Act.

“It is haunting that the family of the gunman who committed this massacre in Isla Vista was desperate to stop a tragedy, and yet they lacked the tools to do so,” Senator Boxer said. “My bill would give families and associates who fear someone close to them could commit violence new tools to help prevent these tragedies.”

The speech sounds fine… if you do not care about the facts. First, the family did contact law enforcement. Law enforcement did contact the subject and determined he was a well-spoken young man and not a danger—just acting out. The family did not take away the car he later used to maim over a dozen people! Second, of the six people the suspected murder killed (not including himself), the first three were stabbed to death. Why doesn’t the Left want to take away sharp objects or find a way to regulate knives? The murderer used his BMW to hit and injure 13 people; Boxer does not have a provision for family members to engage the police to confiscate an individual’s motor vehicle. Why? The answer is simple. As we all know, it is not about saving lives, it is about an agenda bent on taking away our Second Amendment rights.

According to Boxer’s website, the Act would allow family members “or close associates” to obtain the emergency restraining order and then seek law enforcement confiscation. Does this mean one abusive spouse could claim the other was unstable and likely to hurt someone in an effort to nefariously eliminate the tools of self-defense? Can a nosey neighbor claim they heard you say something that leads them to believe you are a danger to yourself or others and thus the police need to collect data about the firearms you own in preparation for confiscation. How would that be accomplished? Would beat cops be expected to knock on the suspected dangerous person’s door and ask for all of their guns? Or would a SWAT team be kicking in the door with flashbangs, potentially terrorizing anyone in the house in the name of safety?

Senator Dianne Feinstein holding an AR-15
Senator Dianne Feinstein said these weapons are not for hunting deer – they’re for hunting people.

What exactly is a “close associate?” How qualified are these “close associates” and what qualifies them to call in law enforcement to confiscate legally owned items without due process. What is the burden of proof? After all, the California murderer’s videos and subsequent interview was not enough for law enforcement to act or determine him to be a threat. For this Act to be effective, the burden of proof would have to be extremely low and firearms would be confiscated at the slightest accusation.

How far will this proposed legislation go? It is hard to say. The NRA is under fire as always, and the President is showing a willingness to subvert the law by acting unilaterally. He has also threatened to act through Executive Order in cases where he cannot get legislation passed. The danger is real, and the midterm election critical to our future Second Amendment rights.

Of course, it is unlikely the mainstream media will report on this without a heavy anti-gun spin. The responsibility is ours. Please take a few seconds and share this article as widely as possible through email and social media. It is our responsibility to spread the warning and hold any politician endorsing this legislation accountable.

On a related note, Senator Boxer is pleased that similar legislation has been introduced in California by Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley), Assemblyman Das Williams (D-Santa Barbara) as well as state Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara).

What will you do to help spread this message? Tell us in the comment section.


The Mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, The Shooter's Log, is to provide information—not opinions—to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (634)

  1. The reason that these two Democrats want gun confiscation is because most crimes are committed by their democrat constituents! They don’t want to lose any democrat votes! The other reason is that both of them are from San Francisco which is a Illegal Alien protection city, case in point Kate Steinly!

  2. I’ve owned a 22 single shot “youth gun” since I was 9 in Kentucky. As a Boy Scout, at 13, I became a Civil War re-enactor. This meant taking the family relic saber onto the field and buying a working reproduction 44 cal. Colt Army black powder revolver to go with it. I obtained a 58 calibre genuine 1863 Springfield rifle-musket to be able to “stand in line” with my fellow troop members in gray. At the 1968 re-enactment at Perryville, KY, there were 400 troops on the field. 3 different movie studios shot footage of us in “action”. This footage was used as “background” for Civil War movies for a couple of decades. At 14 I got a 1918 Mauser trench rifle to hunt with. I actually JOINED (opposite of drafted) the Army during the Vietnam War. This is where I discovered that I was an excellent target shooter. My collection of antique and unusual firearms grew as I inherited and purchased “neat” and historic guns. Since I was a kid, in the state of Kentucky, one had to sign a log sheet to buy ammo. I saw no harm in this. Felons are not allowed to even own ammo, much less a gun. However, as a proud Vet and NRA member, stuck in California, I have three times had to ward off robbers and bad actors intent on doing my wife and me harm. How? I PRETENDED to have a firearm on me! How DANGEROUS is that? But it worked. Once, me and the wife needed to post the mortgage check on time. We pulled up to the post office about 9 pm. Instantly, a car with four shave headed, facial tattooed, laughing individuals blocked us in. As I got out, the driver flashed a switch blade. I turned my back on him, and unstrapped the belt holding my rubber coated iPhone into its “holster” on my hip and covered it with my hand, trigger finger pointing straight down, mimicking the action taken by a police officer as he approaches you to write a traffic citation. I walked over to the mail slot, posted my letter and turned fast, left shoulder pointing at them and my hand on my holstered “gun”. The driver yelled “Pistolo! Pistolo! Pistolo!” and they roared off. My wife asked what happened. I told her that I thought they were double parked. Thank God she doesn’t speak Spanish. And no, I think I’ll hang on to my iPhone 3, thank you. They don’t make thick rubber cases for the new ones. Buy a gun safe, stay legal and spread out your collection so they don’t “get them all” if it comes to that.

  3. Lmao, leave it to Beau, taking a statement made about one specific item and broadly applying it to others.
    Like you said, Beau, SOME areas need some regulation, but, as always, you are too stupid to stay on topic. I was taking about firearms and the 2nd Amendment, not chemical Companies and pollution control. Jesus Christ, you really need to stay on topic so you don’t look like a perfect asshole. I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT DEREGULATION ACCROSS THE BOARD! I was, however, talking about deregulation concerning firearms. I made the point that there is already too much Governmental interference, and what we need is for people to stop being lazy, and for them to take responsibility for their own lives, instead of blaming the failures of Government.
    But, as usual, Beau, you reply to a post by myself or Paul, and simply because it is us, who have wiped the floor with you, you have to become immediately adversarial. I don’t care if you like me or not, but you have to stick with reality. You cannot continue to ignore it because it comes from a source that makes you feel uncomfortable.

    So, two things before I post this.
    First thing is: STOP replying to posts that you cannot understand. You are trying to twist my words to suit your purpose. It won’t work. I wasn’t talking about deregulation across the board, I was taking about it with respect to Firearms. That’s all. Not one time did I mention any deregulation of any engineering or textile industries. I mentioned FIREARMS AND THE 2ND AMENDMENT. So stop trying to twist my words.

    And finally, you need to answer the question: Name ONE business, or any other area of peoples everyday lives, for that matter, that has no regulation by the Government. You can’t. There is too much Governmental control already, and your dumb ass wants more! LMAO, that’s utterly ridiculous.

  4. Once again, Beau defends his pathetic strawman.

    He cannot cite one post here advocating less gun regulation, but continues to argue as if someone has proposed that. Perhaps he’s arguing with folks who aren’t here.

    And then he speaks as if the gun industry is unregulated. Delusional.

    1. What? Are you reading anything, or do you just lash out blindly whenever I post something/anything? Your blatant attempts to diminish my viewpoint, only serves to make you look like an idiot. Again.

      This is getting too easy Paul.

      Take a look at the post I was responding to.
      It clearly says: “. . . name ONE industry that has no Governmental regulation and control….. You can’t, because it doesn’t exist.
      We need less government and more people taking responsibility for themselves.

      If that’s not a tacit complaint about regulatiosn and a call for deregulation, I don’t know what is.

      Now, get ready for Paul to somehow try and ‘parse’ his statement into some unintelligible blathering about ‘What he REALLY meant’.

      You’re right ss1. There needs to be some regulation and it does NOT mean the end of gun ownership. Closing the gun show loophole, selling ‘smart’ weapons, restricting little kids from shooting at shooting ranges, just common sense stuff. We can’t let perfect be the enemy of good.

    2. Hi Beau,

      I totally agree with your comment about regulation in America, i.e. the one in which you capitalized all the words. Also, your photo essay was powerful. If left alone and uncontrolled, human beings tend to be greedy and have other undesirable side affects (LOL).

      Some of the things you wrote just above this reply seem logical. I don’t want little kids next to me at the gun range. I don’t want a criminal to buy a gun at a gun show.

      As far as smart guns go, I have not studied that topic to even comment on it. I’m usually on these forums looking for technical topics for guns or accessories that I like.

      Hang in there with Paul. If he’s the Paul I think he is, who I argued with on another forum (M1A Korean import blockages I think?) many months ago, he’s a tricky one to argue with….LOL!

    3. Well let’s look at some of those “common sense stuff”.

      1. Gun Show Loophole. Mostly a lot of hot air. Criminal do not patronize gun shows, virtually all guns sold at “gun shows” go through the same background check as buying from firearms store. Agree, a FEW firearms are sold on a person to person basis but very darn few.
      2. Well I don’t think a “little kid” should be let loose with a full auto weapon as it is easy even for a adult to “loose it”. But I was shooting my fathers .45 ACP that he brought home from WW2 when I was 7. Kicked like the devil but I never shot anyone by accident either. Proper training and supervision is all that is required to allow a “little kid” to shoot a gun.
      3. Smart weapons? Great idea, except that such a creature is still in the realm of Science Fiction. How do you make a firearm that will distinguish between a “bad guy” and a “good guy”??

      What needs to be done is STRICT enforcement of the already existing laws. Most prosecutors will allow the “gun charge” to be plea bargained away for the “guilty” plea on the main charge. The BATF will not prosecute those who are under firearms disability and attempt to purchase a firearm through legal gun dealers. In fact the BATF has done nothing but harass firearms dealer while ignoring the bad buyers. I am aware of one such incident in my own locale. The dealer actually reported a suspicious buying pattern to the BATF and almost lost his license for selling the guns even though the buyers were clear on the background check and he had no legal reason to refuse to sell to them. Of course it turned out that they were Straw Buyers who the BATF did nothing about because they said they “couldn’t prove it” but turned around and wanted to revoke his license. Cost him several thousand in lawyer fees to get clear of the BATF.

    4. @ Beau.

      The “Biggest” problem I see, ISN’T “Smart Guns”. But “Smart Munitions”, at least with a Smart Gun you have to overcome curtain Variables that’s between the Gun and the Target. With a Smart Projectile, it going to WHOLESALE SLAUGHTER, on an Unimaginable Scale. We’ve already had a Taste of Micro and Mini Drones in the Wrong Hands, Multiple that by a Factor of a Thousand or MORE. And the Carnage is going to be like Nothing in Recorded History Has Ever Seen the Likes Of…

  5. This kind of a law would have to be worded very carefully in a BI-PARTISAN effort, so that law abiding citizens are not manipulated by misuse of the law. If done correctly, this law could save lives.

    The 2 ladies shown are definitely NOT the people I want leading a bill like this.

    1. Its not going to save lives. What it will do us open up more opportunities for criminal behavior. Any restrictions will only serve to weaken the abilities of law abiding citizens to properly defend themselves.
      Think of the 2nd Amendment as a water jug…… Any restrictions, limitations, Etc. only hinder it’s ability to hold water, and therefore render it useless. We have enough restrictions as it is. What we NEED is actual enforcement of existing laws, without interference from big company’s like banking institutions and the power lobbies, like the Auto makers, insurance giants like GEICO. Anyone know what GEICO stands for? GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY. G. E. I. Co. Now name ONE industry that has no Governmental regulation and control….. You can’t, because it doesn’t exist.
      We need less government and more people taking responsibility for themselves.

    2. What a load! There is a rich history of deregulation causing incredible harm as we’ve all recently seen on Wall Street and in the Gulf of Mexico. Get real. SOME businesses WILL CHEAT, WILL DEFRAUD, WILL COVER-UP, and WILL CUT CORNERS in order to increase shareholder profits.

      CERTAIN INDUSTRIES need to have some regulations. Period.

      NEED PROOF? Here is a link to a photo essay on where deregulation failed:

    3. Beau, you like to point out the failures in America, but never point out that these failures in your photo essay, while not all in America, are failures of Corrupt Governments.
      What I don’t understand about you is that you want more restrictions on firearms, and these restrictions have to be enforces by the very corrupt Government that causes these problems you complain about.
      For instance, why should multi-billion dollar chemical companies be allowed to CONTINUALLY break EPA laws and guidelines, simply because they can afford to pay the fines?
      Or, to address one of the instances in your Photo Essay, the fertilizer plant in Texas, who was allowed to operate with no liability insurance….. How is MORE regulation going to help that situation, when it was the state Government that caused it?

      As I said before, the best way to fix things today is to STOP the corrupt Government from making MORE regulations, and simply ENFORCE the regs we already have on the books. And yes that means no MORE regulations on firearms, just enforce the laws that are already on the books. If this was done, we wouldn’t have HALF of the problems we have now.

      The only reason you don’t want this is because you have to have an adversarial relationship with those here. There has to be some common sense in that dense head of yours.

  6. Tain, I think you’re over reacting to Cheroke’s clever situation analogy of then and now. Obviously he, and anyone else by now, should understand what an ‘assault’ rifle really is. And why the corrupt and devious radical left insists upon using that term in their fear frenzy. He was just using ‘literary license’ to inject the drama terminology to flash to current 21st century reference, which worked pretty well to keep you attentive until the last part.

    But the interesting part is that the muskets and cannon they used back then as the standard of their conventional military warfare were, indeed, the same thing the civilians and militia had and would use!

    In other words, the ordinary citizen civilians used exactly the same weapons as the regular armies. And were NOT restricted in any way as to the private ownership of them, unless, of course, as is the rationale today, there was an agenda based tactical effort to mitigate a potential advantage of rebellious citizens in the face of a fascist despotic government–which was the comparative point of his essay here.

    And, of course, until the tyrannical confiscatory registration format of the 1968 gun control act (which had no basis or justification warranting its creation except that the Johnson cartel feared what the organized citizenry–then in the form of war protesters–could do if they got organized enough and eventually exercised their citizen’s militia rights)
    which was preceded by a weaker attempt in 1934 NFA by the government power elite to disarm the populate by starting with the full auto, et al weapons– ‘We, the People’ could, indeed, purchase a current modern individual military combat weapon such as a real full auto ‘assault machine gun’ or even platoon level heavy weapons, such as mortars and artillery. if we could afford it. No paper work, right over the counter!

    Back then there was no rapid hyper social obsession with extremely invasive police state efforts at ‘Crime Prevention’ under the specious notion of ‘Public Safety’. You didn’t abrogate your inalienable Constitutional rights as a free person of America, just for the ‘potential aspect’ of something bad happening. That’s a universal absurdity!

    What also was forgotten in this psychotic Islamist style government tyranny with their assumptions concerning what a private person ‘needs’ to protect themselves is that what an individual ‘needs’, is also supposed to be strictly none of the business of the government power elite, according to our Bill of Rights!

    In 1931, for instance, If you purchased a 40 mm cannon from your local Army/Navy surplus store and started pumping rounds at a shopping mall, you would be caught and punished severely for your abuse of your rights. But if you just used it for your own entertainment safely somewhere remote on your own land, there’s no reason why you couldn’t do that? And the Constitution agreed.

    The only one’s who don’t ‘agree’ with the Constitution are those who have a guilt complex because of their eventual totalitarian agenda.

    You see, back in the early days, they weren’t trying to subvert the Constitution, like they are doing now, the were seriously Upholding it. And that meant that the free American citizens in the Constitutional status of being potential future defenders of egalitarian liberty in the form of armed citizens
    Militias, should have the EXACT same individual weapons as would be used against them in tyrannical dominance.

    Otherwise, LOL, it would be a pretty stupid and disadvantaged liberty defending group, now wouldn’t it?

  7. That was just Awesome to read. So many claim there can be no parallels between back then and now. Glad to see someone else can see there are still parallels and correlations from then to now.

  8. Gun Ban Results In Dozens of Tragic Deaths

    BOSTON — National guard units seeking to confiscate
    a cache of recently banned assault rifles were ambushed on
    April 19th by elements of a paramilitary extremist faction.
    Military and law enforcement officials estimate that 72
    were killed and more than 200 injured before government
    forces were compelled to withdraw.
    Speaking after the clash, Massachusetts Governor
    Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was
    made up of local citizens, has links to the radical
    right-wing tax protest movement.
    Gage blamed the extremists for recent incidents of
    vandalism directed against internal revenue offices. The
    governor, who described the group’s organizers as
    “criminals,” issued an executive order authorizing the
    summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with
    the government’s efforts to secure law and order.
    The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed
    widespread refusal by the local citizenry to turn over
    recently outlawed assault weapons. Gage issued a ban on
    military-style assault weapons and ammunition earlier in
    the week. This decision followed a meeting earlier this
    month between government and military leaders at which
    the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of
    illegal arms.
    One government official, speaking on condition of
    anonymity, pointed out that “none of these people would
    have been killed had the extremists obeyed the law and
    turned over their weapons voluntarily.”
    Government troops initially succeeded in confiscating
    a large supply of outlawed weapons and ammunition. However,
    troops attempting to seize arms and ammunition in Lexington
    met with resistance from heavily-armed extremists who had
    been tipped-off regarding the government’s plan.
    During a tense standoff in Lexington’s town park,
    National Guard Colonel Francis Smith, commander of the
    government operation, ordered the armed group to surrender
    and return to their homes. The impasse was broken by a
    single shot, which was reportedly fired by one of the
    Eight civilians were killed in the ensuing exchange.
    Ironically, the local citizenry blamed government forces
    rather than the extremists for the civilian deaths. Before
    order could be restored, armed citizens from surrounding
    areas had descended upon the guard units. Colonel Smith,
    finding his forces overmatched by the armed mob, ordered
    a retreat.
    Governor Gage has called upon citizens to support
    the state/national joint task force in its effort to restore
    law and order. The governor has also demanded the surrender
    of those responsible for planning and leading the attack
    against the government forces. Samuel Adams, Paul Revere,
    and John Hancock, who have been identified as “ringleaders”
    of the extremist faction, remain at large.
    * * *
    Oh, I forgot to give the date including the year (but you
    already know, don’t you?). It was April 20, 1775.

    1. At CherokeeScot, I find it interesting that not one of them, or anyone, one’s in the group even tried too take back the government. That everybody say’s that they are Entitled to do under the Constitutional Guidelines. I find that very interesting, don’t you!

    2. Response to CherokeeScot.

      You mention, Your Words: Assault Rifle in the First Paragraph. The First Usage of the word Assault Rifle (actually Sturmgewhr or Storm Rifle). Didn’t make make its debut until July of 1944, by Adolph Hitler. My question is what constituted as a Assault Rifle in April 20, 1775. That’s a “stumper” for me. If all possible, please identify the 18-century Brand, Make and Model, the qualified it as an “Assault Rifle”. 169-years, before its inception. I’d really like to see a picture of an 18th century Assault Rifle, and I’m sure many other would be interested in seeing it too!

  9. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzOh Sh@t.

  10. Twisting Shulman’s analysis?????! what’s up with you aging marine?
    I thought that a rapid full auto burst of reality by a real expert might help ‘reset’ your mental block over a single word and get you back in the realm of sane discourse and back on track?

    But apparently not.

    But I’m not going to kick your ass half way back to hell, as i usually do with rank assholes who desperately need at least a quick ‘tune-up’ to be sociably tolerable because after you revealed the source of your anti-social psychosis–your painful disability–i realized that you are already in the ‘hell’ of being painfully disabled with your situation and meds and mental stress.

    I empathize with you because i had ‘been there’ also. Fortunately for only a relatively brief endurance. i understand that you are not the person you might have otherwise been. I truly understand how frustrating that can be and how it causes people to lash out at others. Every chance i get i council Wounded Warriors with severe PTSD.

    Instead of coming out to kick your ass after you attacked me and pushed my buttons, If you want, instead, I’ll come out and bring you a really good bottle of Scotch to share and maybe we can talk about it, maybe even reach some common ground.

    Your current state of emotional content also causes you to jump to arbitrary conclusions.

    I mentioned my previous life’s work to exemplify the futility and stupidity and waste of value production of restricting ANY type of firearms carry.

    But in your compulsive emotional state of animus you immediately assumed that i was one of the jack booted alphabet agency goons who throws flash bangs into Grandma’s living room while she’s babysitting because they are too stupid to understand correct street addresses.

    Sorry to disappoint you, but my last job was with the DOD in an anti-terrorism intelligence capacity.. I helped protect this country, and the freedom of people like you to say what you want, not support any totalitarian regime. In fact, as one of the more outspoken ones against the violations of the Constitution, i irritated the shit out of a lot of wannabe despots climbing the internal ladders of government advancement. I bulled the f^&% out of them based on my rather ‘formidable’ combat training and experience, which is the only thing that such people eventually fear, if i even caught of whiff of the stench of Fascist mentalities.

    I did a lot of good Patriot duty for my country and fellow Patriots.

    So I’m not fighting with you anymore, Aging Marine. As Beau said, we shouldn’t be agonizing among ourselves. We need to support each other in the coming dangerous times.

    The difference between us here, and the masses of the clueless who are drowning in their own apathy, is that we are at least ‘concerned’.
    That’s a start for the restoration of our liberty. But the power of our ‘free speech’ should not be poisoned by our flawed emotional content. We’re better than that.

    If you want to reach out back door on this forum through the administrator go ahead and we’ll talk privately…?

    Otherwise, if you just need to lash out at me, go ahead, you can have the last word here if that makes you feel better. I apologize for any hyper irritation i’ve caused you.

    I’m finished with this forum except for one more article i’m trying to find which might interest incessant ‘debators’ like you and Secundius here, lol! as it has to do with how to address a leftist anti-gun person and buckshot his arguments. It’s well done with good info.

    Thanks and take care, all.

    1. @ Muhjesbude.

      It’s Mindset and Fear. He wouldn’t admit to the Truth, even if it was staring him directly in the face and came with a bevy of Beautiful Strippers and 100-piece March Band.

    2. LOL, Secundius, you really shouldn’t talk about yourself in the third person like that. I know you have difficulty with reality but try to keep a grasp at least.

      You still have yet to explain the difference you see between the “two versions” of the 2nd Amendment. And you want to talk about not being able to see the truth??? LMAO. Good one. Keep up the comedy, stupid. I enjoy a good laugh.

    3. LMAO, don’t you mean NEITHER?

      And yes I have. I have given you the definition from the dictionary, based on comparative usage. Both of those “versions” mean the same thing, stupid. So says the Merriam Websters law dictionary. You say that the difference in one word makes a significant difference, but you cannot tell me what that difference is. And do you know why you can’t tell me what the supposed difference is? You can’t because there is no difference. Period. You, of course are to stupid to admit it, but that doesn’t change the fact that there is no difference. Good day Secundius. Good luck to you.

    4. @ AgingMarine.

      MY BAD! In my case I had a STROKE, In YOUR case, one to many shots through the Brain Pan. You must have been Scratching Your Ass for Weeks!

    5. LMAO. Now its a stroke! Before it was one of only 3 diagnosed cases of Chronic pain in the western half of the Globe! That was, wait, Northern, Central AND South America, wasn’t it, Secundius? Now its a stroke! LOL, lie much. Just have SOME honor and admit you are wrong. That’s all. Let’s see some of that U.S. Arny Honor! Oh wait…. THAT was a lie too! Get bent, Secundius. You don’t deserve the effort of acknowledging your idiotic posts, if you were rolling around on the ground burning to death, I wouldn’t waste the time to piss on you to put out the flames.

      The fact is that NONE of these personal issues have any bearing on your comments except one: you had a stroke. That might, I repeat MIGHT make a difference but not once you were given information. It would be a valid reason for you to FORGET the truth, but when it is reintroduced to you, your stroke has no more bearing. You can post, you can put together a sentence, albeit like a 1st grader, but you can still speak with the intellect of a freshman in HS, so your stroke has nothing to do with this issue. Stop with the excuses and just….stop. PERIOD!

    6. @ AgingMarine>

      In 2002, I was diagnosis’d with a very rare kind of Rheumatoid Arthritis, that effect the Finger, Hands, Arms, Toes and Feet. Because of complications caused by the Rheumatoid Arthritis, causing me severe chronic pain, 24/7/365. This Chronic Pain, cause’d my Blood Pressure to spike in 2006, too the point, 278/185. And anyone with High Blood Pressure will know that’s its not good. In, 2010. I had my First Stroke.
      I am currently taking 13-different medications, just to stay alive. three of which control my High-Blood Pressure, three for my Rheumatoid Arthritis, two too control the Pain. And, the rest to cover open sores, lesions and ulcers. Any other question’s about my Health Do You Want Too Know.

    7. Again, nothing there prevents you from seeing the truth.

      With that said, I never ASKED about your failing health. I simply don’t care if you live or die. You are a liar who spews false information like it were air to breathe. You don’t care what false information you spread because you don’t think your gonna be around for much longer, so what difference does it make to you? You are just repugnant.

      I DON’T care about your health problems, if they even exist. Stop spreading false information. That’s all. Your PERSONAL issues have NORHING to do with the topic at hand.

    8. LMAO, Secundius, if only you knew what a shadow image even is, lol!

      So far, you are the shadow image, a fake sent here to confuse the issues, to spread false information to anyone who will listen.
      That’s why I don’t let you. I expose your lies every time you post, and it is quite fun. Although I admit I am curious about what possible “meaning” you could even try to make up for the word change in the two 2nd Amendment “versions”.
      Call it a Morbid sense of curiosity, if you want. I am always interested in how warped minds work, how they think. You are the perfect study. Your neurosis is deep, and given the things you say about your health, if true then I can see why. But as I said before, your health does not excuse your behavior.
      Anyways, keep posting. I enjoy the levity. Good Day and Good luck.

    9. You are a liar, first and foremost. YOU attacked ME, with your veiled threat. I don’t take ANY threat lightly, jackwad.

      Next , you say in one post, identifying yourself as an Agent of the Government, and now in this post you say “former job” You say you aren’t An “alphabet agency jack booted goon”. And then Identify yourself as DoD. Working anti terrorism intelligence….the heart of the thug brigade! You are full of hypocrisy, and I am done with you. Go ahead, make more veiled threats. I implore you, PLEASE. Abuse your Governmental powers and go ” back door to the modeelrator, get my info. You want my Email? Hell I’ll give it to you. For once ply your bs Government trade out in the open, oh that’s right, if it was that blatant, there would be rioting in the streets, and your masters would be out on their collective asses! Here it is, fool: I got nothing to hide or to fear, so there it is. Now its time to make your move, let’s see if my move was really my last, like you threatened me it would be.

  11. @ AgingMarine>

    I don’t buy it, because if that is True, Then let us replace all the “TO’ words in the the Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence, too the word “FOR”. And then, just stand back and see what happen’s next.

    1. I don’t care whether YOU don’t buy it or you do buy it. Its like any truth, it doesn’t need your belief or approval to be true. The fact of the matter is, that in THAT particular sentence, the words “to” and “for” hold the same meaning.

      Now, if you don’t buy that, then what do YOU believe them to mean? HUH? You can’t tell me because you realize that there is no difference in the meaning. All you have is the argument ” then why was the word changed”.
      That is not a valid argument to argue that there is a change in meaning, that is a question acknowledging no change in meaning and yet a change in wordage. As I have said before, no one knows why they changed the word, and no one but you, apparently, gives two shits, lol.

      I have neither the time, energy or patience to explain this to one as stupid as you. It does no good. I have given you examples, and sources for you to reaearch, I have explained it more times than I care to count! You are incapable of learning, either by choice or by mental defect, and explaining this AGAIN is simply a waste of my time. Once again, I thank you for the laughs, Secundius. Good day and Good Luck. You will need it.

  12. Gentlemen, (you too, Aging Marine),

    Here’s something that sort of ends the debate on the true ‘meaning’ of the 2nd Amendment. Being a self proclaimed grammarian meister and syntax swami, Aging Marine should appreciate this to an extent possibly in absence of his usual repugnant caustic invective.

    Google “The Unabridged Second Amendment” by J. Neil Schulman. It’s only a few page report but says it all when it comes to the cognitive danger of never perusing Strunk & Wagner, at least. And should also put an end to the psychotic debate Ya’ all are having over one stupid word.

    “It’s not that people don’t know so much, it’s just that so much of what people know, just ain’t so!” –Mark Twain. (That make you feel better, AM?)

    1. Are you really trying to twist Schulman’s article? His interview with Roy Copperud is literary genius. Copperud’ grasp on the common usage in the English language, is well beyond my own, and is required reading of many professors I have heard of, especially in comprehension and composition classes.

      Now, as far as my usual, how did it go, Muhjesbude? “Repugnant, caustic invective”? WOW, maybe you should be careful about spending the bulk of you new found vocabulary in one place, all at the same time, don’t you think? I mean, I know the Government does the majority of your thinking for you, but you do want to.have some self dignity, don’t you? After all, your intelligence and integrity are falling apart, especially in light of your recent revelation concerning your affiliation with the same Government that has been trying to and is STILL trying to violate every right in the Bill of Rights, and indeed, beyond that also. This begs the question, why would I give a shit what YOU say about me? LMAO, especially from some hypocritical piece of shit like you! You are the same one that tells me I’m an idiot for not realizing that Beau and Secundius are shills just trying to get me riled up, and then you let slip about you being an Agent for the Government.

      HELL, I would rather listen to Secundius and his domestic life partner, Beau, rather than put one more second of consideration into ANYTHING THAT YOU SAY. You talk a really good game, but in the end you are worse than these two. And you have the NERVE to call what I say, “repugnant, caustic invective”? You are laughable. I would even call you Sir, but that indicates a much higher level of respect than you deserve. I stand by everything I have said thus far, but I even respect Secundius more than I respect you. And I don’t respect him at all!!!! Do you get the picture, Judas?

      So, in closing, asshole, why don’t you just come and attempt to make good on that threat you issued to me. You know, the one where you told me to make my move “because it would be the last one…..” I ever make? BRING IT, BITCH BOY.

    2. @ AgingMarine.

      Given up, being on the O.I’s. Donor’s List. Why don’t you try the A.I’s. Donors list, instead! I understand that they come in Model’s that actually look like Single-Cell Organism’s, now.

    3. LOL, Secundius. You keep avoiding the question, refusing to answer, LOL. And yet you keep posting. I applaud your tenacity. Keep it up. Like I said, I like to laugh.
      However, if you are posting in attempts to try and insult me, lol you need to do a better job. Your attempts at insults are just a cover up for your failure to argue your point, just as you fail at everything else you attempt. Your failed attempt to insult me in Gaelic was Absolutely comical, as were the others which are too numerous to mention.

      You need to try and stick to the topic, and find a way to argue your point intelligently. A near impossible feat, I agree, but still, you could at least try to come up with a reason why you believe what you believe.

      Stick to your guns, Secundius. And yes the pun WAS intended.
      Good Day and Good Luck.

    4. @ AgingMarine.

      You haven’t got a clue too what I’m talking about, do you. Well have fun, trying to look it the “phrase”. My grandchildren , will have died of old age before that happens. GOOD LUCK.

    5. Already did. I posted it the same day you used it to refer to Paul and I, remember, the same day you tried to call me a “village idiot”? God, you must be really retarded. Get a grip, Secundius. Come on man, you gotta do better than this!

  13. @ AgingMarine.

    It pleases you and Paul, in delight in calling us names, I just thought I’d return the favor.

    1. Actually, it doesn’t PLEASE me to call you names, but I call things as they are, Secundius. I would much rather you be intelligent enough to admit that you are wrong about the difference in the two “versions” of the 2nd Amendment. But, as said before, you aren’t intelligent enough to do so. The fact that you can’t learn is what makes you stupid. So you see, I am not just arbitrarily or maliciously calling you names. I am addressing you in truth. You have been shown the meanings of two words, they mean the same when used as they were. The source of this fact is the Unabridged Merriam Webster Dictionary, and yet you fail to understand. This is evidence that you cannot learn. So, my original assessment of you was false. You are NOT ignorant anymore because you have been furnished knowledge. Instead, you are incapable of learning, which is the textbook definition of stupidity. You, Secundius, are stupid. There is no malice there when I say that. It is just the plain out truth.

      Oh and here’s another truth: you can go back through my posts, all the way to the first one and see……I don’t ever just arbitrarily call anyone STUPID. Ignorant, yes. But ignorant only means “without benefit of knowledge”. LOL, maybe someday you will be able to learn.

  14. @ AgingMarine.

    This is a Melting Pot Nation, Everytime somebody come to this country of ours they add a piece of their countries language into our countries lexicon. You can’t define the American, because there is no defined definition for it, it changes every second, of every minute, of every hour, of every day, and so on, and so on. The Constitutional Amendments are set in stone, by our Founding Father’s. Our language isn’t. We officially speak English in this country, But nowhere in the Constitution does it say our official language is English. The First Amendment prevents that from happening. You can’t have a 2nd. 3rd, 4th, etc… Amendment. Without the 1st. The 1st, is inviolate, you can’t change it, It is what it is.

  15. @ AgingMarine.

    You don’t even know what is said do you! It’s all part of the Modern American Lexicon of the 21st Century American-English speaking system. You profess to claiming the NRA is “just modernizing the King’s/Queen’s-English” to American Standards. AND YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT THE HELL I SAID. You are a MORON!!!

    1. Well the first Gaelic comment literally translates to “shadow image”, so while I don’t assume anything, if I was to assume, you most likely meant ” strawmen”, and the best you could find in an online translator gave you “iomha scath” very loose translation but it works.

      The second attempt at an insult towards ME personally was “Leathchanne sraidbhaile”. Which loosely means ” village idiot”.

      Either way, all you have is name calling. I have verifiable proof that you don’t know what you are talking about. All anyone has to do is go back and look at your posts and mine and Paul’s….they will see that every time you post a theory, or a personal belief, you fail to back it up with ANY factual sources. We are just supposed to take your words for it! I on the other hand, have backed my facts up with resources, things that you have no idea about. INCLUDING THE DICTIONARY to show you legal definitions in the English language.

      LOL, I told you, you need to do better than that. I hope you packed a lunch, because you are in a losing battle and will need your strength.

  16. @ AgingMarine & Paul>

    You two are “iomha scath” and don’t know it, Paul I could have a respectful conversation with you, If it wasn’t for you “schmuck” friend hear. To AgingMarine, I’m glade too know the your City of Buffalo, NY. has a successor, just in case the primary “leathcheann sraidbhaile” move away, and relocates.

    1. LMAO, and there it is, Secundius’ native tongue shows itself. Lol , finally adding proof that his native tongue is not English, even though he fails to admit it purposely. Still with no proof to back up his claims. Thank you Secundius, I enjoyed this immensely. I cannot wait to see what you come up with next.

  17. @ AgingMarine.

    I have an 2nd edition Webster Dictionary, with over 3,000-Onion Skin Paper Pages,. Printed in 1902.

    1. Then you need to read it, stupid. Just having the book doesn’t do you any good unless you can read and comprehend what us in it.

  18. @ AgingMarine.

    I looking forward to a cooling off period. But, I guess you don’t want one.
    So, I’ll make you look like the IDIOT you actually are.

    1. Thanks Paul, but let him try. PLEASE LET HIM TRY. I would live to see how he is going to accomplish that task. He, of course, won’t be able to do it, because HE is the idiot, but it will be entertaining to watch!

  19. @ Beau.

    Yes I have pain, but, I don’t let it control, or take over my life. I’ve had 8-years to deal with it and someway live with it. As far a AgingMarine I wasn’t trying to break him. I was just trying to get him to admit, to the new meaning, and why it was necessary to replace the word “TO” to “FOR” in the 2nd Amendment. First he admitted to not knowing what the word difference in the wording meant either. And then he starting babbling how the single word difference, actually changed the Colonial King’s English, into comprehensible modern American-English. And then tried justifying its usage, after admitting he didn’t know what it meant. Maybe I pushed him a little to hard. But, then again he went on the offensive too. He could have broken it off at any time, by not answering my questions. I may called him names, but, I never threatened him directly or indirectly, in any way. Is that an my excuse. No? Things just got HEATED !!!

    1. Secundius, there is NO NEW MEANING. And if you want to make ME look like an idiot, lol, you better pack a breakfast, lunch, dinner AND a midnight snack, because you are going to there forever. I am the farthest thing from an idiot, lol. You cannot tell anyone what difference you believe there to be, but I have given you the dictionary’s definition of both words. They have the same meaning!

      Are you saying that the Dictionary is wrong now? Webster Merriam’s legal dictionary, the same one used in law schools all over the world, is wrong? And you are calling ME an Idiot? Lmao, I told you I love the levity. It’s always good to have a laugh, and you Secundius, are something worth laughing at.

      Oh and as far as your retarded comment about me “Threatening” you, I never did. I said I “WANTED YOU TO DIE” I Never threatened to kill you or even have you killed. There is a difference! Wanting you to die indicates just that. A want, or a desire, while THREATENING someone indicates an intent to cause death. BIG difference, lol. But you go right ahead, PLEASE show me how much of an idiot I am!! PLEASE, I BEG YOU, BECAUSE I WANT TO LAUGH WHEN YOU FAIL AT IT LIKE TOU HAVE AT EVERY OTHER THING YOU TRIED TO POST ABOUT. LOL, Good Luck, you’re going to need it!

    2. It’s OK Secundius. I understand. Most of the people here hold the NRA up like they are something uber special, defending their god-given rights. In fact, the NRA has simply dissolved over the years from a gun owners/hunters safety group into a lobbying group for gun manufacturers like me, and they merely ACT like they’re defending citizens from a gun-grab by the federal government. Most new gun laws are created locally, on a state or city level, not the federal government. The NRA (and Cheaper Than Dirt) is directly behind the effort to FALSELY portray our federal government as being anti-gun. It is working well unfortunately.

      AgingMarine is a very bitter, angry person, and he falsely presumes his beliefs are held by most other Americans. He is wrong and 90% to 92% of Americans disagree with him and his beloved NRA about gun control and background checks. He can only respond with hate and disbelief to anything he doesn’t recognize easily. He will die that way someday and it’s his life to waste.

      We can’t let him degrade our lives because he’s afraid of inevitable change that comes with time. Remember, at one time most Americans were OK with slavery. Over time, some things change, usually for the better. When AgingMarine finally leaves this earth, sunshine will fill that dark, lonely space he currently occupies with hate and malice for his fellow Americans.

    3. Go ahead and make jokes. I am not bitter and besides Secundius, there is only one other person I have ever wished death on, and he is dead. I don’t ever harbor I’ll will unless it is deserved, and Secundius deserves it. But its Ok, Beau, you don’t know any better. Thats ignorance and that can be fixed. Good Day and Good Luck.

  20. @ Paul.

    It totally relevant, if your using contributions to affect elections and election
    results to change the original interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to mean something other then what was originally written. If you can do that, then you can rewrite the entire Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence. When I joined the US. Army, I swore my loyalty oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. It was to America, not the NRA.

    1. LMMFAO… Like Politicians don’t buy elections with special interest groups!
      The political system in America is overflowing with corruption, everywhere. Republicans, Democrats, everywhere.

      But of course, here is Secundius, hypocritical as always. He has no problem accusing the NRA of illegal activities, but not anyone else, right? Typical Government shill, telling so many lies, he can’t keep them straight. And he continues to spew more and more BS. Lol. Although I will say this, while he does have a slight degree of entertainment factor, he is as shallow as a bird bath, nothing he says has any substance to it.

      Thanks for posting, Secundius. In these troubled days, the levity is exactly what we need.

  21. @ Paul.

    Why NOT. I thought everything dealing with and about the 2nd Amendment, was relevant to this form, Paul.

    1. Which of your comments that I said were nto relevant to the topic had anything to do with the Second Amendment?


  22. @ AgingMarine.

    Your trying too rationalize and justify an act of stupidity and desperation, committed by the NRA. Is that going to be your lasting Legacy to future generations, by spreading forward an NRA re-worded 2nd Amendment Lie, to the American people.

    1. Did you not understand my last post? You are far too stupid to waste anymore time on. Move along retard. You cannot learn. You are stupid. I have done all that I can to help you, but you refuse to read my posts, you cannot comprehend any of this subject matter. I suggest you go get professional help, because you desperately need it. A counselor, a psychologist or psychiatrist, SOMEONE, ANYONE to help you cope with reality, because you have lost touch severely! I hope you aren’t a firearm owner, because you need to have your weapons taken so you don’t hurt yourself or others. You are gone.
      Seriously, Secundius. GET HELP.

  23. @ AgingMarine.

    At the time of the ratification of the Second Amendment, it was the KING’s English. And, again in 1934, was also the KING’s English. So out of all the parts of the Constitution of the United Stares, it took the NRA, 143-years, to find one word out of the whole Constitution of the United States. And determined that one word, was to be found in the 2nd Amendment. Too clarify the “true” meaning of the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution of the United States to the People of the United States. I that what your trying to make us believe. Are you a Moron, or a Blithering Idiot. You say TO and FOR mean the same thing, in both Old King’s and Queen’s English and Standard American English. Then why was it necessary to change the words, IF THEY BOTH MEAN THE SAME THING. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

    1. LOL….Secundius, you are truly stupid. You keep arguing a theory that you have never even found to exist. There is no difference! And it is not I that says it it is the Official Merriam Webster’s legal dictionary, you moron. I can tell you have not looked it up and compared the two but because your natural language is not English, I will give you the definition: Full definition of To, sub paragraph 2, section a) ” used as a function word to indicate purpose, intention, tendency, RESULT or end. and .

      The Merriam Webster’s legal dictionary definition of the word “For” : paragraph 1) section a: used as a function word to indicate purpose; and section b: used as a function word to indicate an intended goal or .

      There you go. Those are the two definitions from the Official Law Dictionary used by Lawyers and Congressmen and diplomats and politicians who use the English language. So when the American version of English began to evolve away from the Queens English, as it always does, the common usage of certain words diminished while the common usage of others increased. This is how different dialects are “born” or “created”. Just like the difference between the Queens English of 2014, and the American English of 2014 are different dialects. In England, if I were to ask for a fag, I would get a cigarette, if I told someone to “Sod off” that would be like telling an American to “Fu#%k off”. It’s all in the dialect. There are subtle differences that are not blatantly obvious, and there are no differences at all. It all depends on common usage. As I have stated before, you can’t beat me with English, I hold twin majors in English and American History. English isn’t even your primary language, LOL. Don’t you have a bottle of pain pills to go swallow?

      So, in closing, the word was changed, the change in words holds NO change in meaning, just like the examples I gave you.

      1) Secundius, I want you to die because you are too stupid and don’t deserve to live.


      2)Secundius, I wish for you to die because you are too stupid and don’t deserve to live.

      Both statements mean the same thing, but I changed TWO words in the second version.
      But BOTH still mean the same thing……: I want you to die. Even with the change of one or more words, they still mean the same thing.

      And maybe, JUST MAYBE it was a typo, and since the meaning hadn’t changed, they left it….who knows and who gives a f#$k! You still can’t even tell us how YOU believe the meaning changes so ” significantly ” as you said.
      And YES, I single YOU out, because you are the ONLY one who keeps up the stupid belief that there even IS a change. There isn’t, and you need to stop trying to spread false information about the NRA, or any other organization that doesn’t share your views.
      Go take your pain meds, continue to drink the Government Kool-Aid some more, and most importantly, stop posting about things you have no knowledge of. It’s that simple, LOL. Now, go away, fool. I have not the time nor anymore energy to waste on you. Good Luck and Good Bye.

    2. @ AgingMarine.

      Now, that I’ve time to ponder, your reasoning, it probably was a typo, So let change it back to the original form it was written in OK. From “FOR” to “TO”. Now doesn’t sound better to you too. And while were at it. Let change that nasty loophole in the Tax Exemption Tax Form for Political Donations. Back to “Primarily” from “Exclusively”. Now doesn’t that sound better, too AgingMarine. Because I really know you really want to do the right thing, don’t you. I mean your setting an example for your Children and Grandchildren, too. Right! Now everybody on this website Now in their collective Hearts that your REALLY, REALLY, in God’s Given Good Heart. You really want too do this, Don’t You. AgingMarine.

    3. “So let change it back to the original form it was written in OK.”

      We’re fussing over what is written on the wall of a private organization, that has no bearing whatsoever on the law. While you keep asserting that it matters, you have shown no evidence that anyone shouldf even *care* about the working on the wall at NRA headquarters.

      So where is the need to change it?

      “And while were at it. Let change that nasty loophole in the Tax Exemption Tax Form for Political Donations. Back to “Primarily” from “Exclusively”.”

      Totally off the topic of this conversation. Totally NOT RELEVANT to this conversation, and only introduced into the conversation by you.

      “Because I really know you really want to do the right thing, don’t you.”

      The “right” thing? As defined by WHO? You?

    4. LOL, Paul, he’s not going to respond. He doesn’t care. He never has, and never will. It is a distraction, to see how many he can drag into the fray.

      Don’t allow yourself to be drug into this, lol. Secundius is not going to be swayed, of this I have no illusions. However, he will slip up. And when he does, it will be easy to see. As I have said before, he is not capable of fully functional thought processes. He isn’t “firing on all cylinders” so to speak. His fabrication of U.S. Army service, his desperate ploy for sympathy crying about chronic pain issues and being only one of 3 cases in the entire western hemisphere, those don’t check out.
      He can’t provide any proof for any of his claims, he continually comes up with new lies. He has totally lost touch with reality. He can barely even speak the language and he wants to argue the semantics of a word change that has no change in meaning, with someone with a degree in the English language.
      I have given up engaging him and his mindless drivel. He isn’t worth the time.

  24. @ AgingMarine.

    So it wasn’t a fix. So, out of all the Amendment in the Constitution of the United States. The American people understood the 2nd Amendment the least. So, the NRA, went out of it way to make it more understandable. Is that your new story. I thing the reason it was changed, is Fat-Cat’s in the NRA, rankin file wanted too purchase the Model 1918 BAR, Browning Automatic Rifle and the Model 1928 Thompson submachine gun, and the 1934 Supreme Court Ruling stood in their way. So the NRA changed the language of the 2nd Amendment.

    1. You “thing”? Or did you mean ” think”. I know its hard for you to understand, but there is no difference in the meaning, so no matter what you “thing” their intentions were, they wouldn’t have gotten anything changed.

      Now, according to both “versions”, every citizen not convicted of a violent felony SHOULD be able to own a Thompson sub machine gun, AND a Browning automatic rifle, if they so choose. You especially, have no, I repeat NO right to stop them! Until they become criminals, they have the right to own whatever weapons they want. Their right shall not be infringed. So go try to peddle your lues and bullshit somewhere else. Good Bye.

    1. Because it wasn’t an intentional change, because it doesn’t need to be changed, I don’t know, and I don’t care, as long as the meaning of it hasn’t changed. They could have it written in Ancient Egyptian for all I give a shit. As long as the meaning hasn’t changed, IT DOES NOT MATTER.
      Now let me ask you this: why does it matter to you and YOU don’t even know how the meaning supposedly changed drastically. But you still claim it did. How can you claim that, and you don’t even know the damned definition in the first place?

      Ever since the NRA was mentioned, that’s all you can talk about, and not once have you been able to show even a SLIGHT comprehension of the full meaning of the 2nd Amendment. Hell, you can’t even show a decent grasp of the English Language! You would be completely laughable, if you weren’t so stupid. Good by, Secundius.

  25. IT WASN’T A FIX, YOU IDIOT! It was simply a difference in speech patterns which have changed over the years. In the 143 years between the two “versions”, our speech patterns had begun to change. It was no longer “The Queens English”. It had begun to evolve into a less proper, and more “Americanized” form of English. The vernacular had changed.
    And it kept changing to the English we Americans speak today.


    Now again, I am going to ask you, how many times do I have to explain this to you? Again you show your inability to learn. That is called STUPIDITY, Secundius.

    1. No, I won’t just leave it be, because you are spreading lies. I will stand up for the truth anywhere, and you can only spew lies. I noticed that you still can’t explain the difference, lol.
      I simply find it extremely hard to believe that you continue to arguing that there us some big difference. You make claims like ” I believe in the 2 Amendment as originally ratified, but not the 2nd Amendment as the NRA ratified it. Or something ridiculous like that.
      Your flaw is that while you argue against the NRA, you can’t explain how they changed the meaning, because there is no change in the meaning. If you understood the English Language, you would know that.
      Now you say that if there is no difference, that I should just let it alone. Why, so you can continue to try and discredit the NRA with lies? I will continue to correct you EVERY time you attempt to spread lies. So take your liberal, anti American ass somewhere else and spread your lies.

    2. I can’t what, explain the supposed difference? Absolutely correct . I CANNOT TELL THE DIFFERENCE, BECAUSE THERE IS NONE.
      I have told you the meaning, given you the reference materials to check….you refuse. Most likely because you are STUPID, which means incapable of learning. Not to be confused with ignorance, which is just the lack of knowledge. Ignorance can be fixed, but in the immortal words of one of the most funny comedians, Ron White, ” You can’t fix stupid”. LOL, that’s your problem, Secundius. I can fix ignorance but I can’t fix your stupidity.

      So, in closing, you are correct, I cannot tell you the difference between the two “versions”, because there is none. I CAN, however explain how they mean the same thing, using the Merriam Websters Legal Dictionary, and back it up with the Merriam Websters legal thesaurus. If you would like me to, I can explain it, all you gave to do is ask.

  26. You don’t need to be patient with me, dude. Make your move as fast as you can. It’ll still be the last one you’ll ever make.

    The problem is YOU, Aging Marine. You imagine you’re the brightest bulb on the forum Christmas tree, but your fuze is blown–probably due to the cognitive dissonance your are experiencing in this ongoing nut debate about a stupid f#king word in a sentence with a couple mentally flatlined people here, one of which is just a shill just having fun pumping up your blood pressure!.

    Read my comment again. If you can’t see the sardonic sarcasm in it by the use of ‘exaggeration’ in the form of a comparative situation caricature, you must not get out much in the literary academic world?

    I was simply mocking–with a typical cop scenario– the absurdity of having ANY boundaries or limitations on your carry rights, except, perhaps, in the most extreme of private security entry. But in that case, you would not allow the person entry or access. Never mind the gun.

    So anywhere you allow a person, the gun should be allowed. Which means any public place.

    The only issue then should be the public ‘sensibility’ factor in a ‘common sense’ context which means the extent to which the overt presence of a firearm, especially something like someone in a hoodie and ass hanging pants slinging an M-4 with a drum magazine, at a cub scout rally or an Amish wedding.

    But nobody could say or do anything if that person left the AR in his car and just discreetly put a pocket pistol in his waistband under his shirt.

    So I was just pointing out in gross context with the police bar example that the idea that banning pistols in bars is no better than banning them in schools, or anywhere else.

    Because you virtually never hear of cops shooting themselves up in the numerous police bars in every city in the country where everybody is carrying and everybody’s usually intoxicated beyond the legal limits.

    So the point is, in the honest reality, the location of where you carry or the activity taking place there does not have that much bearing on the fact that you are carrying.

    As an agent I carry everywhere i go outside of my domicile. That includes any public buildings, bars, churches, picnics or parties, classroom i’m teaching in , or car i’m driving.

    If I’m competing in a Karate Tournament, i obviously can’t carry, but one of my students on the sidelines is holding my gym bag with a Glock 22 and 30 round mags for it.

    Even when I’m in situations that virtually preclude any perceived ‘need’ for carrying. But i subscribe to the logic that it’s better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it. Also, i think it’s important to make a conscious effort to ‘use’ your rights, even though you have the option’ rather than not use them. ‘Exercise’ is always better than slatternly apathy – when it comes to the ‘physical fitness’ of your civil rights. I’ve ‘mitigated’ several ‘bad situations’ being armed while off duty over the years. And more and more armed civilians in the public have also prevented crimes, rather than add to them, as a statistical fact.

    We live in a society where the advantage goes to the ‘controller’ so the tactic is to make as many ‘laws’ as possible to keep you in line with their agenda by using the excuse of extreme ‘Crime Prevention’ and the oxymoron of ‘Public Safety’. Crimes will never be totally prevented and the Public will never be completely safe until the individual citizens are at peace with themselves in a higher level of social consciousness.

    But the obsessive compulsive addiction to fraudulent statutory ‘controls’ keeps the ‘herd’ on the trail to the stock yards.

    Even those of you who are against your right to bear personal firearms.

    And anybody else should be allowed to.

    The Constitution does NOT say: “…shall not be infringed..’.Except in Bars’ “!

    But your SCOTUS buddies do, unfortunately, qualify that sot some extent in their recent court decisions.

    1. @ Muhjesbude.

      I have no problems with you, I just wanted too point out the differences between the two phrases. I’ve problems, with the problem children before. And for AgingMarine. To quote T. Bert (Thomas Bertram) Lance, circa 1976. “If it ain’t broke, Don’t fix it.”

    2. Ok, first off, lets clarify one thing: if, and I say that’s a very big IF, IF you have taught anything or anyone, I feel sorry for the students who’s minds you are ruining.
      Secondly, you don’t get to attack me personally and then try and berate me when I respond, attempting to get me to believe you were being overly sarcastic. That’s point number one.

      Secondly, carrying at a bar is a bad idea, and I am not in favor of allowing firearms to be carried in bars. Period. I don’t care who you are. The combination of Alcohol and firearms is 100% COMPLETELY irresponsible. BAR NONE. The only person who could be allowed to carry in a bar is someone who is not drinking, but then let’s be realistic, why be at a bar if your not drinking. I mean, let’s be honest here, 99.8% of the people in bars are drinking and the rest of them are workers, or new clients who aren’t drunk yet, and then there is that .01% who are designated drivers.

      Next, let’s examine your statement: “as an agent, I carry everywhere I go..” As an agent of what, the twisted f-ing master you serve, commonly known as the “United States Government”. Yeah I’m going to believe a piece of spit turn coat like you, who serves the problem causing entity and not the people like they are supposed to. Of course YOU can carry everywhere, you have the blessings of your masters. I, however, do not, nor do my fellow Americans. You have the ABILITY to carry anywhere, because it is given to you by your masters. My rights are limited by metal detectors and “patdowns”. I oppose them VEHEMENTLY AND OPENLY, So that means that you and I are enemies as well, because you are an Agent of my Enemy.
      All of this is Good to know, even though it was obvious from you impotent, veiled threat in your opening of this post. It went something like this: ” You don’t need to be patient with me, dude. Make your move as fast as you can. It will still be your last”. LOL Son, you couldn’t handle me. I belong to a very select group, and even the LEAST of us is far beyond YOUR reach. But I invite you to try. I never back away from a “challenge”, especially if it includes a pissant Government Agent! And one less uppity, smart mouthed, ignorant Government shill is always a goal I aim to reach.

      The only ” sarcasm ” I can extrapolate from your retarded, childish post is that I was not he one you were referring to that disregarded and/or violated their Oath. It was YOU; By getting into bed with the Government, and now you realize your mistake. LOL, Self hatred is a bitch, but YOU should have chosen the right side, Muhjesbude. You should have chosen more wisely.

      As for me not being able to see that you, Beau and Secundius are just trying to get me riled up, WOW. I can spot spit a mile away, and while the undertones of my post contain signs of frustration, NONE of YOU have gotten me riled up. The fascist Liberal agenda so set on destroying what my family has worked and fought to protect…..THAT has me riled up.
      It SHOULD have YOU upset, but you are a Government shill, who drank too much Kool-Aid, and now you are in bed with those who would destroy the fabric of freedom here in the United States. Figures. I have read your posts, and including your most recent post, none of them make any sense when stacked against reason and logic. You rant on and on about how there should be no restrictions on where a person can carry, and you talk about reason, but then you want a spitload of drunken, inbred halfwits walking around with weapons that need nothing but the utmost caution and responsibility when handling. Unfortunately, NOT EVERYONE is competent or responsible enough to handle a firearm. Even the most level headed person can go bad when under the influence of drugs and alcohol. I don’t believe that violent felons should be given a firearm either, but I am sure that would make you happy, arm a bunch of violent criminals, let a bunch of innocent people die to promote your masters agenda.

      As a responsible firearms owner, I stand on a very precarious foundation. I believe wholeheartedly, but I also believe in this Nation, and the principals on which she was Founded. That makes it very hard to speak reasonably and not be hypocritical, but I can do it. Not everyone can, as you show when you post. I believe in the 2nd Amendment. I believe that EVERYONE should be able to exercise their right to keep and bear arms…UNTILL they show that they cannot be trusted in a civil society with the responsibility of firearms ownership. END OF STORY. I do not believe that someone who is irresponsible enough to bring a firearm to a bar is responsible enough to own firearms at all. THAT IS MY BELIEF. It does not make it everyone’s belief, nor have I ever said it should. I don’t force my BELIEFS on people, I simply believe that the TRUTH should be defended.

      Which brings me to my next, and most important point. I am ABSOLUTELY not the problem here, Muhjesbude. Slimy, cowardly spineless slugs, such as yourself, are the problem. I don’t think that I am the smartest person here, but YES I believe I am the brightest. I am attempting to be a beacon of truth, and with truth on my side, it is only right that I should shine more brightly than you. Self righteous pricks like you are the entire problem because you believe that you are superior and that everyone should bow to you and believe as you do. Sorry, but your agenda is not recognized here. Real Americans don’t join with the Government, and then get high and mighty with someone for expressing a BELIEF. I have the Right to express my beliefs, and the Right to fight for the truth, as in the case with Secundius and his pushing of the ridiculous belief that the changing of one word “of” To the word ” for” has a “Significant” change in the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. The TRUTH IS that his BELIEF IS WRONG. There is no change in the meaning. And I WILL fight against the spread of false propaganda, by an idiot who can barely even speak the language. Someone who isn’t even a Citizen of the U.S. Yes I doubt Secundius’ Citizenship, just as I doubt his intelligence.

      So, Muhjesbude, in closing, I simply say ” go f yourself, and have a nice day”.

    3. @ AgingMarine.

      Now you’ve shown your true colors. Your not a Tea Part Republican, your an ANARCHIST. Thanks, that clears up everything.

    4. Who the hell ever said I was A Tea Party republican? I have NEVER said I was. I have always been an “Independent” with Republican like views. I am not REGISTERED as a Republican, nor A Democrat, and I never said it was. I am NOT n Anarchist either. I believe in order. You really need to look up meanings of words before you just arbitrarily start using them, stupid.

    5. @ AgingMarine.

      I just got you to admit to to things. You’d never have admitted, six-months ago.

    6. And what exactly would those two things be, Secundius? Besides the fact that I didn’t post here 6 months ago. Do tell what YOU got me to admit that I haven’t admitted elsewhere?? Please, I can’t wait to hear this, lol.

    7. @ AgingMarine.

      I got you to admit to thing you’d never would have admitted to you two good buddies, Paul and Stephen.

      I’ll admit to you something right here and right NOW. I’m a Chronic Pain Sufferer, I have as type of Rheumatoid Arthritis, so bad that the CDC has too monitor it. And its so rare that are only three other known cases in North, Central and South America. The pain is so extreme that I’ve actually shattered my teeth trying to bit off the pain. I have to take two pain killer at night before bed, that are usually given too extreme cancer and shingles patience in single dosage. If you want to kill me, fine. You’d only be putting me out of my misery. SEE NOW YOU KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT ME.

    8. Well, nice to know. That doesn’t change my opinion or feelings about you.
      You are entirely too stupid. I asked you in my previous post….what two things did you get me to admit to?? NOTHING, stupid.
      So now you come out with some sob story about chronic pain. I have a bullet lodged in my back. I am paralyzed from the middle of my back, my legs don’t work, do you hear me complaining about that? NO. My personal life isn’t on display here, and yours shouldn’t be either. You can take pain pills for your pain. I CANT. There is no pill that will help me get my legs back, no surgery, no miracle treatment. So excuse me if I don’t cry over your chronic pain problem.
      Just answer the f-ing questions.

      First off, what’s the GOD DAMNED difference between the two “versions” of the 2nd Amendment, and:

      What things did you supposedly get me to admit to that I haven’t already stated a dozen times?

      Even if you do have pain issues, you can obviously still post, so ANSWER THE F-ING QUESTIONS.

      Oh thats right, YOU CAN’T, because both of your claims are FABRICATED, MADE UP, FAKE….just like I am sure you “pain issue” is made up also. Go overdose on pain pills and do the world a favor.

    9. Now this blog for the criminally stupid has degenerated to the point of posts calling for others to commit suicide.

      Is this what we’ve become? Are Americans so f-in’ heartless and cruel that we no longer tolerate differing opinions from other Americans?

      I don’t know about you clowns, but I was raised better than that. I respect people whos’ opinions differ from my own. As a veteran whos seen combat up close and very personal, I cannot imagine I fought for some of you folks.

      Apparently everyone here not only supports the second amendment (however it’s worded) but we’re all gun owners and we’re Americans. The rest of the World is watching, and learning from our words and our ways. If you were all unable to hide behind the anonymity of the Internet, you would likely behave differently.

      Has our civil discourse degenerated to the point that we can’t even tolerate little differences? Are we so locked-up mentally that we cannot find room for basic agreements? I can’t believe I saw a post here calling for guns in bars. That’s just FELONY STUPID I don’t care who you are.

      Let’s get back to what we can agree on as Americans. This intolerance for other beliefs mimics the same attitudes we’re seeing in norther Iraq now. ISIL (or ISIS) fighters are executing anyone who won’t convert publicly to their beliefs. Are we BETTER than them, or WORSE?

      If we’re better than Islamic terrorists, we need to stand up and show the World how WE, as Americans treat others who simply disagree with us. We call for suicide? Really?!

      TO SECUNDIUS: I am sorry you’re suffering with pain, even though you’re a Republican. I hate to see anyone suffer in pain and I hope you find relief somehow. I’m a Progressive, with both liberal and conservative beliefs. And I got me some guns.

      When I left Vietnam, I vowed to live everyday for my buddies who died there to the fullest. I purposefully adopted a personal trait from each and everyone of them. My buddy Pete was killed after just two weeks in-country. Pete was always upbeat and positive and said he wanted to help children in war zones break the cycle of hate and helplessness that war brings. To this day I try and find, identify and help war-torn children who need help seeing a brighter tomorrow. In that small way Pete lives on in me and I am proud to carry his attitude.

      Listening to you folks blather on with name-calling and hate just makes me wonder where the real Americans went? Shame.

    10. Ahhh Beau, there you are, standing up for your domestic partner. How sweet.
      Although I don’t see your concern when someone’s life is directly threatened, you call out in rage and disbelief when your boyfriend has someone speak their minds. Another example of hypocrisy. The difference between you and me is I don’t hide my beliefs. I don’t lie and I am not hypocritical. I say what I mean and mean what I say. No hypocrisy here. If you don’t like it, that’s fine with me. I don’t need your approval or validation.
      I post here to express the truth, which is what you should be doing. And still here you are, hypocrisy and all. I will let you go, and let that sink in. Good Day, and Good Luck.

    11. I love how you somehow CLAIM you are NOT a hypocrite, and how you hate ‘hypocrisy’ when you call for Secundius to “Go overdose on pain pills and do the world a favor.” and “Secundius, I want you to die because you are too stupid and don’t deserve to live.”

      Then you sign-off with a truly hypocritical “Good Day and Good Luck”.

      You AgingMarine, truly are a hypocritical turd, stuck to a dingleball on the ass of a buffoon.

    12. OK, Beau. First off do you know what a hypocrite IS? A hypocrite is a person who says that they believe in one thing but then perform contradictory actions. SO, if I had said “I want you to die” AND THEN SAID “I wish you good health” that would be hypocritical, but since my closing was just a generic closing that I have used a dozen times before, there is no hypocrisy in that. I have told you and others to go f^%$ themselves, and ended my reply with the same, GENERIC, non-personal and indirect closing “Good Day and Good Luck”. Never did I wish or did I even SAY ” Secundius, I wish you a good day”.
      You see, in any reply, my thoughts are public, and as such, it is not only Secundius who will read them. In knowing this fact, one can apply “generic” closing that is not directed towards any one individual, but instead is directed to any that read it. Now, since my feelings for Secundius are already known, then that would preclude my closing from applying to him, and yet it would still apply to others. It is similar to being in a crowded bar with a group of people. There are 50 people in the bar, but the group you are with only numbers 10. When you leave, you say ” bye, guys”. This is an easy and fast way to say goodbye to a group of people and not have to take the time to enumerate them by name, one by one. That does not mean you are talking to every person in the bar, just the group you were interacting with. The same goes for my closing. I, however, should have realized that you do not have a full grasp of the English language, and that, along with your penchant for turning and twisting words, you actually do not understand everything you read. That is my mistake for not clarifying it and making it easier for you to understand. I will, in the future, “dumb down” my statements for you, so you don’t get confused. I apologize. I thought you were a bit more intelligent than Secundius. I realize I was wrong. You are both idiots. Are you stupid as well, or can you at least learn? We will see.

      As far as the “Good Luck” part, in a sense, I actually DO wish him Good Luck, in that I hope he succeeds in swallowing all of his pain pills at one time.
      So, you see, Beau, there is no hypocrisy here. I say what I mean and mean what I say. As I said before, Secundius is stupid, and yet he believes he knows what he is talking about. He cannot learn, even when given the proof to look at. That is stupidity. His ignorance makes it worse. It makes him dangerous, to himself and others. Therefore, YES, I wish he would end his own life instead of waiting for nature to run its course, and I would much rather see him do it himself, rather than have someone else get into trouble for doing it.
      So, in closing, I am sorry to disappoint, but there is no hypocrisy here, lol, Just your inability to understand and COMPREHEND what is being said.

      Good Day and Good luck.

    13. LOL and where did you get that little lie from? Did you make that up too? What American diplomat chooses French as their preferred language? The only time a diplomat would choose French as their language of choice is if they were dealing with a FRENCH SPEAKING DIPLOMAT.
      Do you live in the real world? Do you even THINK about the crap you post before you hit the “Submit Comment” button? I honestly worry for your safety. I think you are mentally unstable and are definitely a threat to yourself, and others. around you.

  27. Yes I am without question a ‘social’ liberal and believe in the liberal distribution of firearms. As the 2nd orders! And I despise the use of the term “legal” owner of firearms. The second states “,,,shall NOT be infringed.” PERIOD. Do you know how fast you can become illegal? Get a second DUI, not make your child support payments, shall I go on? When a crime has nothing to do with the use of force or the use of a firearm no one should be deprived of a firearm.

    1. @ joe liberal.

      Fortunately or unfortunately, depend how you look at it. The phase comes At The End of the sentence, and Not Before.

  28. @ AgingMarine.

    If there’s NO DIFFERENCE, then there WAS NO REASON TOO CHANGE THE WORD, RIGHT !!! If it was good for the first 143-years, it should be just as good for the next 143 to 500-years. CORRECT.

    1. Again, learn to read. Until you decide to show us what difference you believe there is between the two “versions”, I am not going to discuss or debate this with you anymore.
      Good Day and Good Luck.

  29. @ AgingMarine.

    If they did, tell me why it took the NRA 143-year to realize that one word was wrong and it needed to be changed.

    1. ” If they did, tell me why it took the NRA 143 year to realize that one word was wrong and it needed to be changed”.

      Ok, I am going to speak S L O W L Y here so you can understand me.

      For the first three words of you gibberish, you asked ” if they did”. Who are you talking about, and what did they do?

      As for the rest, one can only assume you are talking about the 2nd Amendment. If that is what you are talking about, then There was no word that was wrong. It was simply a change. Since there is no difference in the meaning, it was most likely overlooked.

      Now before I go on any farther, you need to stop ducking my question: What is the difference in the meaning?

      YOU claim that there is a difference, no one else.

      You claim that the difference is “SIGNIFICANT, no one else.

      Since YOU claim that the small change of ONE WORD has a significant change in the meaning, then it us up to YOU to prove your case, not for others to disprove it.

      So, until you can show ANY difference, I simply refuse to acknowledge any more of your inane ramblings. I have been more than accommodating, I have pointed out that by the usage, neither “version” holds ANY differences at all according to the Merriam Websters unabridged legal dictionary and The Merriam Webster law thesaurus. The same that are used by lawyers and Congressmen and Senators here in the United States.
      So, now that your theory has been challenged, it is up to you to give evidence to the contrary. Good Day, and Good Luck. You’re going to need it.

  30. LOL, there ya go, Joe. The intellectual speaks, lol. You can expect more of the same crazy, nonsensical, ridiculous, bs in the future. He’s not the sharpest tool in the shed.

  31. All was well with your statement till you got to the part of removing firearms that have no use to the general public…slippery slope PERIOD. I know your intentions are pure but your list of “approved weapons’ will not be mine and so on. I think you get what I mean!!

    1. Are you sure you are a liberal? LOL. I stand corrected, I have finally met a liberal I don’t want to see executed via firing squad!

  32. Secundius, you moron. Yes the two words are different but their meaning is not different when put into context.
    I won’t even ask you to explain to me the difference between the two MEANINGS, because you cannot. There is no difference in the meaning of either version.
    Amazingly, this is very common in the English language. For instance, I could write: “Secundius, I want you to drop dead because you are an idiot and don’t deserve to live”. THEN I could write:
    ” Secundius, I would love for you to drop dead because you are an idiot and don’t deserve to live”.
    Do you see the difference NOW, stupid? THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE! LOL, how stupid could you be? In both sentences, I expressed my wish for you to die, but I changed two words. Not just one, but TWO words. No change in meaning, though.
    Are you starting to get the picture now? Shut the f#$k up already. You spout off this ridiculous theory there are two different versions of the Second Amendment, and in fact there are not. Then, you say that because one word was changed, that means there is a “significant difference” between the two meanings. There is not. And so far, over the past month and a half, almost two months since I began posting here in thus discussion, you have not been able to even manufacture a FAKE one, let alone a real one, so just give it up already and move on!

  33. I in no way supported a registry, you f@#king moron, and do not put words in my mouth!
    Go work on your reading and comprehension skills, asshole, and when capable, then come back and address me. Until then you can say whatever you want.

    Now. Suppose I Had, just for a moment. What would you have done about it? I would honestly like to know just what you think you would have done about it. NOT A DAMN THING, LOL.

  34. Let me make absolutely sure i didn’t see a typo or you hit a key stroke speed bump.

    Did you, aging marine, actually just violate your Constitutional oath to protect our rights to NOT have a National Registry by your unbelievable comment?

    Did you just reveal that you ARE, then, in favor of a National Registry?

    Like the one old Brush Lip Hitler used to take seize everyone’s private weapons prior to his atrocities?

    Please clarify that beyond all potential for misunderstanding before i address that with my final proposition.

    1. @ Muhjesbude.

      I suggest you might want to put on your lasses, first:

      The 2nd Amendement as written in the United States Constitution:

      Amendment II: written and ratified, 15 December 1791 CE.

      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.

      Amendment II: re-written by NRA, circa 1934 CE.

      A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security FOR a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


    2. @ Muhjesbude.

      If you look at the CTD posting of the 2nd Amendment. It clearly show’s the original Constitution of The United State, 1791 version.

  35. Ok, fine. You have stated your 3 things that you think I should know about you. I however, know all I need to know about you.

    1) You, Secundius, are a liar.

    2) You are Stupid. Not Ignorant, which means without benefit of knowledge, you are STUPID becsuse you have been proven wrong and you STILL insist you are right. You ignore fact to continue belief in your own theory which has been proven wrong.
    There are no differences between the ” two versions ” of the 2nd Amendment. I have shown this to be true using the unabridged, legal dictionary that Congress uses. The change of the word “to” to the word “for” holds NO difference in meaning, especially in its given usage. So you have shown your lack of intelligence and unwillingness to admit to the truth.

    3) you are a Democratic Liberal, pure and simple. You say you are for the 2nd Amendment in its Original form, and then in the very next breath you say there needs to be sensable restrictions to get rid of weapons…….blah blah blah. You don’t even know or understand what the 2nd Amendment is all about, yet you post here trying to act as though you do. What part of “….Shall not be infringed” do you NOT understand? You are a fraud, a Liar, and as anti American as one person can get.

    4) I doubt that you are even an Natural born American citizen, because you have no idea why and how deeply our rights are held sacred and believed in, nor could you ever understand.

    So, in closing, I have said all there is to say. You can post until your computer fries its mother board for all I care. I have no intention of trying to explain these things any more. You are not worth the time to speak with. Oh and for the record, I am an English major and an American history major. I received my degrees 5 years after I retired from active duty. You can’t argue with me, so dontbeven attempt to. All you will do is embarrass yourself.

    So, there you have it. 4 things YOU need to know about ME. I hope you enjoy. Good Day, and Good Luck, you Idiot.

  36. @ AgingMarine.

    Three things you should know about me. First, I’m not a Democrate. I’m a moderate Republican, with NO Tea Party leanings. Second, I’m not anti 2nd Amendment. I support the 2nd Admendment, as written and ratified on 19 Decomber 1791 CE. And not the NRA’s version, as re-written in 1934 CE. and, Third, I’m not against a National Registry. I tihink is a long time coming and we need to regulated and get ride of the weapons that serve no useful purpose too the general public.

    1. All was well with your statement till you got to the part of removing firearms that have no use to the general public…slippery slope PERIOD. I know your intentions are pure but your list of “approved weapons’ will not be mine and so on. I think you get what I mean!!

  37. Hold up. AgingMarine never called Paul out on anything. You and Beau have done nothing but shuck and jive your ways back and forth, dancing around the subject, changing topics when you realize that you are in a losing battle, refusing to answer direct questions. LMAO, the ONLY thing thing I ever said to Paul is that his attempts at educating you were just useless exercises in futility, because you don’t have the ability to use common sense and logic.
    Please keep me out of your conversations. Thank you.

  38. @ Paul.

    Paul, you must be reading postings from stupefied, Drunken, Drug induced Dreams, I NEVER admitted too being a liar of any kind.

  39. You couldn’t tell the truth if your life depended on it, Beau.

    Please cite a source that indicates that the NRA wants drunks to be able to carry ANYWHERE.

    You can’t, because you are LYING AGAIN.

    No jokes about testicles need to be made here. You have proven time and again that you are a LIAR.

  40. Yeah, back in the days when everybody carried a weapon of some kind –including guns– in bars it was pretty dangerous. Especially those cop hangout bars!

    Cops would get so drunk that in the men’s–or ladies–rooms they’d often pull out their pistols to piss!

    And ‘pistol whippings’ were the preferred method of ‘discourse’.

    Every day at least 30-40 cops were shot in those bars. Wonder why they don’t ban Cops from carrying guns everywhere, or at least in certain places?

    1. 30-40 cops shot every day? Where was this? What time period are you referring to?
      Muhjesbude, I have been trying to be patient with you, but you make no sense.

  41. WOW. Someone learned something new. Next time you quote someone, remember it is proper etiquette to acknowledge WHOM you are quoting. Do you even know who originally coined that saying? Do you know anything about the conversation that spawned that saying? I highly doubt it.

  42. Yeah Secundius, the rounds in your weapon MAY just work as well as mine, maybe not. I reload my own. Hot loads, some call them. A bit more powder, it ups the pressure in the breach, which propels the projectile a bit faster and a bit farther.
    None of that matters, though, because I guarantee I am a better trained marksman than you. We will go to the range, I can prove it to ya. Its better when you see it first hand. Anyone can say it, right? I just know, in boot camp, and every year after that, I qualified Expert Marksman in the Corps, for both Pistol AND Rifle. 8 out of 10 shots in the “10 ring” ( center mass ). Let me know, I’ll set up a range time. I’d love to see the look on your face!

  43. well. Beau, Paul has never been shy or afraid in stating his stance. Nor have I, for that matter, but I’ll say that I don’t agree with weapons being openly carried in bars in schools… check that. Schools are fine, as long as it is a uniformed officer, but not in bars. not at all. not openly OR concealed. alcohol makes people do stupid things already, then add a firearm to the mix, that’s not good. It is already illegal to carry while intoxicated, at least here in NY it is. But the primary point is that these are common sense things that mentally stable people actually agree with. Mentally stable people don’t NEED a law to tell them not to kill. They inherently know murder is wrong. So, I’m sorry to tell you, but you are just arguing semantics. Still. Go fond another topic, Beau, you have no real idea what this one is actually about.

    1. Holy Bat Crap! We actually agree on something! Secundius and I are gonna throw a party to celebrate your honest admission. There ARE places where guns should NOT be allowed.

      Of course, the NRA is staunchly OPPOSED to limiting bars from gun carrying drunkards, so prepare to turn in your NRA card, or maybe they’ll ask for it back.

      Either way, you are to be commended for your common-sense position.

      And despite your beliefs about me, I do own 5 guns including a romanian AK47, a Bushmaster AR-15, one colt western revolver, a Ruger LCP 380 and a sweet M25 SWS rifle.

    2. @ Beau.

      It’s probably going to have too be a BIG PARTY TOO ! Because, Paul admitted too “Seeing the Light” and TRUTH, back on page 11.

    3. @ Paul.

      Paul. you Claimed Proof, too something i didn’t Admit too. If I remember right, even AgingMarine. Called you out for walking into it..

  44. @ AgingMarine.

    You know, the Bullets in MY GUN, shoot probably, at least as well as the bullets, in YOURS!

  45. LOL, well, I am definitely not on your side, and you are and always have been a loser, so, yeah. I win, again, Secundius. But keep trying, you might learn something.

  46. Ahhh the wshy washy Beau, still taunting ppl here on a message board. I’m here in Buffalo, NY Beau. Come get me, because I know, and you Government knows that Elections are gone and will have no effect. That is why the Dept. o Homeland Security has been STOCKPILIG ammunition, SELF ADMITTEDLY, for the impending civil unrest and Civil War they know is coming. I will be looking for you, Beau. When your Government comes to try and take the guns, they will be coming for YOURS TOO, if you even have any, which, by your postings, I sincerely doubt. Keep up the charade, though. I can see through it, and others will also.

  47. Can you say “load your guns and gather together” The constitution says to start another gov. When this one isn’t working. Well this one isn’t working anymore and hasn’t been working since the cover up of the killing of our president,John F Kenndy.
    And for this one to go on vacation now, he could of said to his wife and kids to go without him,there’s too many people suffering right now and I work for the people. I guess we either take bake control of our gov. or move like all the other people from other countries are doing by coming here. Well people it’s up to us.
    God Help Us All.

    1. Luckily, there are millions of Americans who are armed, like me, just waiting for a teabagger uprising so we can drop you folks like the unAmerican maggots you are.

      So you stay busy trying to ‘bake’ control, because the minute you try and subvert our elections, we’ll drop you right where we see you.

  48. Beau, lol, you are full of shit. You post about us saying that we believe guns are the answer to all of America’s problems, then when I challenge that, all you can do is spout some bullshit about you being a ” gun manufacturer ” and rant on about the NRA.
    How deranged and stupid do you have to be to act that way? I have enjoyed kicking you ass here, Beau, along with your domestic life partner, Secundius, but I don’t do charity cases. If you want education, go to school. I am done trying to show you the error of your ways. You cannot even debate intelligently, instead you resort to idiotic attempts at insults, which aren’t even very insulting, so you don’t even do a good job at the insults, either! LOL, although it’s FUN for me, it has gotten boring fast. Its no challenge, and therefore, I have obviously surpassed your intellect. All you can do is spout the same old stuff, over and over. Hell, you can’t even move on from this thread, you had to keep it going because here, you feel useful. If you call entertainment value usefulness, then yeah, you WERE useful. But your usefulness has run out, and like all things who’s usefulness has expired, you are now and will forever remain: GARBAGE.
    LOL, have a nice day, Beau.

  49. @ Beau.

    Their not waiting for BARRY, to get their guns! Their waiting for HILLARY too get their guns!!

  50. Yes, they do have the same meaning. I have showed this by comparing the two definitions in comparative usage. You, however have been too blinded by your argument with Paul, which you have been losing, by the way, to see and understand that the words in question, as they are used, have the SAME MEANING, LOL. But sure, go ahead and believe what you want. To me, it matters not. I have read your posts here, and there is no evidence to support your claim that you are “…not against the 2nd Amendment”.
    You and your buddy Beau are both anti 2nd Amendment, and you should at least be honest about it. Not that it matters, but for yourself, you should always be honest.

  51. You keep asserting that there are two versions, and that the meanings are different.

    You have yet to show that there is a significant difference – because you cannot. There is no significant difference.

  52. You keep asserting that there are two versions, and that the meanings are different.

    You have yet to show that there is a significant difference – because you can pot.

  53. @ AgingMarine.

    Believe it, or not, I’m not against the 2nd Amendment in the Original form as written and ratified on 15 December 1791 CE. I’m against the re-written and interpretation, of 2nd Amendment of 1934 CE.

    And, NO they are not of the same meaning, or mean the same thing.

    1. And you have yet to tire of demonstrating your senility.

      Fact less comments?

      QUOTE ME.

      You can’t.


  54. @ Beau.

    I thought you would have given up a long time age. But, your right, the songs the same. But the tune keeps on changing.

  55. Lol, not one single post here says guns are the problem to ALL of America’s problems. But this weak attempt at being funny shows that Pro 2nd Amendment people are on the right track, and some people are getting scared. Watching the train that you’re riding, as it derails, is terrifying. I can only immagine, lol. Have fun riding that train to the end, buddy. I’m damn well going to enjoy watching you rats try and abandon the sinking ship. LOL, when you have the truth on your side like we do, it’s really a funny sight.

    1. Seriously? You fools have been awaiting ‘Obama’ to come get your guns for, what, five and a half years now. Still no ‘feds’ at your door.

      How long do you want to stay hunkered down, waiting for something that’s not gonna happen? You drank the koolade the NRA wanted you to drink and now you’re the one scared, not me. Talk about a funny sight.

      I make my living on the gun industry as a manufacturer and your fear has made me a filthy rich man over the past five years. Don’t get me wrong, I had a bit of money before Obama, but the NRA’s scare em’ policies have catapulted me to new heights financially. Thanks fools!

      The NRA, of which you are members (most likely) is using lobbyists to press lawmakers all across the US to enable guns in all schools, bars, churches, theme parks, national parks, government buildings and more.

      And along come you knuckleheads who pretend that enabling people to carry guns into anywhere but a courtroom and an airplane won’t increase the numbers of guns in the US. It will and you know it.
      Then, you double down on ignorance when you pretend that open carry people are not trying to increase exposure to firearms. These people ARE the NRA and so are you buffoons.

      92% of Americans support expanded background checks. Are you afraid you couldn’t pass? I guess you don’t believe in majority rule either. What country are you from?

      Does anyone anyone here have the balls to stand up and say anything?

      Just me eh? Maybe you’re all out buying panties.

    2. Stand up and say what? Condescending crap? We get enough of that from you and your buddy Buffoondius.

      Where does your 92% figure come from? Do you know?

      Do you know that only 50% of the same survey population supported “stricter gun control”?

      I’m not going out to buy any additional guns just because the number of places I can legally carry increases. I can only carry one or two at a time. There is no logic or common sense behind the claim that carrying being legal in more places means people buy more guns.

    3. The 92% figure comes from a CBS News/New York Times poll:

      But you need more, don’t you? , I know. Take a peek here. And yes, it’s uncharted water for you FAUX Newz viewers. But it’s trusted media, especially when viewed ‘en masse’, in poll after poll, from numerous sources. This one shows 90% support for background checks.
      and another, more general showing American
      And finally, a super article by salon.con that aggregates the feelings of REAL Americans with a whole slew of polls, all trending high numbers (90%+) in support of universal background checks.
      OK. Then tell me, why do we have openly armed shoppers in Target, with an AR slung over their shoulder like it’s nothing? Why? It’s a display. It’s a display intended to intimidate and that always attracts the copycat and wanna-be’s.

      So tell me, would cause Americans to buy more guns?

      I don’t need you to answer because I already know the answer – FEAR.
      It’s workin’ like a charm.

  56. It’s like the that Tax Law that was changed in 1959, where the word EXCLUSIVELY was changed to PRIMARILY. In Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code which defines social welfare organizations for tax-exempt purpose, defines them this way:

    Civic League or Organizations not organized for profit, but operated EXCLUSIVELY for the Promotion of Social Welfare.

    This means that 80% or more of charitable contributions must be use for Charitable Social Welfare and the rest going for operational expenditures.

    This was changed to:

    Civic League or Organizations not organized for profit, but operated PRIMARILY for the Promotion of Social Welfare.

    This means: As a result, many groups now believe they can spend up to 49% of their charitable contributions on Campaign Related Activities, and the rest going for operational expenditures and charity.

    A one word substitution can make major difference in it meaning of the structure of a sentience.

    That’s the same difference between The United States Constitution, Amendment II. Which states:

    “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.” Ratified, December 15, 1791.

    And, The NRA Constitutional, Amendment II. Which states:

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary FOR the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    1. Except it’s not the tax law, and you have not shown that changing “to” to “for” makes any significant difference.

      You just keep spewing the same nonsense.

    2. …and, despite repeated requests, you refuse to explain why it matters what version the NRA has on their wall.

    3. You can repeat “because changing EXCLSUIVELY to PRIMARILY makes a significant diffference, changing TO to FOR makes a significant difference” all you want. That doesn’t make it true.

    4. Paul, while I agree that Secundius is a total moron, continuing this course of action is more and more becoming an exercise in futility, and has already met the definition of insanity. He will never explain the difference because there is no actual difference. I have supplied, in 2 or more of my posts, the meaning of the two words in their respective uses. As used, each word is given the same meaning. We know that those words are not the same as comparing “Exclusively” and “Primarily”, but Secundius has a rather limited intellect. Whether this is due to excessive drug use, or never having a normal intellect, whatever. Maybe he was born challenged, or maybe his parents dropped him on his head one too many times. Who knows. I personally don’t care.

      The gist is this: he cannot show any validation for his claim of such a ” significant difference” between the two versions because there is none. He is on a sinking ship and it’s going down fast, he is just looking for company! Please do yourself a favor…stop arguing with him. It is an exercise in futility, not to mention the textbook definition of insanity ” continuing invariably the same action each time expecting a different outcome. You have, beyond a show of a doubt, proven you are rational and intelligent, and that He and his cronies are just weak minded people who have been drinking the Kool-aid for a long time.
      I seriously doubt there is anymore that can be proved by beating the dead horse, or in this case, the horses ass. Just my 2 cents, brother. You are free to do as you choose. At least for now…who knows what the future holds in store for us. Semper Fi, brother, I salute you.

  57. I brought the NRA into the discussion, because of their interpretation of their rewriting of the 2nd Amendment and the 2nd Amendment as written by the Founding Father’s in December 19, 1791. You to the discussion of track, when you insisted that both versions meant the same thing. They don’t. It’s not up to me to proven which writing is the correct one in meaning. It’s up too you to prove how the NRA version mean the same thing as the original. And it’s up too you to explain why the NRA decided to change the original content of the Constitutional 2nd Amendment of 1791. It’s your insistence that they me the same thing, PROVE IT! It was written that way for a reason. The NRA does not have creative license too change it.

    1. I never insisted that they meant the same thing. Read the thread and you will find that is true.

      You, on the other hand, have insisted that there is a significant difference, but have yet to demonstrate that is true.

    1. Well played Secundius! These asshats are so ate-up with the dumba55 that they do not know the difference.

      “You TELL a fairy tail, you don’t REPORT one!” Beautiful in it’s simplicity.

  58. And the world continues to wonder… why we should care what the NRA has on their wall, and why does it get Secundius’ panties in a wad?

    1. Your right Paul, the NRA has nothing to do with this forum. But, then again you being up the NRA at least 30-times in your comments. So stop associating the 2nd Amendment with the NRA, Because the NRA has nothing to do with , or any association with the 2nd Amendment. Past, Present and Future comments, included. Your Rules Paul.

    2. Let’s see… Why did I ever mention the NRA?

      Only to question or challenge your absurd allegations regarding the NRA.

      any person can read the thread and see just who brought the NRA into the discussion.


      And you STILL can’t explain how the NRA is in the least bit relevant to the topic at hand.

    3. LMMFAO, Secundius, did you actually say that the NRA has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment? Did I read that correctly?


  59. As usual, Secundius is showing his ignorance. Would you please clear up exactly what the difference is between “tells the news” and “reports the news”?

    No matter what dictionary I look in, I can’t find a difference in the meanings of “tells” and “reports”. In the usage you have illustrated, they both mean the same thing…” to inform or educate”, so I am having trouble following you when you say ” Fox news tells the news, they dont report the news”.

    Jesus, even your idiot buddy Beau isn’t backing you on this, and he has been your ONLY supporter here. Get a grip, Secundius. Stop trying to screw with my rights. Lol you won’t win.

  60. As far as the NRA is concerned, the Jury-Still-Out. As far a Fox News in concerned, Local TV stations, maybe. Cable Fox New Network, No-Way.

    1. The NRA is not a party to this discussion. You are.

      Kind of, anyway. The problem is that you keep making claims that you cannot back with facts.

  61. “The Founding Father’s used the 1590 book edition. too frame the Constitutional 2nd Amendment.”


  62. Paul, you know what NRA and FOX New have in common. Neither of them can tell and/or report the truth

    1. I get it. You don’t like the NRA or Fox News.

      Now put your big boy pants on and try to stick to the subject.

  63. Secundius: Please do point out where my use of this English was incorrect.

    You can’t.

    Even if you could, we have all seen how quickly you change the subject when challenged.

    And then you have the nerve to accuse others of deflection.

  64. Even if isn’t, The right act, The Founding Father’s used the 1590 book edition. too frame the Constitutional 2nd Amendment. No matter how your spin it. The NRA version, is not the right version. Get it through that lead and depleted uranium lined thick skull of yours.

    1. So, you keep claiming “the NRA version is different”, but you can’t demonstrate that to be a fact.

      Furthermore, you can’t explain how it would *matter* if the NRA has a different version.

      So, you’re making empty claims about something that doesn’t matter.

      What a shock.

  65. Well Paul, I could have told you that. Fox New, Tells the news, they don’t Report the news. Whats you point. If you have a point, your making it the hard way.

    1. And true to your adolescent level of maturity, you post more insults. What a surprise. Not.

    2. Oh, by the way Paul. The 10 USC 311, Militia Act of 1903. Was published 112-years, after the signing of The Constitution of the United States of America, in 1791. Unless the Founding Father’s had access to a Time-Machine. And went forward 112-years into the future to obtain a copy of the book. So they could frame the wording of the NRA version of the 2nd Amendment, in 1791. Then your definition of the word “Militia” is somewhat flawed.

      Considering, up until the British surrender in October 19, 1781. The Founding Father’s, were technically still British Citizens. The Founding Father’s, usage of “Militia” in the Constitutional 2nd Amendment, comes from the British printed book. CERTAIN DISCOURSES, Manual on Military Drill and Practice; by Sir John Smythe. Published in 1590.

      That’s one hell of a distance in the time frame, wouldn’t you say!

    3. You keep insisting that 10 USC 311 is the Militia Act.

      I guess you are just willfully ignorant.

  66. Re: FOX News –
    Secundius was merely pointing out that a high percentage of the comments we see here sound IDENTICAL to the dufus shills that purport to tell the news at FOX. It’s almost like an echo chamber in here.

    The only problem we (Secundius and myself) prefer factual news, from several reliable sources, as opposed to FOX, which has become the entire media ARM of the right wing minority in the US.

    Secundius and I both know FOX News viewers are LESS LIKELY to be informed of current or historical events than viewers that watched NO NEWS AT ALL. It’s a fact. The fact that it’s all manipulated by a deranged Austrailian named Rupert Murdock.

    Want proof? Good. 3 sources. Read it and weap. . .



    1. Sorry, but your lame excuse has little to do with Secundius’ blithering.

      Nothing you posted has anything to do with NRA or “Fox New” sending “militia support”.

    2. “Read it and weap”.

      I love it when people who can’t even *spell* call me misinformed.

    3. There ya go, Beau, blame the inanimate object and not your own poor intellect. 99.5% of the time computer errors ( yes that droid device you refer to is technically a computer) are all Human error. Nice try. By the way, look up wrap in the online urban dictionary. It describes you, Secundius and all those like you to a tee. Happy Reading, you weap.

  67. You figure it out Paulette! You claim to having been a ace student in English, but after reading some of your posting’s. I think you aced Finger-Painting.

    1. Please do point out where my use of this English was incorrect.

      You can’t.

      Even if you could, we have all seen how quickly you change the subject when challenged.

      And then you have the nerve to accuse others of deflection.

    2. People who have a point argue the point.

      People who cannot argue the point make personal attacks.

  68. “You actually think the NRA and Fox New are going to send out Militia support for these guys.”

    Just what does this mean in English, other than Secundius has odd delusions of being a mind reader? Who other than him even mentioned the NRA and Fox News?

  69. Tell that too the people, trying to redirect the questions in another direction and the form of the questions.

    1. “Tell that too the people, trying to redirect the questions in another direction and the form of the questions.”

      We must try to use smaller words and type more slowly for Senilious.

    2. Can someone please translate Senilious’ latest pearl of wisdom into comprehensible English?

  70. Keep taking the discussion off point….

    Let’s get it back on track. You mentioned that you are a veteran, a gun owner and willing to defend your government (I noted that you did not include the Constitution, which we can delve into later).

    Have you heard Feinstein state that all veterans suffer from PTSD, especially those that have seen combat?

    Your neighbor(s) learn that you are a vet, a Vietnam combat vet. They learn that you have a small arsenal. They ‘know’ that combat vets suffer from PTSD. That’s three strikes on you my friend.

    They dial up ‘Rat out a Patriot’ and because you pose a ‘perceived’ threat under this new ‘pause for safety’ legal end run, the black boots kick in your door and confiscate all of your weapons and ammo. They clearly state that they are not ‘accusing you of committing any crime’ but for the safety of the community, they are going to hold onto your weapons for awhile. They tell you that you can apply to get them back by filling out a number of forms on the DOJ website.

    It’s ten years later and the paperwork was accidentally lost when the server crashed. Too bad, no trace of your possessions can be found. What are you going to do about it?

    1. Just to interject, tell me, Secundius, how well did filling out those forms requesting back their firearms work for the People of New Orleans after Katrina..there are STILL some waiting to get their weapons back, and SOME were actually told that their weapons were lost! Yes LOST, nowhere to be found! Again, as I have posted before, why in the hell do you trust and believe in a Government that has built its reputation on LIES and falsehoods. The Native Americans, The Mexicans, every Nationality that our Government has come across has been screwed over by dear old “Uncle Sam” in one way form or another. Anr you are stupid enough to trust them? Beau with his statement “I don’t ever expect to have my weapons taken away”!! LMAO go read Diane Feinsteins comments. She has SAID it right out, she wants to take away your guns, but she couldn’t do it she didn’t have the votes!!!! AND THAT BITCH OWNS WEAPONS!!! But you trust in people like her to keep you safe? Benjamin Franklin said it best when he said “he who would trade away their liberties for the illusion of security deserve neither and will soon lose both”. look it up

    2. Since I sincerely believe NONE of those things is going to happen, I will do nothing and keep my gun arsenal. My neighbors know I’m a veteran and they know I’m in the gun parts manufacturing business. I belong to the same gun club as most of them. And anyone kicking in my door will die just outside immediately.

      And yes, I suffered from PTSD for years after Viet Nam, and I got through it eventually and found some peace with myself.

      I am trying to reach out from WITHIN this industry and let consumers and my fellow Americans know that much of the HYPE surrounding gun rights fears is based upon two things:

      1. Profits. Pure and simple. Despite what you hear from Wayne LaPierre of the NRA, the NRA is a gun manufacturing lobby group disguised as their old selves, a gun owners club. They’re spinning fear because profits in the gun industry are at an all time high.

      2. Poor responses from gun groups BESIDES the NRA after dozens of mass shootings around the country. You’d think there would be an adult conversation involving gun owners about ways to prevent SOME of these senseless deaths. Again ‘crickets’, except from the NRA who immediately used it to spool-up gun sales with fear mongering. My attempts on this very blog are typical of how these discussions go – I get rabidly attacked as if I were the enemy, and not an American veteran and a gun owner. Is this the best we can do? I think not.

    3. Oh my… the NRA is now an evil trade lobbying group?

      Perhaps someone might share with us how much the NRA spends on lobbying compared to say… the AFL-CIO.

  71. I agree with Beau, Its BS. Its Window Dressing. Somebody remarked about the Cliven Bundy Ranch Incident. If there were a US. Army Stryker Brigade their, instead of 20 something Federal Agents. And the two idiot militia couple Jared and Amenda Miller, were dumb enough to do-it, I think they just might have. It would have been a blood bath. The Militia Men with all their AK-47’s and AR-15/16 rifles, would either be dead and lying on some morgue table or in the Las Vegas Jails, if not in a Military Detention Center somewhere. You actually think the NRA and Fox New are going to send out Militia support for those guys. Guess again, it all about ratings and profits for them, as well a political baiting and political influence for the. It political uprising were ever to occur those hieratical hieratics you worship are going standing in the trenches, shoulder-to-shoulder with you. Your delusional and your dreaming, the going to be in Switzerland, waiting for the gun smoke and dust to settle. Because for them is all about Profit$$$

    After the Revolutionary War, Great Britain was our greatest Shipping and Trading Partner. Because for Us and Them is was all about Profit$$$.

  72. Yeah, It’s kind of sublimely Ironic that the original ‘Jeffersonian Solution’ gave you the right to demonstrate your abject delusion and vomit your treasonous poison, don’t you think?

    1. I’m hearing lots of BS about treason here. Is there NO ONE who can prove it?

      Cue the ‘crickets’ silence.

      Lost elections=treason calls.

  73. ObsidianRazor, I have to apologize for my comment to you about resumes. Part of it was meant, when I said none cares about rlyour resume, however the majority of that reply from myself was due to me just not paying attention until it was too late, lol. I thought you were arguing against muhjesbude’s post. I was kind of concerned because your earlier posts were spot on in line with what was being said. I just double checked and realized the mistake I made. LOL, my apologies brother. I was out of line and should have take more time to understand what you were saying, it’s just been a hectic weekend in prep for the UPCOMING hectic (but also my favorite) weekend.

    That being said, I would like to extend my warmest wishes for your fun and SAFE 4th of July to all of you Americans here. I hope you will take a moment and reflect on what it is we really celebrate on that day.

    1. AgingMarine,

      No worries my friend, no offense taken. I can tell from your posts that you are a dedicated American Veteran that takes his Oath as seriously today, as the day you stood with your hand up and your heart out. I am more concerned with the naysayers that either do not see what is happening to our Country or simply do not care. They are in for a rude awakening when we all reach critical mass. Take care and have a Great Fourth.

    2. Yea. Yea. You say “They are in for a rude awakening when we all reach critical mass.”

      You mean like the march on Washington last month where MAYBE 300 people showed up? I personally think that 1/3 of that group were reporters anyway.

      WTF is an obsidian razor anyway? I think it’s probably a name he uses for his x-box games.

    3. LOL, that’s it Beau. resort to name calling and subject changing. We know you cannot fathom the simple concept that we are discussing.
      As always your weak mind resorts to what every other weak mind does when faced with subject matter that you cannot comprehend: Name calling and subject changing. You are pitiful and pathetic. I seriously hope you come to an epiphany soon, because the way you are heading, your going up the proverbial creek without a paddle. You are either FOR America, and as such, AGAINST Governmental dictatorship, or you are AGAINST America, in which case you will be dealt with appropriately when the time comes. Simple as that. I don’t need to get all worked up over the likes of you. You still have not even debunked any of my posts. you cannot post ANY confirming material for the fecal matter that you spew, just like your Brother/Son/Lover Secundius. Neither of you can offer any supporting evidence to ANY of the things you claim as truths. Clamor on, monkey boy, someone will listen sooner or later. I doubt they will take you seriously, but they might just listen enough to realize how full of shit you are…LOL, kinda sucks to know that you are doomed before you even get started, doesn’t it?

      Happy 4Th of July. Go celebrate a holiday that was secured for you by the same people whose memory and graves you piss on. Real class act, aren’t you?

  74. HOLY SHIT!!! Did you just say “Good Democrats”? That’s like Snipe hunting and proper Governmental spending….neither one exists!

  75. If I remember right the were approximately 20 Federal Agents. If the US Government had sent in the Army instead, the Militia Men their would either be in jail or the morgue.

    1. Regardless of your ‘facts’ to the number of agents that were present, you are missing the point completely. It wasn’t about who would have slaughtered who, the key point was that the American People have had enough and were willing to take a stand, an armed stand. When was the last time in history, that this number of Americans stood up to the Feds? If you cannot see the escalation and where it is headed, then you are part of the Socialist Agenda, you are apathetic or you are here simply to cause hate and discontent because you have nothing better to do.

    2. Obsidian-The Army wouldn’t have gone. Martial Law would have to be declared. I was in the Las Vegas area during quite a bit of the Bundy crisis, and once again, it was caused by Gov’t forces overstepping their boundaries. The level of news coverage when I got back to Northern California was nil. I looked through the old papers that should have covered the story, and there was nothing. Amazing how much lockdown power on the Press the President seems to have. If it makes him and his Administration look bad, there is little to no coverage. There was hardly anything on the TV “National” news either. The so-called “Free Press” is nothing but a propaganda machine for the King. If you weren’t in the Las Vegas area, it seemed like there was little “real” information being spread, mostly disinformation discrediting the Militia’s actions, and hiding the Civil Rights violations by our Gov’t.

    3. That is the ultimate truth, Never before has anyone seen Americans in armed resistance of the Federal Government, in such numbers! All those who say that it cannot or will not happen are blind and deluded in thought.

      Who can say what will or will not happen in the future, if this goes full blown armed resistance, but the simple fact is that more and more Americans are willing to take the “road less traveled” and stand against the “Mighty Fed”. I, for one, having talked to more and more veterans every day, see a trend that is developing where, despite the fear, most veterans will stand against the Tyrannical sword of the Federal Government and its pseudo-military.

      The psychology is a bit more complicated than I am accustomed to, but the basic premise is this: The Men and Women in the Armed Forces of the United States will not stand up to the mental confusion created when they are “Ordered” to fire on friends and family!

      Regardless of what people on the street say, I am referring to the “Call of Duty” idiots, the taking of a human life is much MUCH harder on the human psyche than most think. It CAN be overcome, but when faced with the added confusion of those humans also being Family and/or friends, the mind is actually Ill equipped to handle this confusion between Orders and Implied Duty under “duress”, and the innate human drive to protect those same loved ones. I say “implied Duty” because there is no duty, I say again, NO DUTY to follow Illegal orders, even in the military. And for those who ask, an Illegal order is any order that is 1) any order contrary to the best interests and smooth operation of the United States and the Armed Forces, or that would reflect poorly on said entities. 2) any order that is contrary to the Constitution of the United States of America. Period. No American serviceman or woman is required to follow any order that causes them to break the Law. And, last time I checked, the Constitution was THE Law of the land, governing all others. These distinctions are skewed, of course, during times of war, but is the Government actually going to declare war on its own citizens? Last time I checked, THAT was against the Constitution as well, A little thing they tried but failed to get rid of, called Posse Comitatus, in reference to the Insurrection act of 1807, which WAS taken away by Bush and the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill (repealed as of 2008). In 2008, these changes in the Insurrection Act of 1807 were repealed in their entirety, reverting to the previous wording of the Insurrection Act, that in its original form was written to limit Presidential power as much as possible in the event of insurrection, rebellion, or lawlessness, Thus preventing the Federal Government from using the standing, regular Military against it’s own citizens.

      In closing, not only are there Constitutional protections to keep the Government from becoming Tyrannical and oppressive, but also there are the People, to who the duty falls to repel and abolish such Tyrannical Government. The People on BOTH sides. No one wants another Civil War. Things will be dealt with. I can state what will POSSIBLY come to fruition because I have HISTORY on my side, but even these predictions are not a definite. EVERYONE else has only assumptions based on no actual fact and no historical references to rely upon. I challenge you all to go learn about what the Government is actually capable of. It’s not as much as you all think! Happy reading and happy 4Th of July

    4. TRUE! The minor skirmish at the welfare ranch occupied by the freeloading Bundy was their ‘Waterloo’ moment.

      The beauty of that was watching them all freakout and start infighting with each other and the Oathkeepers when someone BEAUTIFULLY called in and STOOGED them all with a false DRONE attack report.

      I wish I’d thought of that! Drone attack! Lookout!
      I swear, it was a laugh-a-thon! Pure genius.

  76. Yes, Obsidian, when it comes to social volatile situations, nothing is clearly black and white, and nothing will be as speculated.

    A cornerstone of my early military training specifically is grounded in where this forum topic has been re-directed to. Guerilla insurgency. Then later on i did some consulting for the CIA running actuarial scenarios for just this sort of ‘thing’, but mostly in other countries.

    Most of the more ‘learned’ posters here got it pretty correct. A large scale ‘citizen uprising’ as we used to call it., is not in the same category as things like spontaneous riots such as at the G7 type summits or racial outbursts after a bad cop shooting, etc.

    And historic references hold a lot of weight for outcome prediction.

    The concise point is that the Government–unless they try to control the situation with egregious Hitlarian or Stalin-like mass summary genocide, ALWAYS inevitably FAILS, And, is overthrown. History almost ALWAYS repeats itself in this particular social circumstance.

    If you study it, Even totally disarmed populates, eventually prevail over tyranny. Lets see..okay a recent modern era example is Ceausescu of Romania, aka the Butcher of Bucharest. The people had NO personal Guns, period. Maybe a few rural shotguns for essential hunting and protection from Bears and such.

    This is a very interesting history when you do comparative tyranny paradigm analysis because you find the constructive pieces of the puzzle picture fit both the theocratic plutocracy picture, And the Marxist oligarchy model. But for the point here i’ll focus only on the psychology of the oppressed in any and all situations and compare that to America, Today.

    Ironically, but not surprisingly, the entire violent Romanian revolution in 1989, was precipitated by a Catholic Priest, who apparently forgot there was no 1st amendment rights in Romania at the time.

    And absolutely no 2nd Amendment rights at all to back up their imaginary 1st Amendment rights!

    So what happened is that when the general people of Romania expressed their serious discontent’ for a very violent, in fact, murderous government smack down of a demonstration by the ‘flock’ against arresting their favorite priest without due process for ‘preaching anti-guv-‘religion’…

    … the Butcher wielded his reaper carving blade and his thugs shot down an unarmed pregnant woman–right through the pregnant part—in front of f everybody in the public square of Timishuara(?) (similar to Tenament square)…and the crowd went Wild! When outrage and anti-government sentiment spread, an order went out to ‘kill them all, and let ‘god’ sort them out.

    So a sort of ‘alphabet’ agency of government ‘security police’ brought in some low ranking military and their tanks and heavy machine guns and started slaughtering anybody on the street protesting.

    You know, just like they do everywhere else in countries where the citizens aren’t allowed to own private guns when this stuff starts.

    The Romanian people literally had no weapons and some of the ‘history’ is typically obfuscated as to the exact details of forces who sided with the government dictatorship and those who sided with the people, but the people formed a ‘resistance’, some went into the mountains and tried to get outside firearms and garnish a counter government forces militia and some passively resisted all government integrations and support, And when a massive demonstration of dissent fomented in Bucharest, Ceasescu had his storm troops shoot down enough protesting people where dead bodies lay in the streets stinking for days because people were too afraid to come out.

    But the damage was done. It was the end for the ‘Butcher’. In this case, the Romanian Army leadership simply did not sign up for such a dictatorship. Socialism is one thing, but when it degenerates into a tyrannical dictatorship as it almost always does because sooner or later non-Free Enterprise anti-Capitalist governments sooner or later run out of other people’s money to operate in the opulent style they are accustomed to, They realized their ‘job’ was essentially to protect their people, not murder them.

    A sociopathic out of control dictator could not just shoot down the citizens just for ‘criticizing’ the government, expecially since many of them were Family of the regular army! Period.

    It’s interesting world history as to what happened next. Essentially the regular army generals were too smart for the ‘Butcher’s’ secret agencies and even Foreign Mercenary armies brought in ‘to help’ (shades of black helicopters and no insignia uniforms!)

    The Romanian Army, specifically a couple courageous high ranking officers and their men, accomplished a ‘coup’. The rest, as they say, is history. But a history from which to learn a great lesson.

    Our American Military is even MORE integrated with “We, the People” than with the government. Even though the government doesn’t show it by killing off our wounded Warriors with its incompetence, the citizens are proud of their women and men in the services.

    Sure, there’s a few mind programmed robots who do nothing but ‘obey orders’, regardless of consequences, but for the most part, our Nation’s Best Defenders come from and ARE, indeed, “WE the People”!

    I won’t go into ALL the psychology of it but it is a common presumption in esoteric think tank circles that it would be virtually impossible at this point in time for the Government to handle a united Citizen Militia formed to defend our country against DOMESTIC tyranny. and even terminal incompetence.

    ‘They’ don’t want that in their wildest nightmares.

    Think about it. The government would actually be defeated before they got started. Just the initial stand-off, and ‘declaration of resistance byand the new provisional ‘People’s authority’ and their demand of the government to stand down and immediately surrender’ the military to the ‘peoplel, would simultaneously be followed by what?

    NO more TAX collecting! As soon as the government initiated tyranny upon us, nobody would be ‘Financing’ them anymore. April 15th would no longer be a cash cow supply date, it would just be a bad memory in a distant past.

    NOW go ahead and try to bust your moves when ‘We, the people’ are not paying you anymore! Not to mention the 6 or seven MILLION sniper rifles poised at every crack and cranny (formerly high powered big game hunting rifles) getting ready to make sure you don’t try any harder to Steal Our Money anymore until we can straighten out the damage your regime did to us.

    And that’s the other Huge difference between dictatorships who already took away the people’s guns, and this Great Country.

    We won’t let them take away our guns in the First Place! So it won’t be nearly as difficult to keep our Nation Free. When it comes right down to warfare tactics.

    So Secun-dick’s and Beau’s and the other one don’t know the bullet hole in their heads from the hole in their ass, better decide now, whose side they want to be on if it ever comes down to the ‘Jeffersonian Solution’

    After the Romanian Coup, The People’s Military commenced a public execution of Ceausescu and his equally traitorous wife. And then their blown out brains were eaten by guard dogs. (you might still be able to find a you-tube video of it)

    Secundick thinks that the American population can’t ‘perform’ as well as our professional Military even though we now have a lot of firepower because they don’t have the proper military training. To me that was the dead give-away that he never was a combat vet and really did spend his military time, if he even had any, in Phuc Dup, and Trang Wang and probably just scored ‘marksman’ during his very very basic training, and now thinks he’s better than the literal hoardes of Americans who literally eat, sleep, and play with guns in every capacity imaginable.

    We are, and always have been, totally an entire nation of shoot-em-up violent history and upbringing. We are cowboys and Indians. We are born in a land where gangsters and machine guns were part of everyday life. Even admired when the ripped off the rip-off banks owned by the potentially government whore banks.

    If a movie has more ‘love’ than ‘gunplay’ in it, it’s not’ culturally ‘balanced’ and thus, for the most part, boring.

    As kids We grow up with guns as our main ‘toys’ for social interaction.

    Nowhere else in the world do you find almost every main big box store having such a large part of their square footage selling ‘sporting’ goods which include anything and everything that Shoots from slingshots to AR-15’s! Even most Walmarts have enough firepower ‘in stock’ to supply a decentl rifle platoon!

    More people do recreational ‘shooting’ in general than any other sport! And we literally train all the time! We have everything from video ‘shooting’ games which perfect hand eye, to ‘toy’ airsoft guns which are now being used for serious tactical training because you can actually guage your ‘hits’ on moving human targets without ‘danger’. We have more competive shooters and expert ‘shots’ in the general population than ALL of the BEST ACTIVE DUTY marksman in the Military. Shooting is a ‘gene’ in the American bloodline.

    And where do you think all those snipers go and do when they leave the military? THEY ARE ALREADY TEACHING AND INSTRUCTING CIVILIANS for sport or extra income!

    I, just by myself, and likely far more ‘like me’ than anyone would believe, can look around the ‘hood’ and if SHTF, or necessity called for it, could take enough good neighbors within walking or bicycle distance and put together within days, after mostly just assessing and screening their skill levels, an not even extra training yet. the essential equivalent of a standard basic U.S. Army infantry rifle platoon, for all pragmatic domestic applications, doing just as well in live ‘combat’ as entry level troops did in most wars. And they would be full ground mechanized mobile, with all the nice 4X4 vehicles, and the required support and back up supply chain.

    All they would have to do is closely follow my tactical instructions against an oppressive government force, and we would make the much feared Viet Cong look like cub scouts compared to us.

    Imagine that replicated in every small town or neighborhood across the entire country?!

    So for Secundick to make the absurd statement that the ‘people’ won’t have a chance because of their ‘training’,

    proves to me that Secundick and Co. are nothing more than shills on the anti-people agenda put forth by the G as counter gun propaganda.
    I see the pattern evident in their posts that one sees all the time with G-trolls on other forums.

    Ironically, if you do the tactical numbers, The American civilian standing milita with mobile infantry potential in place amounts to several millions of infantry people.

    Compare that to about a half a million standing Regular Army and Marine troops available–and not at any short notice– in this country, where you must remember that for every One (1) forward Infantry soldier or Marine rifleman you need at least 4 back up soldiers for logistics, how in anybody’s right mind do you think your are going to face more EX-military or retired actual Combat VETS IN THE CIVILIAN
    ‘MILITIAS’, than the goverNment could actdually put in the field against them!!

    THAT’s the dirty little secret about what the Framers had in mind, that this regime doesn’t want us to know. THAT’s why they are secretly garnishing a ‘universal’ para-military force out of local municipality Police forces.

    So ‘The last shot’ on this debate is that the government and the current regime thinks like this:

    “Well, initiatory forceful gun confiscation based on below radar registries would erupt the country into potential armed revolution…
    And we can’t really win in the end. And it would destroy our main goal of simply milking them for the wage slavery they provide,

    We still NEED to take their guns away for the maximum control over them. So we have to do this by the rule of law ‘okey-doke’. ”

    And this is what this Boxer article is about, but which got intentionally re-directed by ‘you know who’ herein.

    Ironically, our worst enemy against government tyranny is from WITHIN! It is people like beau and Secundick infiltrated throughout the country in government subsidized mental program of being propagandized to think that 2nd Amendment Patriots are essentially extemist whackjobs who prefer to solve everything and the end of an AR-15 barrel. I know many families are even internally divided on this.

    I know how this is about to sound, but it IS the reality truth. In ‘Matriarch’-type family units, which psychologically are ‘pre-disposed’ to a government ‘sugar-daddy’ as the perceived ‘head of the household. Whereas, the ‘biological’ father, in the event that he was a 2nd Amendment Patriot, would invariably receive a dose of “Don’t you DARE go out to that Gun Rights Rally with your nut ball Beer can shooting buddies! We got Mouths to FEED! What the F@#k year do you think this is, A-hole, 1774?! As soon as i call and see how much is left on the food stamp card, YOU are taking us FOOD Shopping!”

    What I’m going to do is a ‘jury nullification’ on Secundius and Co. and terminally ignore them so they’ll self disintegrate.

    Then I’m going to try to concentrate on getting others to get a politician to try and get a bill sponsored which will counter this insidious “pause for safety Act.

    Maybe something like a “Pause for Freedom” Act. Which mandates that any old or new laws appearing to be in contradiction to the Constitution be immediately put on hold until a referendum can be properly accomplished and/or an automatic SCOTUS evaluation of its LEGALITY.

    ‘tHEY’ are too smart to try to attack us militarily front on. They used to like to use overwhelming initiatory force to ‘skeer the BeJEEsus’ out of a few social disodents, but Bunkerville proved that the days of Waco and Ruby Ridge are pretty much gone.

    But we don’t really Want that anyway. Even good wars are bad. That’s the LAST resort and reasonable intellectual Patriots just want them to know… that we will ALWAYS want that ‘Entre’ on the table of the food feast of freedom. So they’ll never be able to ‘starve’ us to death.

    So our first plan of ‘attack’ should be at the coming midterm elections.

    1. You manifesto is flawed. Its just like the 30 million man march on Washington, DC. on 16 May 2014. Where 30,000,000 – _________ = 30,
      actually showed up. What a embarrassing moment in Tea Party history that was, wasn’t it! You talk about general uprising of the masses. Its never going to happen, because if it were. It already would have happened. Go back to your stupid video games, and have your general uprising in the “Ether World of Reality”, because it just not going to happen in the REAL world. You can call Beau, me and all the others like us in the REAL world all the name you want. Because in the REAL world those name have no meaning, have lasting value. In reality the Tea Party, like the Hula Hoop, Lawn Darts, and Rolled-up Cuffs on Blue Jean Legs. Are a dead-ender’s fad, in the fanciful minds of what-could-have-been or what-might-have-been. Time to stop taking those hallucinogenic drugs and getting those shock-treatments
      that Charles and David Koch, have been giving you on a regular basis, and time too rejoin the REAL world and take you place in society. Time for the NRA to be that Gun Shooters Club, they once were. And stop having delusions of grandeur and Saint Hood status. Before it gets someone in their heralded hierarchy killed. Like the knife, it cuts both ways.

    2. Your rant is interesting and revealing, in so much that it continues to detract from the primary article which began this ‘discussion’. Your appraisal of what, who and how effective the dissatisfied voters of this nation are, is misguided at best. You speak of reality. If you don’t think an armed standoff at the Bundy Ranch wasn’t real, then I might suggest that you are out of step with this Country.

      When was the last time that you recall both armed Federal Agents and armed US Citizens in a standoff, and no one fired a shot? If you cannot digest that it was a test, both by the Federal Government and the People of the United States, then you have missed ‘reality’. If you do not understand that a day is approaching in which you will be required to make a decision, that will forever alter the course of your life and those around you, you have succumbed to the ‘sacrifice freedom for safety’ ploy.

      You mention that we need to ‘take our place in society’. What place would that be? I am a Veteran, a College Graduate, a Father, a Husband, a Success in Aerospace Engineering, a Volunteer in my Community, a Juror when required, a Foster Parent, and on it goes. I am doing my civic duty, because I believe in the ideals that this Nation was founded on. What do you do?

      This is not a game. This is not about self deluded concepts of heroism. This is about law and order and the ultimate law of the land, the Constitution. If you cannot reference your arguments back to the Constitution and the Anti-Federalist and Federalist papers, then I doubt that you will ever be able to submit your case with anything other than hyperbole and conjecture.

    3. WOW. Someone wants us to be impressed with their resume!
      Let’s see, since we obviously are measuring aans worth by his personal resume (as it should be) let me fit mine in. Here we go:

      Well first off, I am a veteran with an Honorable discharge. I am a devoted son taking care of an elderly Father while paying my own mortgage. I was a single father of two until I remarried two years ago. I am a Husband, also a college graduate. I am successful in Mechanical Engineering field. My last project was a state of the art High School here in NY. I am a volunteer firefighter, a member of the auxiliary Police league, I vote, I do jury duty when called. I help my sister take care of her 5 kids after her husband left. I tale my youngest daughter to every cheerleading practice and have only missed 1 game in 3 years. I am a member of the Big brother’s association of America, which is Linda like foster parenting just without the financial support, which I, have helped with in the past. I donate bi-yearly to the local food bank here in my neighborhood, and I give blood at every God-blessed blood drive the local Red Cross has.

      With all that, Obsidian, I still find time to shoot trap and skeet. AND I still qualify with my .45 every year. (I have qualled expert every year since I joined the Marines. My first pistol qualification was with the Beretta 92d. I didn’t switch to the 45 until later in service as an MP. And with my ar-15, as with the M-16 I qualified with I can put 8 of 10 in the black of a “dog” AND a “b-mod” at 500 yrds, open iron sights. I don’t need your “red dot” or “acog” scopes. Normally, the “dog” target is used at the 300yard line, but this was a challenge issued by my Company Commander, I took his $500. The Military pays for shit. Lol.

      Anyways, does that about cover it? yeah, I think it does. The moral of this message is: no one gives a shit about your resume. I know plenty of good decent people who would give the shirt off their backs to help out a fellow human being in need. The measure if a man us not what he HAS done, but what he does today. You, if your given resume is true, should know that. Obviously you use that resume to try and exert some perceived authority that you think it gives you, as you have here. Otherwise, you would not have brought it up. Sit down and learn, Obsidian. Or are you afraid that you just might learn something from these people you look down on? I know the fear of feeling under-equipped, but when you grow up you learn that you don’t know EVERYTHING, like you once thought you did. We all learn that when we grow up. People like you just refuse to accept it. People once thought like you back in 1776, when they said that there was NO WAY a bunch of farmer’s with pitchforks could defeat the largest and most powerful Army and Navy on the face of the planet. I, for one am glad they were wrong. My lineage can be traced back to the signing of both the Declaration of Independence AND the Constitution. William Morris of Pennsylvania and his half brother Lewis Morris of NY. This can be EASILY verified. Lewis Morris died by the British crown for signing the Declaration of Independence. But William was able to escape. However he was separated from his wife and 3 children who were in hiding for many years after. William died the opposite from what he lived. Poor. He was considered by many to be the financier of the Revolution. However he was never repaid for placing his entire fortune in the bank of the fledgling Nation. And upon undertaking a few land speculation deals that ultimately failed. He died in debtors prison. Fitting end for one so instrumental in financing the American Revolutionary War, huh? His own Government turned away from him until many years layer. Sound familiar? Maybe those left behind in Nam? This Government holds a huge resume full of broken treaties, half truths and the spinning of words when it suits its own purposes. And those lies and deceptions continue to this day. Why do you think we have jokes like ” what do the Easter Bunny, Santa Clause and the Honest politician have in common? They are all fictional characters! Why do you put so much trust into a system that is filled with so many liars that nothing can get done? Doesn’t sound logical to me. No one trusts the “Gov”. Yet you defend it? That’s hypocrisy at its finest, my friend.

    4. Well put With regard to the end of your statement, the government has been fooling with veterans ever since there were veterans. We will only get what we demand if we demand nothing we will get nothing part of the problem is as a soldier you were told to obey orders and it’s difficult to take an offensive stand against the system. Freshly returning Well veterans especially injured ones are unaccustomed to the adversarial condition they find themselves.

      I am in the medical field I volunteer my time at the Veterans Administration Hospital not for pay I do it because it makes me feel good and in the process I get to help out some really brave guys and a few girls

    5. And again as always, Secundius shoots off his mouth without even knowing or understanding what was said. muhjesbude is exactly correct. The psychology of the American people will not stand for an oppressive Government taking any more control than they have, ESPECIALLY if said Government tries to come in and take by force.
      As Muhjesbude said, We have grown up in a society created by the founders that is completely conducive to repelling Tyranny from anywhere. Yes, even from our own Government. I also am done with Secundius and his anti-American groupies. They have no intelligence that I have found, or anyone else for that matter. They are simpleminded Kool-aid drinkers. If SHTF, I hope I run into them first….lol. I have always wanted to have a “captive audience”. LMAO.

      Well stated Muhjesbude. Damn well stated.

    6. Secundius, these people are delusional and apparently unaware of the massive firepower that would rain down upon them should they ever attempt the ‘Jeffersonian Solution’ that some here dream of. They also assume incorrectly, that all democrats, liberals, progressives and countless others are all UNarmed. Big mistake.

      Like many others, I keep MY guns because I will defend my government against a rag-tag group of weenies wearing tri-cornered hats, bearing misspelled signs.

      The consolation we have is they cannot take my real combat hours away from me with childish misspellings of Vietnamese provinces and towns where my fellow soldiers died. They don’t care, like most people about Vietnam, or the 58,000 fellow Americans who died there fighting communism. Today, it’s all about Obama who made the mistake of being born 1/2 black and winning the presidency twice.

      These people are simply too stupid and TOO FEW to override OUR votes. I laughed ALL DAY when that MILLION MAN march on Washington turned up a few hundred idiots – max. They were gonna charge the White House and Congress to force ably remove Obama and others they disagree with. What a joke! A puny joke! And again, just like election night, they were SURPRISED when their millions did NOT SHOW UP.

      We can only pray they decide to utilize their ‘Jeffersonian Solution’ again so we can see and laugh at their puny numbers strewn about for what they are – a marginal, delusional, fringe group of morons.

      Now they’re left trying to ridicule Veterans. How shameful and pitiful is that? The false bravado they exhibit demonstrates they have never seen combat besides with an X-Box, or a movie.

      If these morons had to take a test to carry a gun, most of them couldn’t get a slingshot permit.

    7. Great post! As a Vet, I agree with your “take” on what Vets are and where they WILL STAND. Better to die on my feet that live on my knees, and neither one is as good as killing the enemy before they kill you, no matter where that enemy comes from. This is why King Barack considers Vets to be “Domestic Terrorists”, as he knows we will stand for what is right for America, and that sure isn’t the direction he wants to go. I stopped reading Secundius awhile back for the same reason, lots of inane babble, no facts, and really off the wall ideas about what matters. He will never understand where we stand. Kind of like “Bulid it and He will come”, our thoughts are “Try to take them and we will Stand, united.” I may be way to old for a running battle, but I can still pull am trigger with the best of ’em. Keep up the great posts!

  77. Obsidian, you have to undertand that Beau and Secundius are both just brainwashed, liberal, left wing, anti-gun, anti-American shills who have been drinking the Kool-Aid since they were born. Neither can provide any form of logical or coherent thoughts, and Secundius absolutely refuses to provide any sources for his “facts”. If that’s what they can be called…… lol. He posted a link to an essay in the Duke Law Journal….lol, the opinion of the author is exactly contradictory to his posts! The intelligence of the average American has gone down hill fast and with those two here it just seems to be getting worse.

  78. So the same troops there coming to get your guns are the same troops you maintain will be on your side when the shootin’ starts. How does that work exactly?

    1. He can’t Paul. Neither him nor Secundius can explain anything in any rational way. They are both too far gone to see fact and reality.
      This is all very sad. It shows the level of decay of the American people, and the end result of the intentional “Dumbing down” of American citizens by the left wing, Anti-American, socialist Liberals in power, both in years gone past AND today!
      This is what we are fighting. It just so happens that these people are in control of the Government right now.
      I am reading and working on the rebuttal to Secundius’ attempted points about the Duke law journal. I will post them in two parts. He was, AS USUAL, way off base. Lol. I know this is too easy, but in a small way it is a bit entertaining, as I cannot begin to suspect what incoherent ramblings he will come up with….LOL.

    2. Beau, are you still trying to pass off fecal matter as rational thought? You and Secundius must be related.

    3. Simple really. The same troops and law enforcement members that will be ordered to confiscate weapons of lawful citizens will be faced with a very difficult decision. Not only must they recognize that the instructions that they will be provided are illegal and therefore unlawful orders, but they will then be faced with consequences. There are hundreds of thousands that understand the Oath that they swore and are willing to sacrifice their lives to defend the Constitution. There will be a schism in all branches and all ranks, resulting in many who will defy unlawful orders and join ranks with true patriots. How many police officers opted to defend their families and homes when Katrina hit, as opposed to showing up at the police station as ordered? Do you honestly believe that Civilization is as black and white as you purport it to be?

    4. ObsidianRazor- Yes they are praying that civilization is that black and white, and exactly as the current Administration purports it to be. They desperately WANT to believe, so that they will be “taken care of”, just like they are being promised. Here’s a post I received from a friend that really gives us something to think about. Saul David Alinsky (January 30, 1909 – June 12, 1972) was an American community organizer and writer. He is generally considered to be the founder of modern community organizing. He is often noted for his book “Rules for Radicals”. Hillary Clinton wrote her term paper on Sol Alinsky’s work and President Obama also studied him.
      How To Create a Social State by Saul Alinsky
      There are 8 levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state. The first is the most important. 1) Healthcare – Control healthcare and you control the people. 2) Poverty – Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live. 3) Debt – Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty. 4) Gun Control – Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state. 5) Welfare – Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income) 6) Education – Take control of what people read and listen to – take control of what children learn in school. 7) Religion – Remove the belief in God from the Government and schools. 8) Class Warfare – Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor. Any of this sound familiar?????? Think we aren’t there? It’s like a bad nightmare coming true. I never thought I would view most Americans as Socialists. But judging by their voting record, I have no choice but to believe it. The sad part is, most of them aren’t even aware of their socialist beliefs, instead, thinking they are just “good Democrats”.

  79. LMAO… no one talks about you behind your back, Secundius. We talk to you upfront. I have no problem calling you delusional to your face, however, I live in the real world, and you live on a fantasy realm of your own creation. Can’t find an airline that can take me there. Sorry.

  80. I’ll talk to you later Paulie, I have a date with my local gun range. I dying too try out my New Custom 98k Mauser (7.92x57mm) and my New Sig Sauer P229/Mk. 25 Navy, in .40S&W livery. Enjoy your afternoon without me Paulie. I know, just how much HATE you want to talk about behind my back!

  81. I thought, with you guy out of the picture. This discussion group could get back to the Topic on hand! Without, hearing nonsensical comments form the PEANUT GALLERY.

    1. No one is sulking, you pompous ass.

      Some of us have better things to do than entertaining senile leftwingnuts.

  82. I don’t think your going to hear from Paul, Stephen or AgingMarine, on the blog topic for a while. I pissed them off!

    1. Don’t flatter yourself so, Senilious.

      Some of us just have better things to do on the weekend than to argue with people who can’t distinguish between fact, falsehood, and opinion.

  83. Bingo. Secundius has been nibbling on the bat guano that clings to the walls of the NRA. Its the only possible explanation remaining.

  84. In response to Paul. I DO use the reply tab at the bottom of the box but it is NOT listing it a \s a response to a particular post.

    Any how as we both know after congress moves a bill along the POTUS singes it! Or in some cases a congressional override is attempted.

    1. Yes, a President signs the bill.

      Are you assuming that if he signs it, he supports all provisions of the bill?

      The point here is that being able to carry in National Parks, and being able to take guns as checked baggage on Amtrak happened despite Obama, not because of any preference of his.

  85. Try reading;

    1. The Second Amendment And The Personal Rights To Arms
    by William Van Alstyne
    1994, Duke Law Journal edu/journals/dlj/

    2. How The NRA Rewrite The Second Amendment
    by Michael Waldman
    19 May 2014, Brennan Center For Justice @ New York University –
    School of Law

    3. NRA Wikipedia

    1. You keep on proving that you are just a parrot.

      If you knew what you were talking about, you would be able to present your case in your own words.

      Do you really expect that I am going to expend the necessary time and money to go buy and read a book just because a leftwingnut on the internet says so? Do you really think I have some obligation to prove your point for you?

      You really are deluded.

  86. Hi Paul, love your posts, factual and informative. I just answered Secundius for the last time, explaining that if he won’t see reason, what’s the point? You’ll go nuts trying to get this guy to see reason. I haven’t figured out if he’s that stupid or just batshit crazy. Please keep up the good work, and just ignore this guy, he has become a website joke. His clinging onto the “word difference” like grim death is getting sad. Thanx again for the education you and Aging Marine provide.

  87. Secundius- This will be my last reply to any of your posts. A single word CAN INDEED change the entire meaning of a sentence. In that regard you are right, it CAN make a difference. However, in this case, it DOES NOT. My wife has her Master’s in English, and she says no difference. Sorry pal, but I’ll listen to the English major with a Master’s Degree. Clinging on to this sinking ship is foolish. Even the rats have left. Since you refuse to recognize or accept the facts presented in any discussion, continuing to acknowledge you is pointless. You are worse than a child in that regard. Seek help. Really. I bid you good day.

  88. You talk a lot about grabbing at straws, Unless you were their yourself, than your grabbing at straws.

    1. Try reading the article.

      It reports on an issue recently ruled on by SCOTUS that deals with straw purchases. It has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING being discussed here.

    1. You again present your opinion as fact. I see no evidence that this issue was challenged in ANY court, let alone SCOTUS.



    1. You have shown no evidence.

      While changing one word CAN change the meaning of a sentence, you have not shown that it does in this case.

      Furthemore, you have not shown why anyone should give a rat’s behind what is on a wall at NRA headquaters.

    1. “If I remember right the 3rd party signed-off on it too. SCOTUS!!!”

      You’re inventing “facts” again.

  90. Who are you talking about, Secundius? Who here has even mentioned their wife? Does anyone know who he is referring to? I am trying to follow but its hard to make sense out of mindless drivel like Secundius’ rantings.

  91. You claim on the knowledge and reliance of your wife, Why don’t you ask her, and see what she says

  92. I sit corrected…Changed by Congress & signed by who?? I don’t think it was a veto override. But once again I could be mistaken.

    1. It was signed by Obama.

      Does this mean that he supported it? Don’t assume. it was part of an appropriations bill, and the President does not have line item veto power.

    2. And by the way… this law only allowed transportation of firearms in hard-sided cases as checked baggage.

  93. Because it’s a LIE, Paul.

    Anyway you rewrite truth. It’s still a Lie.

    When your version of history, don’t bare out historical events, it’s a Lie.

    Are you now saying the The Rape of Nanking, never happened, The Bataan Death March, never happened, The Jewish Holocaust, never happened, WW2 never happened, Why don’t your tell AgingMarine, that The Korean War , never happened. Go on. If you acknowledge one lie, you can’t backpeddal on the truth.

    1. You keep CLAIMING that it is a lie, but have failed to provide any EVIDENCE that is a lie.

      Even if it is a lie, WHAT DOES IT MATTER?

      Why do you keep running from these two points? You haven’t’ shown that it is a lie, and you haven’t shown that it has any relevance to anything.

  94. Here is an example of a change of only one word in a statement that changes nothing in the meaning of the statement:

    Statement 1): “in using false statement’s, Secundius has proven himself to be an idiot.”

    Here is the same statement with only one word changed:

    Statement 2): ” Whole using false statement’s, Secundius has proven himself to be an idiot.”

    There you go. The same statement, same meaning, even though I changed one word. Just because a change in one word CAN change meaning does not mean that it DOES automatically change the meaning. Get a life Secundius. Your mindless repetition is becoming boring and irritating.

    1. You have not PRESENTED any facts, only your opinion.

      Your opinion becomes accepted as fact when you provide supporting evidence, which you steadfastly refuse to do.

    2. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments.

      Got facts?

  95. While your at it, why don’t your retroactively rewrite the works of William Shakespeare and the Holy Bible, too.

  96. Your Mixing Apples with Oranges, Again.

    Your using a Modern Translation, of an Old Story.

    Consider the Rosetta Stone, without that piece of history, there would be no history. Your trying to retroactivly rewright history.

  97. What the NRA has on its wall. Is their version of the truth. And their version of the truth is a LIE!!!

    1. You keep asserting that the NRA’s version is a lie, but you don’t seem to be able to prove that your assertion is factual.

      You also seem convinced that it matters. Even if it is a lie (which you have yet to prove, despite numerous requests), what difference does it make?

      Finally, someone who lies as much as you do (as you have lied about my posts right here in this thread), has little credibility when calling others liars. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

    2. Secundius, you are a complete idiot. You have been proven wrong and yet you still hold on to this theory for dear life.
      You claim that the others have gone silent, but if you scroll back you will see that, indeed, the opposite is true…everyone has been posting responses to your obviously mindless drivel, over and over claiming a theory to be fact.

      Next I want to point out an interesting observation in your posts to Paul. You keep claiming that there is a difference in the meaning of the two versions of the 2nd Amendment. However, in one of your latest posts, you are begging to know the reason. You say ” there is a reason for everything. I want to know why. Why don’t you?” If you knew for fact that there is a difference, then you would already know what the difference is. I can keep going with inconsistencies in your posts, but this is getting to be way to easy. I enjoy a challenging, STIMULATING intelligent discussion. With you that is impossible. Good day to you, sir.

  98. LMAO, I have been replying to this conversation and Secundius tried saying peoe have gone silent? I know he WISHES people had gone silent.
    If you scroll back, you will see that I have gone and posted the differences ( or lack thereof) between the words “to” and “for” using online dictionaries. I have also broken down the entire 2nd amendment using said definitions.

    Secundius fails to show how, in any way, that there is a difference in the meaning of the statement. LOL, this is, however, just an exercise in futility because Secundius will never accept the truth. I have shown there is no difference. I was an English major. I am positive in my assessment of the facts. I don’t feel the need to pound my chest and boast my credentials, but I was an English major. I’m sorry to burst anyone’s bubble, but there is no difference in changing the word “to” to the word “for”. No difference whatsoever.
    With this said, Secundius, might I suggest that you simply concede this one, because you lose badly.

    1. The sky is green.

      Don’t believe me?

      GO LOOK IT UP!

      You insisit on making assertions that you cannot back with facts. Keep on making a fool of yourself, it’s no skin off my nose,

    2. You can’t even tell me WHY IT MATTERS what the NRA has on it’s wall, but you want me to think it’s a significant issue?

      DREAM ON.

    3. Yes, I am unwilling to waste my time on utter bullshit. Surprised?

      You are free to waste your time and energy however you wish.

    4. “IT’S JUST THAT SIMPLE!!!!”

      So simple that you cannot explain it in your own words.

    5. You clearly misunderstand the nature of debate on an issue.

      If you make an assertion and that assertion is challenged, it is up to you to provide the evidence.

      It is not my job to prove your claim to be valid. It’s yours.

  99. If you really believe that, then the Tax Law’s every GOP Congressman is screaming should be changed back to its original wording.. Too “EXCLUSIVELY” not “PRIMARILY”.

    1. What I KNOW is that while admitting you have no credentials to speak as an expert on the law or the English language, you expect us to accept that the difference between to versions of the Second Amendment is significant, because changing a word CAN (not always does) change the meaning of a sentence.

      Further, I KNOW that you are asserting that it somehow matters what a private organization places on it’s walls.

      You are welcome to get all lathered up regarding concepts so poorly supported by factual evidence. I refuse to.

  100. Read. The Second Amendment and the Personal Right to Arms,
    by William Van Alstyne; 1994 Duke Law Journal (www,law/duke edu/journals/dlj/)

    Also. How the NRA Rewrite the Second Amendment,
    by Michael Waldman (May 19, 2014)
    @ The Brennan Center For Justice at New York University School of Law

    And Also. NRA Wikopedia

    1. Read “Secundius has his panties in a was over an issue that he cannot demonstrate to be a reason for concern”.

    2. Someone told you something had been done, and you wanted to believe it, so you did.

      If it was a fact that you actually understood, then you could explain it in your own words. You can’t, so you are acting the part of parrot for those who programmed you.

  101. When I worked in Miami the CCW laws changed from county to county. Then the State stepped in & made it MUCH easier to get a CCW permit. The media screamed that it would turn Miami into Dodge City. Well the crime rate droped with the exception of around the airport where the “snow birds’ would fly in from points NORTH (New York) and become fresh meat for the ‘smart’ criminals. No weapons allowed. But we locals became much safer. POINT TAKEN!! and agreed with!! AN armed society is a civil society,
    But the math problems needed to post here are getting harder. LOL

  102. New York, I know it well. back in ‘the day’ I worked at a place on Northern Blv. and carried a side arm but had to leave it at the vault. The Sullivan Law I believe. I was making the point that before Obama changed policy we could NOT carry in Federal Parks & Amtrak. so despite his ‘gun garbing’ nonsense he has had “brighter moments” but dam few. And I voted for him……twice. The second time I had no real choice…Romney??

    1. Ahem…the policy regarding AMTRAK and National Parks was changed by Congress, not by Obama.

    2. President Obama, doesn’t have control or funding over the US Park Service or Amtrak. US> Congress, does.

  103. You know there were other’s in this discussion group, and their words went silent. I wonder why, maybe there trying to figure out, if there is a significant change in the meaning of the NRA version of the 2nd Amendment, or maybe their scratching their heads too. Trying to figure out why, that one word in the entire sentence was changed. And, just maybe their wondering why the NRA couldn’t have just left the sentence, stay as it was originally written. By the “Founding Fathers.”

    1. No, they are scratching their heads trying to figure out why you waste so much time and effort on something that you cannot even demonstrate to be a problem.

      You can’t explain why the difference is significant.

      You can’t explain why it matters what a private organization puts on their walls.

      And yet you have your panties in a was over it.

      Your problem, not anyone else’s.

  104. Paul! I’m not a Constitutional Law Scholar, or a Constitution Law Lawyer
    or even a English Teacher and/or Professor, But, what I do know from basic High School English Classes, if you change the syntax of a sentence, you change the meaning of that sentence. The NRA did this for a reason, and I want too know why. Don’t YOU!!!

    1. I studied English in school, and it was one of my best subjects.

      Since I can’t see a significant difference in the two wordings, I’m not going to get my knickers in a knot over it. Furthermore, what the NRA has on their wall is of no importance.

      If you wish to get all worked up over it, go right ahead. But if you want to assert that there is a significant difference, prepare an explanation of why, or you just look like an idiot.

  105. Paul, just because you say its pointless, doesn’t automatically make it pointless. There’s a reason for everything. Why did the NRA feel the need to change the WORDS. They did it for a reason!!!

    1. If there is an reason for everything, then what is the reason that you insist that changing one word mustb make a difference, when you cannot explain why?

  106. If that’s true Paul, tell me why the NRA needed too change the WORDS.
    Why didn’t they just leave the PHRASE alone. They did it for a reason.

    1. Why does it MATTER?

      I really don’t care what the NRA has on their wall. Why do you? How is it relevant to ANYTHING?

    2. You insist that it makes a difference, but you cannot explain why it makes a difference.

      You are an idiot.

    3. Did you stop to think that it was simply because we speak “American” english , and back then, people spoke the Queen’s English. (This is why the British speak differently than us)

      The vernacular, syntax, even the grammar…. Everything. It is all different from then to now. Try doing your own research.

    4. Conspiracy theorists love to ask “why?”.

      They think that aksing “why?” proves something.

      In reality, they ask “why?”, and not having a factual answer to the question, they invent one that supports their theory.

  107. This is the ambiguity the GOP, and Karl Rove is having with the IRS tax law, where the word “Exclusively” is substituted by the word “Primarily”.
    It changes the whole structure and meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

    1. The words “exclusively” and “primarily” are indeed quite different. Exchanging one for the other in a sentence would indeed change it’s meaning.

      However, neither word appears in either version of the Second Amendment, and you have therefore not yet demonstrated a significant difference between the two versions you quoted.

    2. Sometimes, changing one word in a sentence changes the meaning of a sentence. That does not prove that EVERY time you change a word you change nthe meaning of the sentence.

      To assert that it does is as ridiculous as claiming that every gun owner is a bank robber, because some bank robbers use guns.

    3. If the Second Amendment contained the word “exclusively” or “primarily”, you might have a point.

      But, as usual, you are pointless.

  108. I did. There is no difference in the “different” wording. You reached for the stars…and missed badly. If that is your “Holy Grail” in this discussion, you need to rethink your position. You keep writing and proving little other than you really don’t seem to have a grasp on reality. You aren’t winning, and in fact, you are starting to look really foolish. Like I said earlier, I’m relatively new at this, and I don’t “hate” over the written opinion of others, so take this in the spirit given: Concede the point(s) and walk away. I read your list of recent health issues, and I don’t know if any of it is affecting your ability to see reason, but it sure seems that way. The best of luck to you in your recovery.

    1. Andrew, go back to page 9. Then scroll down to the last entry on the
      page, There you will see to separate, yet nearly identical entries of the
      2nd Amendment. The Constitution version and the NRA version, read them both carefully. and see if you can’t see the difference.

      I’ll give a clue

      Constitution version: TO the security of a free State

      NRA version: FOR the security of a free State

      A one word substitution in the sentence structure, can change the whole meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

    2. “Can change…”

      But DOES it? If it does, the a person who knew what he was talking about could explain HOW the difference in one word changed the meaning.

      You cannot explain HOW the changing of one word changes the meaning.

      That leads to one obvious conclusion.

      And by the way… what the f@#k does it MATTER what the NRA has on their wall, Senilious?

    3. Wrong. The change of the word “to” to the word “for” changes nothing about the meaning of the statement.

      First off both words are prepositions.

      The word “to” means: a use to describe or express a direction towards a point, a person, a place or a thing. Ex: They went to the house.

      The definition of the word “for” is read as such: to suit the purposes or needs of… I.E. ‘food for the troops’ or ‘is done for the greater good’.

      So there are two versions: “to a well regulated militia….” and then “for a well regulated militia”. Both uses indicate that the rights cannot be infringed if the well regulated militia is to be kept. The militia refers to the non-professional soldier, the individual who is called upon to SUPPLEMENT the state guard. A ” professional” soldier is defined as a soldier that is maintained and paid for and trained by the Government. This describes the National Standing Army AND the National Guard. The militia is not maintained or funded by the Government. It is “regulated” by the State. The militia, not being supplied or funded by the Government, are supplied by themselves. Each “man” had to supply his own weapon and ammunition. There was just no funding or logistical capability to provide the weapons for the militia.
      Also, since the militia was not a professional soldier, they were not under any “contract” to serve. They can leave, or terminate their service at any time. Their weapons went with them wherever they went. Including home when they decided. A professional soldiers weapon does not. When not in use, they are kept in an armory. Stored safely under lock and key with controlled access. When I lock up my weapon, there is no controlled access except for me. I am the ultimate authority in the security of my weapons. No one else.
      So now you have the definition and meaning of the 2nd Amendment, in full. You can see the ” differences” between the words “to” and “for” as used in the two debated versions of the second Amendment. You can plainly see that there is NO REAL DIFFERENCE.
      Both words indicate that a “well regulated militia” needs a civilian population that has no restriction to weapons.

      Only those who want total disarmament would even try to argue this. It is in plain English, and the only difference is the vernacular. Every word in the English language has subtle variations in their meanings. Some are less pronounced. Some variations are more pronounced. Take, for example, the word Gay. It can be used to describe a state of happiness, or it can be used to describe a sexual orientation. The meaning depends on useage. Put into context, there is no real difference in either version of the 2nd Amendment. They both MEAN THE SAME THING. LOL. I’m sorry to disappoint anyone, but it is what it is. Secundius, you have been shown to be wrong once more. How long do you plan on keeping up with this charade? You have NOTHING to stand on. You have no proof. You offered NO evidence when saying the meaning of the 2nd Amendment changed with just the change of one word.

      YES. The change of just one word CAN change the meaning, but it does not ALWAYS change the meaning. Do You understand? Having the ability to change meaning does not always mean it does change the meaning. Your argument holds no credence. You cannot present fact to back up your theories and you seem to act like a bully, meaningyou keep up with Paul, but you refuse to respond to.anyone else. I can’t see what weaknesses you sent in Paul, but you seem to feel that you have your whole argument won simply by badgering him. You post theories but never any factual content to support them. You sir, are a liar. Pure and simple. I have debunked everything you have posted, and yet you claim the opposite. You continue to post as though you have fact to back up your suppositions but you never post any factual evidence. You lose. Stop before you lose any semblance of credibility you may have ever had. Good day, sir.

  109. I got Paul too admit to a word change between the Constitutional 2nd Amendment and the NRA version of the 2nd Amendment. He said the word substitution didn’t mean anything, and I told him that it did. Read my posting on both versions, and thn you decide.

    1. You are LYING AGAIN, Secundius!

      I never said the changes did not mean anything! Never!

      I challenged you to explain WHY and HOW they made any difference.

      You could not.

      You yourself showed that the changes meant nothing.

    2. There is little that I hate more than a liar.

      Particularly when the liar lies about what I said.

    3. Show your evidence that the change in words makes a difference in meaning. Until you show your evisence, I call you as you are… FULL OF SHIT, lol.
      Just having a theory does not make said theory a FACT.

  110. Uh…no, Sec, Paul is NOT avoiding my questions…I’ve never even ASKED him one!! It has been YOU that avoided my direct challenges and questions three weeks ago and always tried to smoke screen your way through them. Not Paul… YOU!!

    1. Preach on, brother Stephen! LOL. Just know that we are here with you and we apologize for not answering your questions. We poor disillusioned fools who resist the Ultimate truth of Secundius will stay with you until we perish from the power of his truth……. Excuse me, even saying that sarcastically is making me sick to my stomach….LOL.

  111. Paul, why are you avoiding Shayla. In fact you, even avoid other peoples
    questions, Like Beau, Stephan, AgingMarine, and alike. I don’t need too
    get into a debating contest with. You already answered my question. And then you went “Bonkers”.

    1. It’s impossible to avoid someone who isn’t commenting.

      Bonkers? Is that what you call it when you get called out for the liar you are?

    2. Ummm, Secundius… You need to check yourself. Paul has not evaded ONE question from me. I don’t know where you are coming up with this, but I can go back and scroll and read where Paul has responded to me AND Stephen and others when needed. You see, Secundius, when Intelligent people get together and discuss things, it is not always necessary for every comment to be replied to. Some things are mutually understood without needing confirmation. Truth is one of these. We DO however need to reply to you because you obviously lack the intelligence needed to discuss the truth, so we have to keep breaking it down for you in terms that your infantile brain can comprehend. Indeed this repetition is the biggest source of resentment towards you. For me anyways.

      If you choose to stay ignorant, that’s on you. I have tried as has have Paul and others, to educate you and shine some light on the situation that you are in the dark about. I dislike intended ignorance immensely, but I also enjoy educating those who are in need of it. You, however, are a lost cause because you cling to your intended ignorance like a child clings to their favorite Teddy Bear. Your refusal to see and admit to the truth is your safety blanket. Your world would collapse if you admitted the truth, simply because your world is built on lies…its like unraveling a knitted sweater. Once you pull the yarn, everything comes unraveled.
      I thank god your world has no bearing on mine.

    3. Secundius, I just went back and read all of the posts between you and Paul, with occasional input by Aging Marine and others. You keep stating that you’ve won, but I see no valid points in any of your posts. I’m new at this, and in awe of some of the knowledge of the Constitution displayed here, but you aren’t in that group. Who, or what group are you associated with that makes you want to look like one of those crazy street people ranting on a city street corner? You’ve had your ass handed to you repeatedly, yet you continue to drone on. What is your actual reason for being on this site? Are you here strictly to harass gun owners? There are plenty of liberal sandboxes for you to play in. Please go find one so I can read what the smart people have written. Thank you!

    1. You leave me little choice, as you refuse to respond directly to questions.

      Less forgivable is your apparent penchant for lying outright.

    2. Come on. Man up. You have made an allegation that I evade questions.

      Provide an example, or everyone here will see what a liar you are.

      Oh… they have probably already realized that.

    1. We have a part time Congress because we have too few laws?

      Do you read the crap you post?

      I’m sure that on some planet, or some disease- or drug-induced mental state, that makes sense.

      But then, I long ago gave up any expectation of sense from you.

    1. Just talk to Shayla,. Everytime someone poses you a question, you don’t want to answer. You redirect the question, onto the course of another direction.

    2. In other words, you evade the question AGAIN.

      An observer might reasonably conclude that this is because you have made YET ANOTHER claim that you cannot back with factual evidence.

  112. The problem with that theory, is that our part-time Congress have to be in town to be able too pass laws.

    1. So they have to be in town to pass laws… and this is relevant to what?

      This appears to have no relevance whatsoever to the conversation. Probably just another case of changing the subject when called out for speaking ex recto.

    2. I guess Secundius would prefer a “full time” legislature. Does he think our problems are caused by having too few laws?

    3. Part time Congress? What???? Did I fall asleep and his the entire restructuring of the American Governmental System??? When the hell did Congress become part time?

      I know I am getting old but damn it, I’m not senile!

  113. Apparently Fox News in the Washington, DC. area is fundamentally different, than where you live. In the DC. area, Fox News claims the Republicans do, the GOP on US. Capitol Hill claim they do, and people like. Darrel Issa, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz, Marc Rubio, John Boehner, and alike. Claim they do. So, either you know something nobody else does, or the GOP is lying. Or, is it that FOX NEWS is lying. Humm, kind of make you wonder, doesn’t it. So, somebody’s lying, I wonder who those’s somebody’s might be!!!

    1. So, you are citing Fox News as evidence that the GOP controls Congress? Really? I knew your response would be fun to read.

      Congress is comprised of the Senate (currently controlled by Democrats) and the House of Representatives (currently controlled by Republicans). So please do cite the facts (not something you saw on TV) that show that the GOP controls Congress.

    2. LOL, Paul, you are trying to use those confusing “Fact” thingy’s to show the truth….we all know that those things confuse the poor liberal anti gun idiots. We have to present the Facts in ways that they can understand. Might I suggest next time leave a link to a web page with Pictures. That might help out alot! LOL, other than that, well done!

    3. And by the way, it takes action on the part of both the House of Representatives and the Senate to pass a law.

    4. Paul, I thought the Liberals claim that everything on Fox News is complete lies and GOP propaganda. Funny how they REACH when trying to argue valid points, using that same source to bolster their point.

  114. Ya know when I try to ‘reply’ to a specific post my comment seem to be posted irrespective of the quote. I must be doing something wrong. Any how it was in response to the alleged ‘gun garbing’ policy on POTUS.

    1. Try clicking the “reply” link below the message to which you are replying.

      Also, try researching your claims. POTUS doesn’t pass laws, and guns on AMTRAK and in National Parks were *laws*, passed by… you know… Congress.

  115. The same ‘guy’ who made it possible to carry your sidearm in National Parks and on Amtrak. So chew on that just a little…

    1. “The same ‘guy’ who made it possible to carry your sidearm in National Parks and on Amtrak.”


      And oh… who is this “guy”? Does he pass laws?

    2. Well, there Joe Liberal, there is nothing wrong with carrying your sidearm in a national Park, as most of them, meaning 99% of them hold wildlife like bear. If I run into one, I want to be able to protect myself from it, and the lives of my friends and family that ore with me. nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with taking it on a train, Either. As long as local and Federal laws are followed.
      Here in NY State, there is a CC law, that says you may carry your pistol, but it has to be concealed, with the exception of New York City and a couple other major areas around NYC, where Handguns are banned in those areas. But in the rest of the state, No one knows who is armed, and who isn’t, and low and behold, CRIME rates PERIOD are much less than in the areas where there are no guns. lol, Anti-gun nuts STILL can’t figure that one out!

  116. Yeah, my friend, that about says it all. Well done. But there’s one last hole in the fickle feckless frightening wheat field where there’s one more ‘whack-a-mole’ to whack.

    I’m trying to find something that came across my desk a while back when i was conducting search and destroy missions on the cognitively decedent who would argue in an emotional rampage from the psychosis induced spurious notion that ‘the Framers didn’t mean what they said by terms like ‘Militia, infringed, and well regulated. Or some other purposefully and maliciously interpolated ‘agenda-speak’ amounting to nothing more than criminal lies.

    But there was some scholarly effort put forth by a magazine editor, i believe, to discern the actual syntax and language analysis credibility of that issue by a premier grammarian and English language expert and it turned out to be so well done that it ends the ‘debate’ once and for all, as the the absolute specific meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

    As soon as i find it again i’ll post the link here.

    It would serve as the final eulogy to the burial services you and Paul and others here have so eloquently proffered to the traitorous fabrications posted herein which are so deleterious to our Country.

    Molon Labe!

  117. I’m glad you guys came along.

    In a way, Beau probably did us a favor. While I doubt they are the majority that Beau imagines they are, there are plenty more out there with a similar grasp of the facts of the issue. It’s good to be reminded what we’re up against.

  118. Yes, sports fans, it is I, AgingMarine. I wanted to offer to Beau, the actual Numbers of civilian personnel vs Active Military and reserve unit Numbers. Here is the link,( but I would just like to show the numbers here to illustrate how foolish Beau is to underestimate us “Civilians”….here we go:
    AS EDITED 3/27/2014

    America’s Total population: 316,668,567;
    Available Manpower: 145,212,012;
    Fit for Service: 120,022,084;
    Reach military age annually: 4,217,412;
    Active Frontline personnel: 1,430,000;
    Active Reserve Personnel: 850,880;

    Now, as polled over the past 2-3 years 1/3- 1/2 of those on ACTIVE FRONTLINE said they would not fire on American Citizens, so the Government, if it attempted to bring the Military to bear against the citizens, would lose those troops, 1/3 – 1/2 of their frontline force;
    Now if the Government did turn on the citizens, they would face, WITHOUT counting defecting Military personnel, 143 MILLION people of available manpower, 120 million being fit for service.
    IF HALF of those numbers sided with the government, the civilian population willing to fight would out-number the Governmental forces, CONSERVATIVELY, at a ratio of 33-1.

    33-1! Beau spouts that we would be out manned and out gunned! But What he is thinking about is an all out, face to face encounter. This would not be the case if our Government turned on us.
    We would have to use guerrilla tactics, much like the Viet-Cong. Hit and run strategy, and psychological warfare, etc. and there ARE enough of us out there to do it.

    Now, Much like Lincoln, when quoted about Slavery and the potential Civil war, I am like minded; I do NOT wish to fight my fellow Brothers and sisters in the military, nor do I care to fire on those civilians who cater to, and support a Tyrannical Government. I have seen enough killing to last a lifetime. BUT, like Lincoln, “In order to preserve the Union….” I will keep my Oath, to defend the Constitution of the United States of America!
    Beau will be one of the pinko-commie fags cowering under his perceived ” Might of the Governments standing Armed forces”. What a joke! This is why the Government has not attempted it already, because the rich and powerful who are in charge, can add…they can do the math, just like Admr. Yammamoto of the Royal Japanese Navy in WWII, when he warned the Japanese Emperor against invasion of the mainland US, by truthfully stating: “Behind every blade of grass would be a gun waiting to kill you!” That’s all that held them back….Almost our entire Pacific fleet was destroyed Dec 7th 1941, by a Japanese sneak attack! The entire west coast was open to an invasion! NO NAVAL SUPPORT AT ALL! Yet the Japanese knew it to be a futile action, because the Americans would have every citizen armed to kill them when they stepped onto American soil!
    Now, the Government is demanding registration….ok so they know who has what firearm…what does that do to stop a mentally unstable person from going out and killing dozens of men, women and children? The police don’t stop them. The police can only act AFTER a crime is committed and not before.
    The Government doesn’t/can’t stop them because they don’t know when someone is going to snap! Hell, not even the best psychologist/psychiatrist can’t predict the future.
    So, what GOOD does registration do to stop crime? It doesn’t. What it DOES DO, is it allows the Government to know where to go to take the guns, in a preemptive attack on the CITIZENS of The United States of America, designed to dis-arm them prior to a Governmental takeover. The ONLY way to conquer America and the American people is to disarm them, and that was preemptively dismissed by the 2nd amendment, guaranteeing that the citizens right to keep and bear arms NOT BE INFRINGED, IE not be hindered, changed, altered or obstructed in any way, nor limited, undermined or encroached. these are the definition of “Infringed”. So, now tell me what part of infringed do you not understand? To register, in preparation for Confiscation is an infringement! It UNDERMINES the peoples ability to own, and to bring to bear ARMS, which was defined in the Constitution and upheld by the SCOTUS, as meaning “Weapons in common use at the time”.

    The earliest scholars knew what the 2nd Amendment meant…as evidenced by this excerpt by George Tucker:

    The earliest published commentary on the Second Amendment by a major constitutional theorist was by St. George Tucker. He annotated a five-volume edition of Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, a critical legal reference for early American attorneys published in 1803.[126] Tucker wrote:

    “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. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4. This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”

    There it is….for anyone to look up. Once the right of the people to keep and bear arms is in any way hindered, or prohibited, then Liberty, if it isn’t ALREADY annihilated, is on the brink of Destruction. under ANY COLOUR OR PRETEXT WHATSOEVER!

    I challenge anyone to INTERPRET that! It cannot be interpreted because it is in plain English, broken down into its most basic wordage and terminology.

    I have said it before and I will just touch base with it again: The United States Government CANNOT be trusted even to its own laws and regulations. Just ask any Native American. They stole land from the Native Americans. Same with the Mexicans. The Mexicans lost their lands through attrition and war with… guessed it, sports fans, the good old US of A! Go ask a Mexican how trustworthy the US Government is. Ask any native American also.
    The American Government has no pause in taking away peoples lands or liberties, and they do it by deeming them Inferior, or criminal.
    It has also been said that history repeats itself, and I have heard the quote of Thomas Jefferson that says “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure”.
    To all of you I say this: history is coming full circle and our own choices will determine if we remain free or allow ourselves to become a Conquered people. If we allow that, then it will be the first time in History that a people capable of protecting their own sovereignty and freedom chose to let themselves be conquered. I am not concerned so much for myself, but for my children and grandchildren, and the children and grandchildren of the rest of America.

    Come and take my freedom, I dare you!

    1. There’s not going to be a popular uprising in this country. Because, you Tea Part wacko’s can’t even come to an agreement amongst yourselves.
      If the Tea Party fight the way the vote, its going to be a very short war. Once the death toll amongst your Tea partyists grow, its going to be total anarchy in the Tea Party ranks. Everyman for himself. It’s going to be just like the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791. It’s going to be like War of the World’s, and the US. Government are going to be like the Martians. It’ll over, faster then it started. Remember Ruby Ridge, Waco. Your going too be annihilated. Because, it’s like Beau said “WE OUTNUMBER YOU, by a factor of 10,000 to 1. Were’re the 91%, and Your the 3% at most, the other 6% are going to stay out of the fighting.

    2. Mr. Disinformation is confused again.

      When did the Tea Party declare any interest in civil war?

      Quit making stuff up, it only makes you look more senile than you already do.

    3. LAO, here he goes again…ignoring statistical fact and spouting off about outnumbering us 10,000 to 1! We are the 3%??? That is factually ridiculous and inaccurate. The lack of intelligence these fools show is just staggering.

  119. You’re right Paul and Stephen. I think Secundius is emotionally and cognitively decedent, and Beau is an agenda shill.

    To deploy the cliche’, the ‘last round fired’ on Beau’s extremely ignorant level of stupidity is that the government knows that at this current point in time with literally millions of AR-15 and etc. suitable individual combat weapons, and literally millions more of high powered ‘hunting’ rifles with scopes presiding as equal or better ‘sniper’ platforms that we had in Nam, and able bodied well practiced and skilled shooters, far more by the way than what the average draftee infantryman had before he began fighting in Nam, and even later and fighters with plenty of highly trained and experienced combat veterans for leadership, and ALL completely mobile — with far better 4X4 vehicles than the isis army has (mostly junker toyotas,lol)along with all the national guard equipment that will immediately fall into the hands of hoards of overwheming armed civilians, including an actual air force potential of at least a half million currently registered civilian pilots, in case anybody didn’t know that…

    And an endless supply of very resourceful and ingenious tech citizenry loaded with mobile communications and etc. that only the abundance of a wealthy hedonistic country can produce and I can go on and on but compared to what I’ve seen a rag tag bunch of farmers in pajamas and sandals with no communication and very little ammo do to the greatest army on the world, the New American Revolutionary Militia would look like Superman on steroids!

    And even if the government had the self destructive ‘nerve’ to start a war with its own people by taking the ‘tyranny bullshit to an intolerable tipping point, and launched our active military against us in all out street and rural warfare, they still might not win? and even if they somehow gained, it would be nothing more than a pyrhic victory.

    That’s why the government gets seriously nervous when individual states like Texas start to mumble about seceding from the Union.
    A redux Civil War would be no way ‘civil’ the next time around. It would make the middle East look like a bad day at a foreign soccer game.

    I mean they still definitely want to dominate and dictate to us according to their own ‘agendas’. But they would rather not do it by setting the country on fire. Otherwise it wouldn’t be worth much to them afterward to milk.

    And they know that for what they initiated and did to our land, some of us would never stop until we’d hunt them down and hang them high.

    So they’d rather just spy on us and insidiously control everything we can or cannot do by manipulation. So they can occasionally keep a lot of us ‘skeered out of our skins’ as they pick up the more radical leadership and stage false flag events, and etc. as propaganda ‘examples’ while getting more prepared for the smaller outbursts of anti-G demonstrations by ramping up their sound weapons orders and new forms of ‘submission chemicals’ for so-called riot control.

    And simultaneously carrying-on with new anti-gun legislation to make us ALL illegal by basically illegal anti-Constitutional laws, that i’m still trying to figure out how they get away with, and systematically nit pick away at our gun rights through back door below radar tactics if they can’t do it any other way.

    Once they pull the ‘teeth’ of the Big Dog, then they can ‘quietly’ put us down.

    So they try shit Like this very dangerous ‘Pause for Safety’ act proposed by the ‘EVA Braun sisters’ here…which Secundick and Beau-ball-less okey-doked us on by re-directing the issue.

    Maybe if we ignore them they’ll just resort to typical troll suicide by attacking our grammar and spelling typo with a final blast of inane caustic invective and disappear.

    And then maybe absence of their ‘comments’ we can gain back ground and try to figure out a way to censure this latest ‘tyranny bill’?

    (also check the ‘Cheaper than Dirt’ website blog on the latest SCROTE-US decision on the ‘straw purchases’ question on the 4473 forms. They’re coming at us from all angles. What irritates me is that they’re funding this anti-2nd Amendment treason WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS!
    Talk about throwing battery acid on the second degree burns!)

    1. Oops, correction on that SCOTUS recent court ruling. It’s on the Guns America blog. It fits right in there with this ‘Pause for Safety’ bill.

  120. NICE job on this subject, Paul. It’s pretty clear that Beau WOULD just”roll over” if the s*%&# ever hit the fan, which would make the patriots of the American Revolution roll over in their graves in shame. Maybe Beau has forgotten that at the time, the British army was the most powerful fighting force in the world, and had conquered pretty much all comers for centuries. Me, I’d rather die fighting for my cause, hopeless or not, then just capitulate. The thought of that is abhorrent to me. Viewpoints like”they have more weapons and greater firepower so I’m gonna submit” are sad. And the guy claims to be a Vietnam veteran??!! GEEZ!! People like Secundius and Beau are sadly mistaken, and there seems to be no getting through to them. I, for one, commend your points as spot on and well founded. Their arguments remind me of Ron White’s tagline, if ya catch my drift…

    1. Thanks, Stephen!

      As fond as he is of working “teabagger” into every comment, I am sure that Beau is a KollAid drinker, a paid DNC shill, or both. I don’t see much point in further discourse with him.

    2. Oh you mean the one where even a drunk understands that ” You can’t fix Stupid”? LMAO, way to go Stephen…I love the reference to Ron White. I love the occasional moments of levity during these little education sessions. I must admit that I never got my masters and took up teaching, I went into engineering instead. I love building things, and apparently, as evidenced here, I must like to demolish things also. I found a new talent here. I find that completely Awesome!

  121. I’ve backed off on this forum a bit because Paul and Aging Marine and the others were doing quite well dealing, here with the likes of you Beau, and the poor unfortunate Secudiius, but being ‘knowledgeable’ enough to be paid for in depth historic research, I had to interject here to keep the debate clean and ‘free’ from intentional troll absurdities.

    Beau, You are ‘dead’ wrong on the potential power of an armed citizenry. Even one ostensibly mismatched in terms of sheer military technology and/or superior firepower.

    First of all, the premier deterrent and tipping point asset of any conquest is always the potential fighting ability and resource of the indigenous populations.

    The Founders actually cited this logic in their establishment of guarantee of the 2nd Amendment. In fact, and as Paul said, there is plenty of peripheral documentation of their precise intentions, expressed and verified.

    They knew full well the ‘deterrent’ effect of a well armed populus against an invading force, or a dictatorship in the making.

    As an 18B assigned to a MACV-SOG group in the Central Highlands of the RVN in 1968 I first learned of the reality of the immensely formidable challenge of a people’s guerilla force when attempting to conquer a populaion into submission.

    This is an historic fact and was since proven, i modern times, as history often does, in Afghanistan. and other attempts to conquer the countries who maintain a well armed citizenry.

    I’m sorry that your ignorance of reality and history distorts your otherwise good intent.

    The fact is and hopefully will always remain, that the United States is one of the very few countries allowing its citizens to freely possess adequate anti-tyranny personal firearms.

    That means that the American citizenry IS the LARGEST STANDING ARMY in the World!

    In World War II, This was a well known imperative tactical concern for Japan’s and Germany’s potential land invasion plans.

    The Founders knew this because if it wasn’t for the tipping point of the militia of armed civilian volunteers, There wouldn’t be a United States of America, today.

    For you to state that “No one fears (you) en masse or otherwise” is so stupid, Beau, that if i were you, i”d quit advertising it otherwise you’ll someday develop a psychosis from your delusion and they’ll use against you to ban more of your liberties…

    You don’t really think that this Boxer ‘Pause for Liberty’ bill here will settle only for ‘gun-owners’ do you? If it gets in they’ll be able to expand upon it.

    If you are a federal employee your job ‘ethics’ include snitching on your co-workers and reporting if you merely ‘suspect’ they are acting ‘strangely’? Not doing anything wrong, mind you. Merely behaving ‘strangely’…by broad definition!

    Many things would become a ‘trumped-up fear’ then. I’d then bet you’d definitely have a ‘fear’ of losing something that won’t be ‘trumped-up’?

    1. If your talking about the National Guard, then your Right, about being the Largest Standard Army. But, if your talking about the Average Citizenry or General Population, who have only basic fire arm training. That’s not considered the Largest Standing Army.

    2. Muhjesbude, I applaud your intelligence and attempt at educating this dillusional ignorant fool, but only those who want to be educated can be shown and accept the truth. I think we have all sufficiently rendered this idiot to a blubbering, monotonous, incoherent voice spewing and sputtering nonsense and losing rhetoric everywhere. We can safely move on, because no one who reads these blogs puts ANY stock into what he says, especially after we have rendered him for what he is…A liar and a Gov. Shill. Here to do nothing but spread disinformation and dissention in the ranks of those of us who know better.
      I only keep on because I am confined now due to back surgery and have nothing but time on my hands! LOL.

    3. Yeah, you’re right. Paul keeps tearing them a new anal orifice and they still try to shit out their mouths.

      Back surgery? Oh No! But that’s okay, just so long as your trigger finger still works and your eyeballs can draw a bead…

      I do volunteer work for the Wounded Warrior project and they got these very fast track mounted wheel chairs now that can be armor plated!.

      So you’ll still be in the ‘game’ when we need you! lol!

      They also have these very good hand-eye coordination laser pistol trainers now that you can keep sharp with while you are an invalid
      and practice quietly right in front of the TV..

      Well, that’s about it for me right now. I hear my neighbor practicing so i’ll go over there with a case of beer and we’ll work a little on HIGH SPEED two man ‘treeline ambush’ .drills.

      I’m not as ‘good’ as i once was…

      I’m much, MUCH BETTER!

  122. The fact that some (if not all) of you are armed and angry is troublesome, and leads normal people to question your sanity. The poor spelling and atrocious grammar leads me to question your education.

    Some of you claim to know a lot about the constitution and our fore fathers intentions. This is doubtful and somewhat inapplicable in that technology has changed to now enable one deranged teabagger to pull a McVeigh and kill many. Our forefathers did not envision that concept.

    There is some comfort in the fact that you’re a minority group and not a major voting bloc. Enjoy your fear.

    1. Beau…how sadly disillusioned you are!!! By your logic, the 1st Amendment is also inapplicable since we have come from primitive presses and hand set type to digital information streaming and satellite communications. And remember that many of the colonial Americans were armed with Kentucky Rifles, the highest tech long arms of the day, and able extend the effective range over and above the British Brown Bess muskets by AT LEAST 100 yards. So technology and the 2nd Amendment have no relation to one another. Unfortunately, tyranny and lawlessness never seem to go out of style. The framers of the Constitution understood this, and they intended to ensure that we could ALWAYS resist these sorts of influences. That’s not an interpretation…that is their intention…their actual writings still exist today, available for your reading and educational pleasure!! And as far as anger goes, if you imply that people like myself are angry that a relatively inexperienced and self important Demi God like Barack Obama thinks that he is fit to circumvent our Constitution and negate the checks and balances that are SUPPOSED to provide protection from just his sort of one man agenda based rule, then YES , I PROUDLY AND FIRMLY wear the mantle of angry American!!! As you, and every other American citizen should as well!!! The man repeatedly circumvents Congress thru Executive Order, and thumbs his nose at the Constitution!!! You bet I’m angry about that!! As should be you!!(Think Bowe Bergdahl)…know who signed into law the bill making releasing Guantanamo detainees illegal without Congressional approval??!! His initials are B.O.!! If things like THAT do not anger YOU, then I pity you!!

    2. Funny you would question the education level of your fellow bloggers, and then write “fore fathers” as opposed to the correct spelling of “forefathers”, which is one word, not two. Yes, a lot of us live in fear of the uninformed or ill-intentioned groups out there that are trying to outlaw something they don’t understand or use. People that blame groups like the NRA for all the shootings never seem to understand that there has never been one of these shootings involving a NRA member. Nor do they realize that the NRA co-writes and sponsors more anti-crime legislation than any of these so-called Anti-crime groups that are nothing but groups who will settle for nothing less than the complete disarmament of the law abiding citizens of the United States. These groups deny the fact that any state that allows CCW sees a significant drop in crime, especially violent crime. Are we angry that people want to punish all gun owners for the transgressions of a few insane perpetrators? You bet we are. Would you be angry if someone wanted to take away your car because your neighbor killed someone while driving drunk? I’m willing to bet you would fight tooth and nail to stop them from taking your car. I have spent the majority, if not all of my life around guns. I have yet to use one in anger, and the thought of doing so is abhorrent to me. There is ONE reason to shoot someone. You or a family member / friend’s life is in immediate grave danger. I am willing to bet that 99.9% of all NRA members would agree with that statement. As to what our forefathers were thinking when they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights probably had to do with what they were experiencing at the hands of a tyrannical government. They wrote the Constitution to prevent that same kind of abuse from our government. Apparently, they were even smarter than we give them credit for, as the current Administration is completely anti-gun, and continues to “chip away” at our other Rights guaranteed by the Constitution. If you are looking for a “good read”, I suggest you download a copy of the Constitution to your phone. Yes, there’s an “App” for that. It was my first download, and it’s free. And, by the way, just because we are not as noisy as you freedom hating sycophants, doesn’t mean our numbers are small. Look what happened in Colorado politics to anti-gun politicians. Oh! By the way genius, McVeigh used fertilizer bombs, not guns.

    3. Andrew, PLEASE present ANY evidence to support your preposterous claim that “the NRA co-writes and sponsors more anti-crime legislation than any of these so-called Anti-crime groups”.

      I won’t hold my breath waiting for evidence you cannot provide. Just know that I called you on your BS.

      And the splitting of forefathers was a typo made whilst typing on my cell phone, I know better, rest assured.

      And regarding the Constitution, it’s much like the bible in a way, widely interpreted to mean a wide variety of things, and you have your story and I have mine. Yours presupposes what the forefathers had in mind, which is a judgement call at best.

      It also presumes the forefathers knew about atomic weapons in a time where single-shot guns were the only guns available. If you maintain the forefathers DID KNOW about nuclear weapons, then make your argument here and now for owning one under your interpretation. If the government can have one, why can’t you?

      BTW, I fought in Vietnam for your freedoms, so don’t try to slap me with your phoney all or nothing arguments. I own multiple guns and won’t give them up, but then, I never expect to be asked to give them up.

      And for the record, the two crazed teabaggers who MURDERED two cops and a concealed-carry private citizen in Las Vegas, were BOTH card carrying NRA members and were both active posters on boards and blogs just like this one. Their blather sounds like your blather.

      Lastly, we have a Constitutional Law Professor in the White House currently. Professor Barack Obama was a senior lecturer on Constitutional Law from 1996-2004.

      This last fact oughta get some panties in a bunch around here. Enjoy your fear.

    4. “Yours presupposes what the forefathers had in mind, which is a judgement call at best. ”

      Actually, no. Many of them were quite prolific writers, and their opinion on the issue are quite easy to see. Perhap you can show us a quote from one of the Founders that indicates they did not intend for citizens to be armed. I won’t hold my breath, as I have seen quite a few quotes that indicate the opposite,

      “..but then, I never expect to be asked to give them up.”

      I am sure the Germans felt the same way.

      “Lastly, we have a Constitutional Law Professor in the White House currently.:

      Actually, “Lecturer” is blow Assitant Professor, which is below Associate Professor, which is below Professor. Nope, he was not a “professor”.

      “It also presumes the forefathers knew about atomic weapons in a time where single-shot guns were the only guns available. If you maintain the forefathers DID KNOW about nuclear weapons, then make your argument here and now for owning one under your interpretation. If the government can have one, why can’t you?”

      Strawman argument or argument absurdum. No one has proposed individual ownership of nuclear weapons.

    5. Like it or not, the Second Amendment was put there for one purpose – to make sure that Citizens would be able to effectively oppose a tyrnannical government, should they find it necessary.

      If one wonders why, one only need consider how the United States came into being – through revolt against a government found to be oppressive.

      For the Second Amendment to be effective as intended, it must include arms similar to those currently used by the military.

    6. Oh, dear Lord, here he goes again. I quote “And regarding the Constitution, it’s much like the bible in a way, widely interpreted to mean a wide variety of things, and you have your story and I have mine. Yours presupposes what the forefathers had in mind, which is a judgement call at best”.
      There is no way you can intelligently compare the Constitution with the Bible. One is a HISTORICAL DOCUMENT, and ONE IS AN AFFIRMATION OF WHAT IS TO BECOME OF THE NATIONS GOVERNMENT IN THE FUTURE, upon winning the Revolutionary War.
      For ANYONE to claim that they (The Founding Fathers) did not foresee OR anticipate the future says that they have not read said document. Everything in there is about the future….I.E. “establishing a Government; “…In order to FORM a more perfect Union….”; “to Promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, ” How much would you like me to go on??? I told you, Young one, I can demolish everything that you put down…shall I continue? Keep posting, I am enjoying this Immensely!

    7. “Lastly, we have a Constitutional Law Professor in the White House currently. Professor Barack Obama was a senior lecturer on Constitutional Law from 1996-2004.”

      LMAO you don’t even have YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT, Beau…how stupid are you? the facts are: From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. However, Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching.
      I have no problem with you claiming him to be a Constitutional Law Senior Lecturer, but he is not nor has he ever been a tenured PROFESSOR. That title is loosley used. It is even stated so in the article by the statement from the University of Chicago, Law school, it states as such: “Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track.” Note the word CONSIDERED and “regarded as” but the article continues to say “although not full-time or tenure-track.”.

      Sorry to burst your bubble, Beau, but you are again, WRONG. I am beginning to think that you have been wrong about so many things, so often that you are used to it.

      Where your argument fails is that just because he was a senior lecturer, he was not a tenured Professor, and that does not mean he isn’t corrupt, either. That’s just like a Police Lieutenant committing fraud. Just because he is a cop does not mean he can’t break the law and become corrupt. Obama has done the same thing, pal. He has lied to you and blatantly abused the powers of the office that he gained FRAUDULENTLY.
      And, Yes, I know for a fact that Barrack Obama is indeed a FRAUDULENT impostor to the Presidency of the United States. His Original LFBC, His selective Service Card was altered and is not even presented in the proper format that ALL OTHER Selective Service cards followed; And the fact that his SSN comes back to someone else’s name and not his tells me that he is a fraud. People have been convicted of fraud and Identity theft for less! The fact that He is a Foreign National with an American Mother does not make him a Natural Born Citizen. This has been proven and is still being investigated in Congress, to this very day. Those are facts that you cannot deny, no matter how much you want them to be false. But for the moment, since no official ruling has been made yet, I will Digress from this topic. However, know this: my digression is in no way a capitulation to your idiotic ways of thinking. I simply await the verdict and since I cannot see the future, I cannot speak intelligently on what verdict will be handed down. I have my own, shall we say, opinions, but we all know, or should know that opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and they all stink. I digress.

      On to other topics and mistakes you have made in your posts…..You like to say things like “BTW, I fought in Vietnam for your freedoms….” Let me stop you right there, because first off, you don’t have the intelligence or the wisdom of years to have served in Vietnam.
      Secondly, you would know, like all other Vietnam Vets,that No one’s rights were involved in Vietnam, Not yours, not mine, hell not even the Vietnamese had their rights represented in Vietnam, neither by the US or any other foreign power involved. Not us, not the Russians, not the Chinese, no one represented the rights of the Vietnamese. NO ONE.

      Speaking of the Vietnamese, you like to spout off about how if our Government turned on us we would not stand a chance against its might, But the “lowly, poor, uneducated, inferior and mentally incapable” Vietnamese fought off our might, and repelled us. Are you saying that ” since we obviously couldn’t withstand the might of the American Military” we are inferior, poor, uneducated…like our Government thought about the Vietnamese? You would be well advised to NEVER underestimate those citizens you talk down to, Beau.
      You say we cannot possibly fight off our own Government, but yet we did it in the Revolutionary War, and the Vietnamese did it in the 1960’s and 1970’s. two different time periods…..the first time we were the ones out numbered, out matched by tactics and training and poorly supplied. We used the Tactics that we knew, and the advantages that we had, and forced the British back…the most powerful Army and Navy on the face of the Earth.

      The second time, we were the ones who had the Technological advantages, the better supplies, the better weapons and training (So we thought). We were in the same position as the British and the same thing happened, we lost our collective asses!!!

      By the way, they (The entire world) never expected the Colonies to WIN. NEVER in a million years did they expect that, so don’t give me any of your poorly thought out cliche’s about how You “never expect to be asked to give up….” the weapons you supposedly own. What you “Expect” and what is reality are obviously two different things, Beau. Grow up and get a clue. The Fed doesn’t CARE whether you EXPECT them to come and take your guns…the only outcome supported by Registration is eventual Confiscation. PERIOD.
      Every Liberal, anti gun idiot always makes the SAME MISTAKE…they say “I OWN GUNS TOO”! lol, Just as your almighty Goddess Diane Feinstein. But wait! She owns a firearm! She was recieving death threats, and went out and got a gun, because she believe”I thought if they were going to take me out, I wanted to take a few of them with me,” she told the audience with a laugh”! Go look them up. The Hypocrisy of the Anti Gun nuts is undeniable and BLATANT. She wanted to take a few of them with her…….what kind of an asshole WANTS to kill? A mentally deranged one, that’s who. The Hypocrisy of the Anti Gun nuts is undeniable and BLATANT.

      I didn’t ever WANT to use my weapon, but what we want and what society forces us to deal with are two different things. If you were in the Nam, you would know this. I cannot believe that you put yourself out there as a Veteran. Do you have no shame, trying to buy credibility with the reputation of those who have gone and served and DIED in the military.

    8. Beau, here’s a few links to bolster my position about the NRA sponsoring/cosponsoring anti-crime Legislation. I hope it helps:Please see the following articles:,,, Enjoy the reading, I did!

    9. Beau, it’s very plain to see that you think some folks here are ignorant of the words and meaning of the Constitution and Bill of rights.

      However, you have simply asserted that somehow we’re ignorant, without taking a position on any of the issues that have been discussed. Is it that you lack knowledge on the issue, or are you afraid to enter into a conversation on the matter?

      Sorry you are troubled by the fact that some of us are armed. Are you willing to quietly submit to tyranny?

    10. Tyranny? What a load. You’re tyranny claims only popped up after a black man won the presidency, lawfully, TWICE. You were silent during Bush’s imposition of the poorly named “Patriot Act”. What a buffoon.

      Besides, the OVERALL argument around here centers around the fact that US citizens keeping 310 million guns will somehow provide you a counterbalance to this ‘alleged tyranny’ of the federal government. Two problems with that argument –
      1. Almost 90% of your fellow Americans want stronger background checks and gunshow loopholes closed. I’d say almost half the 310 million guns in this country belong to Democrats or Progressives or even Liberals.
      2. How are you, and others who think like you, providing ANY counter-balance to our Federal Government, our National Guard, and our military with a piddly 155 million rifles and pistols? You cannot even begin to seriously think you’ll outgun drones, stealth bombers, gunships, cruise missiles and rail guns. No one fears you en masse or otherwise. This dream of ‘shooting-it-out’ with our government is straight delusional and straight out of some stupid X-Box game. Wake up. Then grow up. Your gun fears are irrational and based on BS.

      I hope you enjoy all this trumped-up fear, you certainly deserve it.

    11. “Tyranny? What a load. You’re tyranny claims only popped up after a black man won the presidency, lawfully, TWICE.”

      Who claimed tyranny?

      He won legally? Really? What is being investigated in Congress right now?

      “1. Almost 90% of your fellow Americans want stronger background checks and gunshow loopholes closed.”


      “2. How are you, and others who think like you, providing ANY counter-balance to our Federal Government, our National Guard, and our military with a piddly 155 million rifles and pistols?”

      Make up your mind. Is it 155 million or 310 million?

      Are you aware that the Mujahadeen held off the Russian military for YEARS in Afghanistan, and finally the Russians gave up? Please do tell us about all the advanced weaponry the Mujahadeen employed.

      “I hope you enjoy all this trumped-up fear, you certainly deserve it.”

      I hope you will learn to avoid the childish comments, and discuss the issues like an adult.

    12. You brought up tyranny when you wrote this: “Are you willing to quietly submit to tyranny?” Now do you remember?

      Show me a link to anything legit that shows there is an investigation regarding either 2008 or 2014 election results in Congress. That’s BS and you know it. Obama won, straight up, twice. No contest.

      OK, I’ll walk you thru it. The US has an estimated 310 million guns. If half belong to Democrats or Progressives or even Liberals, then you’d be left with 155 million guns. Get it yet? Simple math.

      Lastly, if you did miraculously manage to use your 155 million rifles and pistols to beat back our massive military and federal government, the remainder of you would never survive a week against the rest of the country who would still have their arms and would also know right where you are. You’re dreaming when you use Afghanistan as a measure of how a civil war in this country with a bunch of deranged teabagger wearing tri-cornered hats would play out. I predict the imminent demise of all US insurgents in a week, a la Waco.

      The NRA and the gun industry (of which I am a part) is jacking you all for our own profits. The NRA is no longer a gun owners club, they only represent manufacturers like me (without my permission) and they jack-up you fools to help sales hit record levels.

      I deserve the profits from fools like you and I’m diggin’ it. Buy! Buy! Buy! Here comes Obama to get you! Ha!

    13. “You brought up tyranny when you wrote this: “Are you willing to quietly submit to tyranny?” Now do you remember?”

      To which you replied:

      “Tyranny? What a load. You’re tyranny claims only popped up after a black man won the presidency, lawfully, TWICE.”

      The problem is that I only asked if you would quietly submit to tyranny. I did not make any claim it was currently present. The Founders did not find it currently present as they wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights either, but they knew that ti could return.

      “Show me a link to anything legit that shows there is an investigation regarding either 2008 or 2014 election results in Congress.”

      You don’t think the non-profit status of conservative organizations could affect their ability to raise money to run issue ads in the 2012 election? Wanna buy a bridge?

      “The US has an estimated 310 million guns. If half belong to Democrats or Progressives or even Liberals, then you’d be left with 155 million guns. Get it yet? Simple math.”

      Sure, because one side will just totally roll over, right?

      ” You’re dreaming when you use Afghanistan as a measure of how a civil war in this country with a bunch of deranged teabagger wearing tri-cornered hats would play out. I predict the imminent demise of all US insurgents in a week, a la Waco.”

      Let me know when you are willing to discuss issues like a reasonable adult.

    14. “You’re dreaming when you use Afghanistan as a measure of how a civil war in this country with a bunch of deranged teabagger wearing tri-cornered hats would play out.”

      I guess you haven’t seen Muhjesbude to your earlier claim.

    15. And please… leave your Race Card at home. It’s all worn out and the credit line is exhausted.

    16. “Tyranny? What a load. You’re tyranny claims only popped up after a black man won the presidency, lawfully, TWICE. ”

      Well, Beau, I beg to differ, but I am going to tell you that those words were uttered and put to paper over 230 years ago. But I digress.

      “BTW, I fought in Vietnam for your freedoms, so don’t try to slap me with your phoney all or nothing arguments. I own multiple guns and won’t give them up, but then, I never expect to be asked to give them up.” LOL, first off lets start with one of your accusations…you can’t spell Phony? P H O N Y….not Phoney. and you have the gall to talk down to others for incorrect spelling and grammar?? You lose that one!
      Secondly, With your lack of knowledge in reference to the Constitution and the Declaration of the United States, I find it extremely doubtful that you served in Vietnam. First off because Vietnam wasn’t about ANYONE’S RIGHTS, it was a POLITICAL WAR!
      Secondly, when you are either 1) DRAFTED or 2) you enlist, you swear an Oath. You obviously, by the rhetoric you spew, know nothing of said Oath. I however DO remember MINE. I swore to uphold the CONSTITUTION of the United States of America, Against ALL enemies, Foreign AND Domestic (Notice no differentiation between CIVILIAN and GOVERNMENTAL Enemies, it just says Domestic) If, indeed, you were in the Services…ANY ONE OF THEM, you took that Oath to defend the Constitution, NOT the current regime occupying the White House, or any other seat in said Government.
      Thirdly) that Oath was created when? The first oath, voted on 14 June 1775 as part of the act creating the Continental Army, read:

      I _____ have, this day, voluntarily enlisted myself, as a soldier, in the American continental army, for one year, unless sooner discharged: And I do bind myself to conform, in all instances, to such rules and regulations, as are, or shall be, established for the government of the said Army.

      The original wording was effectively replaced by Section 3, Article 1, of the Articles of War approved by Congress on 20 September 1776, which specified that the oath of enlistment read:

      I _____ swear (or affirm as the case may be) to be trued to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies opposers whatsoever; and to observe and obey the orders of the Continental Congress, and the orders of the Generals and officers set over me by them.”

      The first oath under the Constitution was approved by Act of Congress 29 September 1789 (Sec. 3, Ch. 25, 1st Congress). It applied to all commissioned officers, noncommissioned officers and privates in the service of the United States. It came in two parts, the first of which read: “I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States.” The second part read: “I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully, against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and to observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States of America, and the orders of the officers appointed over me.” The next section of that chapter specified that “the said troops shall be governed by the rules and articles of war, which have been established by the United States in Congress assembled, or by such rules and articles of war as may hereafter by law be established.”

      The 1789 enlistment oath was changed in 1960 by amendment to Title 10, with the amendment (and current wording) becoming effective in 1962. Again, here it is for your refreshment:

      “I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

      Again, Beau, you fall flat on your face when you try to argue or debate, or whatever you call this pitiful attempt. all the way back to the end of the Revolutionary War, the point has been to Protect the Constitution, not ANY Government set up to run the Nation. Again, as I evidenced previously, exactly the Opposite is true…”., –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. ”
      ” But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”

      I want to reiterate one point the Founding Fathers wanted the Citizens to remove any tyrannical government, as evidenced by this line in the Declaration:

      ” it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” Again there are those Pesky Founding Fathers, thinking about the FUTURE, and since they wanted us to throw off ANY Tyrannical Government, they OBVIOUSLY MEANT FOR US TO HAVE THE WEAPONS TO MATCH said Government. would you send your kid to little league with plastic bats and balls, to face a team of High School players who have wooden or metal bats and hard baseballs? NO you wouldn’t. You would equip them with the same equipment as the opposing team. Obviously, you carry your brain, if it exists, in your back pocket, and you aren’t accustomed to taking it out and using it very often!

    17. Aging Marine- Sure Beau served in Vietnam! He fought in Poon Tang and Phuc Dup. I do have a question for you Jarhead from a Squid: If your Gov’t told you to attack fellow Americans for defending their Rights as guaranteed in the Constitution, would you? I don’t think our soldiers would follow those orders, instead switching sides to defend America from what is the real enemy, a Gov’t bent on tyranny. WE did what we did for love of COUNTRY, not the politicians that govern her. Would love to hear your take. And Beau, I am getting research for the hard evidence you requested, so I haven’t forgotten you, life requires me other than at my computer occasionally. I would like to say I truly disbelieve anything you claim about service, or gun ownership. If you actually believe what you are writing, than you are a Anti-gun liberal posing as a fellow gun owner. IF, and that’s a big IF, you ever served, I’m going to guess an Admin Puke, WAY, WAY, WAY far away from any action. I believe they were called “Rear Echelon Pukes” whose main worries were when the laundry used too much starch…

    18. LMAO…Andrew that was hilarious! Phuc Dup and Poon Tang…..OMG Fabulous! Utterly Fabulous! I could not have said it better myself.

      As for your question about My actions should I have been faced with being ordered to fire on civilians protecting their God given, Constitutionally reaffirmed rights, I can tell you this: I would not have fired on any civilians, and I would have been torn between arresting anyone attempting to order that, and simply executing them for treason, right there on the spot. The funny thing is, people think that all military personnel are Mindless drones, blindly following orders. Those are the ones who have never served. The UCMJ, if you were in, you know what that is, Allows for every American serviceman and woman to follow only LAWFULL orders, and makes respite for those who have refused to follow an illegal order. I don’t expect people like Secundius and Beau to understand this, but that’s the way it is.

      I, like 1/3 to 1/2 of our brothers and sisters in the armed forces of the United States, would refuse to shoot an American citizen, just like Police Officers refused to go in and arbitrarily confiscate firearms from citizens during Katrina. AND, it wasn’t only POLICE officers who refused, but it was National Guard troops as well. I think that proved to the Government, and anyone else watching what was happening, that Americans ultimately will not fire on their own friends and family. My comfort in all of this is that the Government and the rest of these anti gun idiots underestimate us ” Average Citizens”. I hope it continues. It will make whatever happens next easier to deal with.

    19. Amen, Brother! I know the people I served with wouldn’t have fired on American citizaens, and my subordinates would have all followed my lead. I am very familiar with the UCMJ. I loved Article 134. When nothing else can get you. it can. I think I stayed in the Navy as long as I did because it was the one system you couldn’t beat. I also forgot to mention, while in “Nam, Secunduis probably spent a lot of time looking at Long Wang over his shoulder. It was pretty close to Phuc Dup!

    20. Beau, do you seem to remember another group of POORLY equipped, ordinary citizens defeating the most powerful Army on the face of the Earth? I do. It was indeed OUR FOUNDING FATHERS! And that same defeatist attitude was spewed back then. No country in their right mind believed that farmers and businessmen could stand in the face od the Mightiest Army in the known world…but what happened, Beau? Indeed those simple farmers and businessmen WON. Do not make the same mistake that the British crown made in underestimating the Civilians ability to fight back, especially if they get backed into a corner!
      You forget the plight of the Colonialists or the Koreans, OR the NVC that you SUPPOSEDLY fought in Vietnam…..they were poorly equipped and trained, they were farmers with no technology of their own, but they were backed into a corner and fought viciously. Visciously enough that they FORCED OUR MILITARY MIGHT OUT OF THEIR COUNTRY….do you say that Americans are inferior to ability compared to the Viet Cong? OR maybe to the Korean’s? You are TERRIBLE at your attempt to logically state your “case”, as it was, Mostly because you have no case, no fact to stand on. Plain and simple. NONE. LOL, another burn… you should probably go to the theoretical “emergency room”, because I have destroyed you and burned you at every turn you make….END GAME. You Lose.

    21. AgingMarine!

      ‘Theoretical emergency room!

      hahahahha…no! LMAO! good one, i’ll have to use that!

    22. Lol the fact that you think being armed and angry makes my sanity questionable is purely idiotic, and shows that you have no knowledge of what an Average person feels daily.
      Next question, Beau. What group of people do you speak for, because it definitely is not the majority. At over 300 million firearms REGISTERED, not counting those that haven’t been, gun owning Americans make up the majority of the population. However, because of ignorant people such as yourself, who PREFER to be clueless, they choose to be silent. Some because they find your very existence offensive, telling them that they have no right to have and carry weapons, even though they have committed absolutely no crime whatsoever.
      I find your argument about who knows what about the Constitution and the intent of the Founding Fathers absolute hypocrisy, since YOU claim to know what they DID NOT intend or foresee, but yet you criticize others for their interpretation of the same document you are interpreting. How do YOU know any more about what the founding fathers meant OR envisioned than anyone else? Answer: YOU DON’T. You simply talk out of your ass, which, judging by your comments and replies, you couldn’t tell from a hole in the ground.
      The Founding Fathers indeed DID foresee and anticipate the ingenuity of American and Global inventors. This argument you anti gunners come up with about them not for seeingsorryrelyrely speculation that appears to suit your purpose. However, I challenge you to pick up a History book and read about the toils and long hours spent in anguish by our forefathers… trying to secure our future peace and prosperity…. oh yeah, sorry, because you don’t know what the Declaration of Independence is or what it says, I probably lost you for a moment…I apologize. Let me digress.
      The Founding Fathers only sought to ensure future peace and prosperity by writing and signing off on The Declaration of Independence or The Constitution. Their current situation was War and they were fighting that war to change their History (I.e. the past) and to ” …PROVIDE for the common defence, PROMOTE the general welfare, and SECURE the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America “.
      That is verbatim. No interpretation there. Shall we move on to the Declaration of Independence? You let me know when you have had enough of hayting demolished at every turn.
      Here is the Declaration of Independence for you: “…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,” (there’s that pesky reference to securing for the future, since said rights had not been established by law yet)” 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….. “.
      Again, all that was about the future, and not their present day situation. You know nothing, Beau. Stop pretending that you do.
      I am done with this fool. He’s soft. Weak minded and ignorant. Let him drink the cool-aid. My 6 yr old could school him on this. Good luck Beau. You’re going to need it.

    23. WOW!!! Nice!! The only words I can think of for Beau and his band of Merry Men (Secundius, etc) come from that ancient philosopher, MC Hammer…and I quote…”ring the bell…schools in, Sucka!!”

    24. Thank you, and Amen! I am actually Loving the MC Hammer reference! that was just perfect! I know I get long winded at times so thanks for sticking in with me!

    25. Beau, I doubt that you served our Nation in any capacity. Your assertions are disconnected and counter-intuitive to someone that supposedly has a background in the military. I am a veteran and a member of Oath Keepers, so I understand what the Oath means and how it applies to any centralized government that has exceeded it’s power, regardless of political association.

      You speak ill of those that have fought for your freedom and I find that distasteful, but I acknowledge your right to say what you will. It is a right I sacrificed my own freedoms to maintain.

      In parting, because I doubt that you are legitimately interested in engaging in honest debate, but rather you are here to spread your subterfuge; I leave these words.

      Your statement that we should ‘enjoy our fear’ is a textbook case of transference, since your post speaks of your ‘perception’ of who we are as stated that we are armed and angry, and that you think we are going to pull a McVeigh….it is clear that you are the one that is afraid. You need not be, as we seek lawful adherence to the Constitution. We present no threat to you and your law abiding progressives…..

    1. What I understand is that you like to make statements of fact, and then make excuses when your statements are shown to be false.

  123. Paul, you don’t get it. Its call Dis-Information, I Never Made Any Claims.
    That’s what dis-information IS. Its like a “Magic Trick”, your looking at the Rabbit Hat, instead of under the table.

    1. You never made any claims? You made two claims.

      The first claim you made was that the phrase “well regulated militia” applied only to a “professional army”.

      The second was that the NRA has a “heavily edited and reworded” version of the Second Amendment.

      If you didn’t make those claims, then who typed the lines shown below, which all appear under your name?

      Actually read the 2nd Amendment, the 18th century version and not the NRA version.

      Well regulated MILITIA is a professional ARMY, Look-it up!!

      If so were they go through basic training and then advanced training in the Army. If the answer is no, then their not MILTIA.

      The next time you go to visit the NRA Headquarters building, carefully read the 2nd amendment on the wall when you walk in to the building. You’ll notice key words missing from the NRAs, interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

      The NRA of 1789 was a gun club.

      Well regulated Militia (Applies to Professional Army), not to amateur citizenry.

      Not, the 20th/21st heavily edited and reworded NRA version as a guide-line.

      The 2nd Amendment as written in the Cnistitution:

      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.

      The 2nd Amendment as written by the NRA:

      A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

      You’re pathetic.

    2. You made plenty of claims. Too bad for you there is no evidence to support any of them.

      By the way, the NRA (as others have pointed out) DID NOT EXIST in 1789!

      Also, while minor changes in wording CAN change the meaning of something greatly, that does not mean that a small change in wording ALWAYS DOES change the meaning.

      If you are not a “constitutional law professor” (an obviously you’re barely competent in the use of the English language), perhaps you should avoid making claims that you can’t back with factual references.

    3. “Paul, you don’t get it. Its call Dis-Information”

      no, it’s called LIES.

      When governments do it, then it is called “disinformation”.

      Do you work for the government? Are you a CIA agent?

      Or, perhaps you work for CONTROL?

      Yeah. that’s it! You’re Maxwell Smart!

    1. Its called dis-information Paul. I gave your just enough dis-information about myself to feel you out. And you came out willingly, and with both feet on the ground. You were the weak-link in the group. I could have had meaningful discussions with the other group member, but not you Paul.
      I suspect AgingMarine, is reasonably well educated, and I’m assuming his wife is also well educated. Probably a teacher, or a professional of some kind or sort. But, you. You were the unknown. I needed too know the kind of person, you really were. So, I gave you just enough false information about my self to bring you out of your hiding place. And it worked, I must say, I thought it was go take a little longer then I expected. But, it didn’t. When you asked me too point out the flaw, (In Your Words) in the NRA’s version of the 2nd Amendment. That was your Achilles Heel, that was your mistake. We could have bantered about for days, probable even week take about the 2nd Amendment. If it wasn’t for that one question.

    2. You certainly have interesting delusions, or at the very least, creative ways to attempt to cover your inability to back your claims. I am not the only one who noticed that you made several claims and totally failed to back them with facts.

      It had nothing at all to do with information about you, it was all about your groundless claims.

      Don’t knock yourself out patting yourself on the back.

  124. Paul, Secundius has obviously won this round. He’s called you WAY better names, and didn’t confuse the rest of us with those “fact” thingies you keep using. He obviously can talk without thinking, so he wins, right? Seems to work with the masses come Election Day! You keep bringing intellect to a name calling fight, you stand no chance!

  125. Of course it subterfuge. That’s all the Anti-gunners have is smoke and mirrors. They play word games and try to shift the view off of the real issues, just like a magician uses sleight of hand and misdirection to perform his magic tricks.
    The anti gun crowd is a boldly anti American crowd and they are doing a pretty good job at convincing the sheep to drink the cool aid. What we as responsible Americans and responsible gun owners need to do is to is to band together, momentarily setting aside our personal differences and open a window to clear the smoke and give the movement a breath of fresh air.
    The Anti-gunners can’t give us fresh air when all they spout is pure bull shit! We need to go out and educate. Even the NRA isn’t doing all it can….it takes donations but does more of lining it’s pockets than living up to its full potential. What good is fax blasting if you have nothing set up to educate the masses who really and honestly know nothing of guns? It is the education of Americans that will show the anti gunners ignorance. Take away their support by educating the people of the truth about all firearms, PERIOD. Educate family and friends and have them do the same! Show these idiots that a firearm is nothing more than a tool, like a knife, car, airplane etc. The thing that makes a firearm dangerous is the person using it.
    They use the death of CHILDREN to try and elevate emotion, instead of rational fact. Firearms are not the only way to facilitate the murder of dozens of people. Hell that’s been proven with hijacked planes. I suppose that if someone wanted to kill a bunch of children they could just steal or hijack a school bus, couldn’t they? What would the left do then????scream for the law to make school buses illegal? Can you see the headlines? LMAO….” Ban school busses, they cause the mass deaths of children”. “If the children were not all caught together in that one bus, then the mad man couldn’t have killed them all”. It makes about as much sense as the arguments against guns. In 30 years, none of my guns have snuck out of the house and killed anyone. The only time they leave the house is if I carry them. So, with that being true, then the only way a firearm can be dangerous is with careless handling, and that falls to the responsibility of, yup, you guessed it….. HUMAN BEINGS. LOL amazing how that works, isn’t it? Let’s do more to educate those that we know and have them educate the ones that they know and love. We can spread knowledge and not fear. I’m all for that.

  126. These so-called legislative actions will not stop violence. Take away a gun, the perp will use a knife, car, bomb, hammer, candlestick, whatever to carry out their intent. There are so few of these cases in comparison to the number of legitimate uses that render these attempts by Boxer and her cohorts as nothing more than subterfuge. The end state is to violate my rights for the ‘good’ of the people. Trade your liberty for perceived safety and you deserve neither. I suppose that flying the Gadsden flag will intimidate some neighbors who would then be able to have law enforcement confiscate my weapons based on fear. This is not how we resolve the problem of mentally unstable people gaining access to firearms.

  127. so, you are delaring victory, despite your inability to substantiate any of your claims.

    you ran your mail, you got called on it, and you couldn’t back any of your claims.but you declare yourself the winner. That’s just hilarious.

    we should probably pity you, as something has obviously fried your brain.

    1. I’m with ya, Paul. You are 100% correct…you backed up your position with hard data, Secundius backed his position up with B.S., then claims himself as the “winner”. Early on in the thread, I gave him factual data to try to show Secundius where he was in error, and all he did was ignore it, and try to smokescreen his way along, just as he has done with you. This guy is a piece of work. Looking back through 10 pages or so of comments, I can’t see ONE SINGLE INSTANCE where he either answered direct challenges with facts, or offered any to support his arguments. The sad thing is, he probably impresses idiots who know no better. I can only hope there are fewer idiots left in America than there are truly knowledgeable citizens…THAT is what determines who “wins” this issue. You presented a great case…Secundius presented a toilet bowl.

    2. Actually, Stephen, Secundius presents what goes IN the toilet bowl not the toilet bowl itself, lol. I wouldn’t insult the toilet bowl like that.

  128. YOU drew the line in the sand, not me. YOU call me out, I didn’t call you out.

    Your dared me to find fault in the 2nd Amendment, and I did.

    YOU were expecting me to cower in the sand, But I didn’t.

    YOU weren’t prepared for me to call your bluff. YOU had a week hand!!

    I just out played YOU. I had a stronger hand, then you did.

    YOU made this personal, NOT ME.

    YOU could have stopped at anytime, but your Arrogance and Stubborn Pride got in the way.

    YOU wouldn’t leave well-enough alone.

    THAT’s why YOU lost.

  129. Paul I didn’t make look like a fool, you did. I was content about talking about the Headline subject matter. You decided to take over the discussion group and turn it into a political debate, on 2nd Amendment Rights. You drew up the plans, You executed the plans, You created the minefield. And then tried to Enmesh everybody into Your minefield. You out-smarted yourself, and walked into the minefield yourself instead, and then you left no avenue, in which you could escape. Don’t blame Us, and don’t blame Me. Your Tea Party views created this mess, and Your STUPIDITY!!!

    1. Are you a liar, or just too senile to remember your own posts?

      You are the one who brought up the 2nd amendment, with your claim that it applies only to a professional military, and that the NRA has a “heavily reworded and edited” version.

      You could not back either claim with facts, and made yourself look like a fool. Now you’re all butthurt.

      Is someone paying you to look this stupid, or do you do it for free?

    2. When someone like Secundius thinks I look like a fool, I take that as a compliment.

  130. Paul, you are being unfair! You cannot ask a liberal to produce facts. They can’t identify one if they see one, and if they actually can, they run as fast and far away from it as possible. If you want innuendo and name-calling, then the liberals stand a chance. Quit being so mean to that defenseless liberal.

  131. “See Paul, your unknowingly admitted too it, that I tell you the truth.

    If you had just said nothing, it would be my word against your word.”

    You have GOT to be on drugs!

  132. See Paul, your unknowingly admitted too it, that I tell you the truth.

    If you had just said nothing, it would be my word against your word.

    See you again on Monday, Paul.

  133. You AFRAID of the TRUTH Paul.

    Just admit too that.

    I’m not going to have meaningless debate with you. In just the few shot blog’s, we’ve had with each other, no one else has chimed in. On you side of the issue.

    1. “You AFRAID of the TRUTH Paul.”

      I not afraid of much, and certainly not of the truth.

      You, on the opther hand, appear to be afraid to back your own claims with anything substantial.

      “I’m not going to have meaningless debate with you.”

      You are the one who MADE it meaningless, by making a claim that you cannot back with facts.

  134. I’m not a Constitutional Law Professor or a Lawyer, and don’t claim to be one. But, one thing I do know. Just moving one word or replacing a word
    can change the structure of a sentence and its meaning. I learned that from basic English classes.

    1. So you claimed that NRA had a “highly edited and reworded version”, and when asked to provide it, you provide a version that has one word changed and another capitalized. You claim that this makes a significant difference, but cannot explain what that difference is.

      Small changes CAN indeed make a significant difference. That does not mean that they do in every case. You have shown no evidence that there is a difference between the two that is *significant*.

      In my opinion, you are speaking “ex recto”.

    2. Secundius, I am surprised that you are still here. You have persistence, I will give that, but in order to compete here in a comparison if wits, you need to have some.
      This us a forum for intelligent discussion on gun rights and what type of BS legislation the left is trying to force on the American people, because, let’s face fact…. The 2nd Amendment belongs to ever American citizen. Whether they choose to exercise it or not.
      The 2nd Amendment is at the heart of EVERY attempt to legislate firearms. For you to try and back away from answering Paul’s questions is simply infantile. You throw around a lot of incoherent thoughts, but cannot back them up. Including your mindless rambling about the religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers. You can put forth absolutely no solid evidence that’s proves the Founding Fathers faith but yet you attempted to debate with me claiming to be a Theological scholar/historical Theological scholar. How pathetic are you that you have to come here and attempt to be something that you aren’t? This forum is to intelligently discuss the matter, not to instigate an argument or fight with one person. You have no intelligent thoughts to present because you have nothing based on any fact! Why do you think I dropped the discussion with you? Then you moved on to Paul, and you can’t provide any proof to him either!
      If you are going to say that the NRA has a significantly different definition of the 2nd Amendment then what is in the Bill of Right, then PROOVE it! Until you can offer up the “significant” differences, then you are just a liar, who is full of hot air. And since you have been proven wrong already and given both definitions, shown that there are no differences except one says ” to the security…” and the other says “for the security”. I am sorry but as an English major, I can tell you with COMPLETED CERTAINTY that the small change of the word ” to” to the word “for” holds absolutely NO change to the MEANING of the sentence. It holds the same meaning in either instance. Now stop the antagonistic crap and post an intelligent thought or I will begin tearing apart every bullshit thought you post. It may take some work ony Parr but hey Retirement is my blessing I can post and fish at the same time! Good day, jackwad.

  135. Why are you debating the question with me. Go too your nearest University and ask a Constitutional Law Professor or, just ask Google or Politico, the question.

    1. I am debating the question with you because YOU made the claim.

      Your lack of ability to back your claim leads me to believe that it is bogus.

      Are you just a parrot? Do you type things you read once but do not understand?

  136. Maybe you should take it up with a Constitutional Law Professor.

    It’s just the the rewording of the tax law’s Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh keeps harping about, THERE’S A DIFFERENCE.

    1. So, you CLAIM that there is a significant difference… but… you cannot describe what the significant difference is?

  137. So where is the “heavily edited and reworded” version you claim the NRA cites?

    The 2nd Amendment as written in the Cnistitution:

    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.

    The 2nd Amendment as written by the NRA:

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    We have “keep and Arms” in one and “keep and bear arms” in another.

    We have “to the secutiry of” in one and “for the security of” in another.

    Hard to see that either difference is in any way substantial.

    So again, where is the “heavily edited and reworded” version to which you earlier referred?

    1. Well done, Paul! I was surprised you were suckered into replying to that obviously leading post, but that was well laid out!

  138. What happening, 15-minutes ago you were chattering like teenage girls on a party line. Now all I get is Deafening Silence.

  139. “OK, that same Constitution SUPPORTED slavery and slave owners too. How do we explain that? ”

    It did?

    Please explaini what language in the Consititution “supported” slavery and slave owners.

  140. Sorry, again, Secudius.

    ‘Well regulated Militia’ DOES NOT, AND NEVER DID HAVE ANYTHING AT ALL DO DO WITH A PROFESSIONAL ARMY or Active National Guard,

    About the best you could ‘say’, is that the ‘Militia’ was analogous to a potential ‘reserve army’.

    And ‘training’ had nothing do do with the ‘Militia’ reference either.

    We already HAD a ‘professional Continental Army’ under George Washington when the War started.

    It just wasn’t enough to fight the vast resources of the British.

    So the call went out for civilian volunteers from the general population
    to help fight against the invading British on OUR SOIL (important distinction here, but no time to elaborate)

    Because it was a given that virtually Every family had an able bodied men with a firearms. Which there were NEVER any questions about regulations or laws of ownership in the first place, because it was a fact of your natural birthright! Just like any other dangerous tool!

    ‘Well Regulated’ simply meant that if the able bodied ciitzenry were to be organized into a Militia for emergency warfare, then they had to come under control of the President commander in chief civilian authority instead of rag tag splinter groups under their own hapless direction.

    If one REALLY studies the truth of factual history, instead of relying upon the specious redactions of agenda based interpolations, one will discover a new reality! NOT one contrived of BULLSHIT

    The Framers new something of historic warfare. They didn’t even like the idea of an expensive ‘standing regular full time army, the stuff of potential Coups by rogue generals also considered.

    If they needed to wage war elsewhere, they would then assemble a regular army.

    If there was a direct attack on our mainland, which is literally our home, Then every citizen should be expected to help fight in warfare for our lives!

    If anybody ever really studied the Revolutionary War, they would understand this and know how important indigenous clandestine warfare is in this contingency. The founders realized this.

    THAT was the real purpose of the 2nd Amendment. To preserve that situation and have ABSOLUTELY no chance that the potential of civilian guerilla fighters could ever be compromised by agenda based disarming of them.

    The 2nd Amendment was a ‘GUARANTEE’ by LAW of the LAND that your natural law right would be established forever. Period’.

    And NOT only against Foreign threats of Tyranny, but also against Domestic threats of Tyranny. That is because the Founders also knew the vast potential of a country’s ruling class to wreak tyranny against its own people.

    So, that means, that the other way that Franklin and Jefferson could have ‘penned’ the specific syntax of the 2nd amendment had they been less constrained in brevity by ink and paper supplies and forced into using a present participle instead of a subordinate clause, was to say this, instead:

    “The innately established natural human right of the free citizens and people of America to own and carry any firearms they desire shall now be absolutely guaranteed in permanent law by this Constitution. This is deemed absolutely necessary for the protection of a Free Egalitarian State in case we need the help of a citizen derived Continental Army (militia) to help fight against Tyranny of Conquest by our enemies, both Foreign AND Domestic. And in the meantime, the citizenry can use their firearms for hunting, recreation(practice) and self protection, if needed at lawful individual discretion.”

    Noboy can argue ‘what is meant by that sentence reconstruction, now can they? But it is exactly what the original sentence means.

    The Framers were about putting basic power of initiatory force in the hands of the people. Which is the ONLY good deterrent against bad people taking over.

  141. The founding fathers were most definitely WASP’S. I have read the Federalist papers and all of the articles of confederation. I have a degree in Early American History. See the Puritans and Quakers in colonial America. The Act for establishing Religious Freedom was set in 1786. Before then, there were many “religions” as mentioned before, but they all were derived from the Judeo-Christian faith. The Founders believed in the Christian God, but realized that the freedom to worship as one chose was as broad as any other right. They also realised that if they were to escape the old ways of the British Crown and most of Euopes use of religion to create kingdoms and monarchs, they would have to remove and render forever separate the powers of Church and State. Religion was removed from Government to avoid the creation of titles as had been the practice under the British crown since the beginning of their recorded history. If they were to be truly free, this must happen. There simply was no longer any state religion whatsoever. Each state was free to worship as they so chose.
    However, there was never any actual break from the worship of Christ. The holiday of Christmas was still celebrated as was Easter. They were indeed men of a faith based upon the Judeo-Christian beliefs of their own Fore-Fathers.
    I truly respect your education and view based from that education, but as I have seen many times before, an education from the standpoint of Theology is always biased and has been used throughout time to condemn the Founders of the United States and early colonists for their separation from what was once believed to be the Only Reasonable and true religion.
    Now having said that I will stipulate that I DONOT have a background in the studies of Theological matters. Religion was simply never a matter of study as I believe that it is a spiritual belief and not a matter of scientific fact that can be quantified. I do not mean any disrespect to you for having studied Historical Theology, this is just my view on the subject.

    1. AgingMarine!

      See, I could tell you were were topic ‘educated’, So you could be a true ‘Founding Father’ of higher enlightenment if you continue ‘on the right path…?’

      Which is necessary if we all eventually want ‘salvation’. And i don’t mean that ‘religiously’ or even spiritually. I mean it in terms of ‘thought freedom’, the pinnacle of individual liberty.

      Since you know more than most of the political and religious influences back in the days, it might be easier for me to ‘edificate’ you further and let you be your own judge.

      The two main points of our disagreement are whether or not the founders were WASPS, (aside from their ‘stinging’ rhetoric, lol!) or if they were really “Men of Faith based upon the Judeo-Christian beliefs of their own Fore-Fathers” and/or if they ‘believed in the Christian God.

      But first let me correct a misunderstanding about my ‘philosophy’. I’m certainly NOT ‘coming from an “education from the standpoint of theology is always biased…” You ARE correct about religious based education being proprietary and intransigent. They have a long ‘history’ of ‘theocratic adventurism’ in this country.

      I should have said I’m an Epistemologist and my particular area of academic specialty studies is religious theocracy and its influence throughout history. Hope that’s more clear. And because the Christian religion certainly played an essential part in the formation of our Country, i happen to have a modicum of factual knowledge with reference to the Founders.

      I, personally, am neither a ‘faith based believer’ nor an atheist. I’m not even an Agnostic. I actually do think i ‘know’ the truth about such things, after a life time of research and study. However, that is also my viewpoint, and along side your own, I appreciate the ‘uninfringed’ right to have it. (so far)

      Couple quick points, but i’ll address our differences more later, perhaps. I have a great reverence for the ‘Founders’ and the more i study their lives, the more fortunate if feel that we were ‘blessed’ with such visionary humans.

      And i will try get back to you on whether or not they really were men of ‘faith’ based on the Judeo-Christian beliefs of their own Fore-Fathers.

      Thank you.

      Oh, one more thing, Are you a Nam Vet?

  142. I don’t know how much of this forefather applies today. When this stuff was written, slavery was still the norm through much of our small country. That changed. Things change. Societies change. Reading this stuff like a minister seeking bits of justification for something we ‘want’ to believe is certainly someones right, but when applied to modern circumstances, it falls woefully short in light of the age we live in.

    I hear a lot about keeping our guns to defend ourselves against our own government. I’ve even heard some here use an incident at the Bundy ranch to boast that ‘they’ backed down the federal government because they were armed. Then they freaked out when someone invented a ‘story’ about a possible drone strike. Are we bad-asses with our piddly rifles? Only against those with less, or equal weapons technology. Real bad-asses show up in an AC-130 gunship and it’s over.

    Aside from some old movies and every ‘war’ game on x-box, WE THE PEOPLE will have ZERO chance in any significant shootout with our Federal government. Zero. They have artillery. We don’t. They have air superiority. We don’t. They have tanks, drones and stealth bombers. We don’t. Some of these folks seriously think that a ‘war’ is coming within it US, and that will be fought with rifles and pistols in the streets and fields. Buying more guns to defend yourself against our own government in a ‘shootout’ is foolish to the point of being delusional. You would not likely last more than a few days with a rifle, or two, or three.

    Let’s get real here. The only thing that will properly bring about the changes some seek, is to convince the MAJORITY of American voters to approve those changes at the ballot box. Right now the gun industry and the NRA are doing a very bad job at PR, whipping up hysteria and huge amounts of fear, for political reasons. The NRA used to be a gun owners club. That changed for the worse. The NRA is now a lobbying arm for manufacturers (like me) and a political party. Their individual gun owners are welcome to whip up more frenzy and fear as long as it suits the NRA’s needs.

    1. “I don’t know how much of this forefather applies today. ”

      ALL of the Constitution is *supposed* to still apply today!

      You may be willing to surrender some of the rights guaranteed therein, but many of us are not.

      Please, make a ration case as to why we should.

      “The only thing that will properly bring about the changes some seek, is to convince the MAJORITY of American voters to approve those changes at the ballot box.”

      That is not sufficient to remove Consitutional rights.

      “WE THE PEOPLE will have ZERO chance in any significant shootout with our Federal government.”

      You are apparently unaware of significantly relevant history. For how many years did Russia try to pacify Afghanistan?

    2. OK, that same Constitution SUPPORTED slavery and slave owners too. How do we explain that?

      We can’t. Because some things change, does not mean all things change. I do not want to give up my guns and it will not happen in my lifetime. But, that does not mean we can’t change a little bit to increase our own safety. We cannot seek a goal of perfection, to the detriment of any and all good. They’re has got to be a way to HELP prevent sales to, or remove guns from crazy people. I know it would be difficult, but so was landing on the moon. I don’t know what the solution is yet, but we shouldn’t vilify those who choose to merely discuss the topic.

    3. “OK, that same Constitution SUPPORTED slavery and slave owners too. How do we explain that? ”

      It did?

      Please explain what language in the Consititution “supported” slavery and slave owners.

      Bear in mind that the Consitution is adocument that defines what *government* can and cannot do.

      ” I do not want to give up my guns and it will not happen in my lifetime. But, that does not mean we can’t change a little bit to increase our own safety. ”

      So, you are willing to trade some liberty for an illusion of “safety”? Ben Franklin knew about that.

      “…we shouldn’t vilify those who choose to merely discuss the topic.”

      If being question regarding your stance makes you feel “villified”, perhaps you should go discuss sports somewhere.

    4. Damn Paul, don’t you have Internet? I can’t stop what I’m doing and educate you fools all day. Look it up man. Go here –
      and read about the ‘three-fifths compromise’ . Then, a special committee worked out another compromise: Congress would have the power to ban the slave trade, but not until 1800. The convention later voted to extend the date to 1808 due to backlash in the south.

      You gave up more right when George Fvckin Bush implemented his ill-named ‘Patriot Act’, than you have under ANY other president. You can carry your guns into any national park now and you couldn’t do that before Obama.

      I haven’t surrendered ANY Constitutional rights. You’re so scared, you think it’s already happened and they’re coming for your guns any minute now. Be on the lookout, OK? They’ll arrive in black helicopters. The more gun related stuff you buy, the more $$$ I make, so blast away.

      Yea, yea Russia. . . look, the bottom line is you’d MORE LIKELY be taken out by other American patriots like me since you’re vastly outnumbered. We’re not gonna let a bunch of delusional dickwads in tri-cornered hats screw things up that long.

      Or, perhaps you think liberals and progressives and Democrats don’t have guns that they too do not want to give up. You’re grossly outnumbered, despite what you hear on Fox TV. Look at election night when Obama won AGAIN. There was widespread incredible DISBELIEF all over the GOP and every teabagger. Underestimated the opposition, again. The right has opposed all progress in this country because a black man got elected President. That’s really American. You don’t get your way – you pull the ball and sit down. That’ll teach my fellow Americans! Damn the Constitution then right?

    5. The three fifths compomise had only to do with whether or no slaves were counted as part of the population for apportionment purposes.

      Most of the rest of your comment consists of pathetic straw man arguments. Are there no kids your age (or at least maturity level) for you to play with?

    6. And yes, I do have internet. Got any other incredibly stupid questions?

      It is not my job to look for evidence to back your claims.

    7. Paul, congress was all over regulating various aspects of the slave trade, and that is undeniable and irrefutable.
      Then you say “It is not my job to look for evidence to back your claims.”

      Forgetting that YOU asked me to provide supporting evidence, which I did because you typed without knowledge or facts.

      Straw Man arguments? It’s reality. Welcome to 2014.
      I’m gonna go enjoy my weekend. Thanks suckers – please buy more guns this weekend and remember to enjoy your fear. You earned it.

    8. Focus man, focus.

      I asked you to describe how the Constitution supported slavery, and you are blithering along about Congress.

      Yes, I asked you to provide supporting evidence for your own claim. You have yet to do so. Perhaps because there isn’t any.

    9. So said every nation in Europe about the Colonies chances against the mightiest nation on the face of the planet. There was just no way poor farmers could withstand the might of the British Army and Navy and this insolent little rebellion would be put down before it started.

      Beau, let me just say this…NEVER underestimate the drive, commitment or capabilities of the American people when backed into a corner. The Japanese and Chinese governments didn’t want try invasion because of its certain failure….. The Federal Government would be well warned to follow such wisdom. It may seem like a hopeless ” David vs. Goliath ” scenario, but I assure you those who underestimate it will do so at their own folly and peril.

  143. Sorry, AgingMarine,

    The Founders were NOT Protestants.

    They were definitely NOT Christians.

    THAT IS why Jefferson and Franklin and the rest of the Framers established the State ‘separation’ clause “Congress shall make NO law respecting religion…”

    They were absolutely AGAINST any potential for Theocracy
    in their vision of a brave new world, free of the total evil of plutocratic theocracies. .

    This Nation was NOT founded on so called Judeo-Christian principles, either. As so many ‘god-fearing’ religionists want you to ‘believe’ in their incessant plot to control the world..

    It was founded on the ‘Absolute Individual right of the Universal Laws of Nature organized into an egalitarian Liberty emphasized social context directed in honest objective reasonableness.


    The sooner or later most of us realize the truth. The sooner we might all be better off.

    Anything else is theocratic agenda based propaganda by royalist religionist power elites.

    If you want the reality check. Read Thomas Paine’s ‘The Age of Reason’, and then his essays, starting with ‘Justice and Humanity.

    You appear to be fairly well read, I suggest you pause in your specious historic assumptions derived, obviously, from agenda based modern status quo, until you learn more of the truth by reading the above works of Paine. Also try to squeeze in ‘The Federalist Papers’, and then,

    Come back and comment. If you have any questions or require clarification on some points, feel free. My ‘D’ is in Historic Theology.

  144. ” Half his sentences don’t make any sense.”

    Secundius, please provide an example of something I posted that you didn’t understand.

    As it appears that “pages” arent the same on your computer as they are on mine, post a quote, not just a page reference.

  145. I have no disrespect for your AgingMarine, or anyone else in this discussion group. With the possible exception of Paul. He kind of flaky. Half his sentences don’t make any sense. I’m relying mostly on memory when putting my thoughts to writing. Before February of 2014, I never owned a computer. I had no use for one. Most of my blogs are from personal accounts, and lots, and lots, of reading. I read everything I can get my hands on. I use too read upwards of 10 unabridged book as week. For I, Claudius to Sun Tzu, and Clausewitz, too. In 2010, I had a stroke. and It has take 4 plus years, to regain most of my lost memory.

    Sometime I can type out coherent blogs in just a few minutes, and other times it may take me several hours. My Neurologist suggested, that I join a forum or discussion group, too keep my mind stimulated. For now it seem to be working. I have other handicaps as well, I have Rheumatoid Arthritis, complicated with Stage Six Gout, and the list goes on, and on, and on. I’ll spare you the rest of the catalogued details. P.S. What’s up with the math questions, after each posting’s.

    1. ” With the possible exception of Paul. He kind of flaky. Half his sentences don’t make any sense. ”

      Pot, meet kettle.

    2. Just because you don’t understand what I post doesn’t mean they don’t make any sense. It just means you don’t understand what I post.

      A logical response is to ask questions rather than calling names.

      The math questions are to discourage bots. It’s OK to remove your shoes if you need to. 8^)

    3. OMG…Paul that was funny. But if Secundius was being truthful about his situation, then it could definitely explain why his posts are all over the place and dis-organised.
      With that being said, Secundius, may I suggest that you not get involved in such a complicated subject with your handicap. This is not a discussion for things of no consequence, like cooking and hobbies. This is actually a life and death, our civil liberties and our ultimate freedoms are at stake forum and discussion. If you post here you absolutely need to have access to your full faculties. I mean no disrespect, brother. Just a passionate observation.

    4. I think we should not be so ‘re-directed’ in focus by ‘Secundiuis’

      There’s only two likely conclusions. He’s a severely PTSD’d out Nam Vet,

      For which we should, in all respect and compassion, just stop arguing with him..

      Or two, he’s a troll specifically attempting to obfuscate the issue here which is the important topic of the article.

      Either way, the topic is so important to the future of our liberties, that we can’t even afford the pleasure of arguing with nonsense anymore.

      Since we started this forum, I’ve contacted my Reps. Had a ‘power’ talk with one of Paul’s assistants and noticed that he really got ‘pumped’ on on the head of the IRS today, so that’s what i’m doing to help counter the evil attacks on our liberties by the likes of the Eva Braun ‘sisters’.

      I’m guilty of digression here also, but we should be talking strategies to flank them. We gotta go on the proactive offensive!

  146. Paul, the only words that I can think of to describe Secundius are a direct quote from the immortal Bugs Bunny…”what a maroon”!!!!! The guy has been taken to school so many times on this blog that he should be a star pupil by this point. He has NOTHING but bovine scat to offer, and you and several other contributors here have offered irrefutable proof that he is WAY out in left field…I commend you on your grasp of the entire 2nd Amendment issue!!!Stick to your guns!!(no pun intended)

    1. Lol Stephen. I LOVE the loony tunes reference! It’s so fitting! It is my firm belief that Secundius is just that: Loony Toons. I also agree with you that Paul has a great grasp of what our 2nd amendment right actually means. It has been a pleasure destroying Secundius’s moronic and inane ramblings while being able to converse with people like you and Paul.
      However, if I may say, I actually look forward to reading these retarded posts from people like Secundius. It provides me with moments of levity, which is something that is sorely lacking in today’s day and age, I’m sure we can all agree on that!

  147. You are free to believe whatever you wish.

    However, don’t expect to limit my rights based on nothing more than your belief.

    Have facts. Post them. Anyone can make things up.

  148. I was using the 18th century definition as a guide, too work from. Not, the 20th/21st heavily edited and reworded NRA version as a guide-line.

    1. Secundius, if you look at both definitions they are not different. Read the Federalist papers, where it was discussed. The 1700’s and 1800’s definition of Militia is still the same, as it is Today! It is a force in reserve to stand against the Standing Army of a Government that has gone Tyrannical, to be called upon when needed and supplying their own weapons in use at the time, by their respective states. PERIOD! you can’t argue this or deny it because I have copied and pasted both the definition from back in the days of our For-Fathers, and the article and links to such articles where the definition has been found. YOU CAN’T argue TRUTH, brother!

    2. heavily edited and reworded NRA version?

      Please… put down the crack pipe.

      or… provide an example of the NRA presenting an “edited” or “reworded” version.

      I won’t be holding my breath,

    3. The 2nd Amendment as written in the Cnistitution:

      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.

      The 2nd Amendment as written by the NRA:

      A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

      Tell me if you see the difference, look hard, or just look at the alignment of the words.

  149. Aging Marine: A football coach I admired once said, “Everything’s legal ’till you get caught.” Some of these guys just don’t use their heads. If you’re planning to do something and you know Big Brother is listening, isn’t it wiser to not publicize it?

    I think if we want to keep our guns we need to go out of our way to obey the laws that are already on the books, get as many people to side with us as possible and not give any of the federal alphabet agencies a reason to put us under the magnifying glass.

    Last, but most important, we need to vote these clowns who are after our civil rights and our guns out of office. Do you agree? Because I think we have some wild children here that aren’t doing us any good. semper Fi brother.

    1. If you can find some evidence that the Founders intended that only the military be armed, by all means share it here.

    2. What exactly can be said to refute those quotes that Paul posted? Those are non ambiguous plain spoken thoughts. They cannot be refuted unless you challenge their authenticity, which is an undertaking that I wouldn’t recommend, as it would fast become an exercise in futility.
      I often wonder if those who question the 2nd Amendment realize that they are often the embodiment of the textbook definition of Insanity: “Repeating the same actions, evrytime expecting different results.”

    1. “Well regulated Militia (Applies to Professional Army), not to amateur citizenry.”

      That is precisely what many like to believe.

      However, there is no evidence to support a claim that the Founders had any such intention, and quite a bit of evidence to the contrary.
      John Adams:

      “Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense.”

      Thomas Jefferson:

      “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.”

      Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer, 1788:

      “Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”

      Virginia Declaration of Rights 13 (June 12, 1776), drafted by George Mason:

      “That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”

      George Washington’s address to the second session of the First U.S. Congress:

      “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty, teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon and citizens’ firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 and 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. They deserve a place of honor with all that’s good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour.”

      Thomas Jefferson:

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

      Alexander Hamilton:

      “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”

    2. Paul, I could not agree with you more. I wasn’t going to go that far as to list all those the quotes that explain the reasoning for the 2nd, mostly because I’m on a cell phone, and I hate it. Its slow and I am more than comfortable admitting that I am feeling lazy at the moment.
      Keep up the good fight.

    3. It was pretty easy to do sitting at a computer. I agree – much harder on a phone or a tablet.

    4. Paul I found another interesting article I wanted to post here about how the citizenry was supposed to keep the Regular army in check. It was very provocative and informative…Here goes:

      During the Congressional debates, James Madison discussed how a militia could help defend liberty against tyranny and oppression:

      The highest number to which a standing army can be carried in any country does not exceed one hundredth part of the souls, or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This portion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Besides the advantage of being armed, it forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would surely shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.”- (Source I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789)

      I hereby challenge ANY person to now, after reading that excerpt, challenge what the Founding Fathers meant as far as a Militia and hence the 2nd Amendment.

      While the numbers may have changed over the years, the premise is and always will continue to be the same. The Government was never designed to control the Militia, and in order to maintain this check on the Regular Army, they had to be separate and autonomous from the Federally managed Army of Professional Soldiers, thus the Regular Army. And since a National Guard was also able to be called up and commanded by the army, The Militia could not be a part of the National Guard, either. So, the Nation needed a check on the Standing Army, that could not be called up by its commanders, so the Militia was written into the 2nd amendment “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Do we all see where there is NOTHING in there that says “necessary to the security of the free nation”? That’s because the Militia has nothing to do with the federal Government or to the Standing Regular Army! It was ONLY for the protection of the STATE! Militia was NEVER intended to be regulated by the Federal Government, it was specifically implimented to OPPOSE the Standing Army, as a sort of check and balance to fight off a Governments Army becoming tyrannical!
      And the best thing about this is……VERNACULAR OR NOT, IT IS PLAIN ENGLISH THAT CANNOT BE REFUTED OR MIS-INTERPERATED! It simply is what it is, it says what it says. No ambiguity, no bastardization of language!
      But I digress now, to allow this to settle in and hit home. I Truly hope this gets people thinking, because it is the ultimate in Pro 2nd Amendment truth! It cannot be catagorized, or quantified, it simply is what it is….THE TRUTH. That’s another of my 2 cents. You all will be rich by the time they shut me up! LMAO!

    5. Her is another quote from the same article I talked about above.
      Please read:

      “Tench Coxe, a prominent American political economist of the day (1755–1824) who attended the earlier constitutional convention in Annapolis, explained (in the Pennsylvania Federal Gazette on June 18, 1789) the founders’ definition of who the militia was intended to be and their inherent distrust of standing armies under the direct control of ‘civil rulers’ when he wrote:

      The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American …the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
      The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them.
      Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”

      There you have it in a nutshell, folks. This was the definition of a militia that the Anti-Gunners say doesn’t exist in history. They say it doesn’t exist so they can bastardized the Constitution, and as such, the Bill of rights, in order to weaken us to what they want….total Government control. Enjoy and allow this to be nourishment to your soul. We are not “Pro gun NUTJOBS”. We, brothers and Sisters, are indeed, PRO AMERICANS. As my daughter would say “Oh, Yeah! CHA CHING!!!”

    6. Secundius, I have always tried to give respect here, but that ridiculous statement is absolutely wrong. there are two parts to a Militia, as defined by the dictionary which is the Organised Militia, now known as the National guard, and the regular Militia, which is ordinary citizens who train to be like the army, but they are not paid or regulated by the Federal Government and fall directly under the State, and the State alone. I have included the definition copied and pasted, and also the link directly to the web based article. See below:

      A group of private citizens who train for military duty in order to be ready to defend their state or country in times of emergency. A militia is distinct from regular military forces, which are units of professional soldiers maintained both in war and peace by the federal government.

      there is the difference between Militia and Regular Army. argue it all you want, it still doesn’t change the truth. Anti-gun radicals have argued this definition without success. Each state has DIFFERENT criteria, such as age restrictions, residency requirements, etc, but the definition remains the same and cannot be argued. The Militia is independent within each State….the Army is Federally mandated and draws from ALL states. Sorry but your attempt at logical thought has failed, as you must first base any thought on fact if you wish to rationalize it. Simply saying what you THINK IT SHOULD MEAN doesn’t make it so.

      Here is the link to the entire definition:

      Paul, I simply had to jump on the computer and get this out there. I wasn’t trying to steal your thunder brother!

    7. AgingMarine, in no way did I feel my thunder was being stolen. The facts need to be presented, no matter who does it.

      In addition to your excellent link, I recommend checking out 10 USC 311, which is where “militia” is defined in US law. It is remarkably similar to your dictionary references.

    8. Oh buy the way Paul, Militia Act you are stating was published in 1903,
      The word “Militia” the Founding Fathers” were referring too, was published in 1590. A major difference the time scale, wouldn’t you say.

      And, also the Militia Act of 1903, the Founding Fathers didn’t have access to. Because it was written 112-years, after the signing of the Constitution of the United States.

    9. Secundius seems determined to prove his ignorance.

      I posted a link to 10 USC 311, which he confuses with the Militia Act of 1903, also known as the Dick Act.

      That it was written after the Constitution is not relevant to the discussion, but might be relevant to the voices in Secundius’ head.

    10. And yet another Quote, this is directed at, primarily, Secundius, in reply to his comment where he said: Well regulated Militia (Applies to Professional Army), not to amateur citizenry.
      I beg to differ, and this is a quote from Richard Henry Lee:
      “the Constitution ought to secure a genuine and guard against a select militia by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms.”

      Lee warned that liberties would be undermined by a select militia who would answer to all the purposes of a standing Army, in his widely read pamphlet entitled “Letters from the federal farmer to the republican” and concluded that “the Constitution ought to secure a genuine and guard against a select militia by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms.”

      The “Select militia” was based on this description: The fears of the more conservative opponents centered upon the possible phasing out of the general militia in favor of a smaller, more readily corrupted, select militia. Proposals for such a select militia already had been advanced by individuals such as Baron Von Steuben, Washington’s Inspector General, who proposed supplementing the general militia with a force of 21,000 men given government- issued arms and special training. [120] An article in the Connecticut Journal expressed the fear that the proposed constitution might allow Congress to create such select militias: “[T]his looks too much like Baron Steuben’s militia, by which a standing army was meant and intended.”

      Hence, out of concern that this would come to fruition, the 2nd amendment was created and eventually ratified stating that the believed definition of a militia being the able bodied men of the state, who were to be called up in case the tryanny of Government backed by the power of its standing army threatens the rights of the people.

      Also, here is cause for our weapons to NOT BE LIMITED, this is an excerpt form the case of Miller V the United States;15 May 1939:

      “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.”

      Lets take a look at that last part: “A body of CITIZENS enrolled for military discipline (Training) ‘And further more, that ordinarily when called for service, these men were expected to arrive bearing arms supplied BY THEMSELVES, and of COMMON USAGE OF THE TIME.”

      So, today, our Militia, each indebted to its respective STATE, is comprised of every able bodied Citizen of proper age who are supposed to be armed with weapons in common use for Military discipline (TRAINING). Today, the M-16, M-4 and AK-47 are the 3 most common weapons found on the battlefield where our Military is fighting. They are not the only weapons on the battlefield, but they are the most common, and in keeping with the edict from the SCOTUS, presiding over Miller v The United States, the weapons made available to the citizens should be “…those of the kind in common use at the time.” How many more times will we all sit back and ignore that despite the atrocities committed by a very few, we have the RIGHT AND INDEED THE DUTY to arm ourselves, if only to secure our own liberties and freedom. This also is mandated in the Declaration of Independence:

      “…. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”

      In today’s day and age, we have lost more and more of our unalienable Rights; Rights that are given by natures God, not granted by men of Government. The Government is to work for We the people, and yet for almost 70 decades, we have worked for Government instead!

      I know this is all common knowledge, but yet in today’s day and age, it seems that people feel they can bastardize these documents to their own ends. Dianne Feinstein is one of the WORST culprits of this!
      I have seen videos of interviews of her, where she says she is “…not out to take away americans guns” then in session, she ADMITTED she was, by saying “if I could have gotten 51 votes, I would have taken them; ‘Mr and Mrs America, turn them all in!’ But I couldn’t, the votes just were not there.”

      LOL talk about 2 faced! and we can’t get rid of her, because the Government does not perform like it was supposed to. we only have the Illusion of choice. we don’t elect politicians to office, they buy their way in, with money from campaign funds and special interest groups. This is all by design, so that the Politicians can keep their jobs.

      When do we stand up and put an end to this?? or do we all just wipe our asses with the Documents that our For-Fathers DIED to see come to fruition. My ancestors, and the Ancestors of to many other good men and women. When is ENOUGH, ENOUGH? We have allowed them to do this to us, because we want things the easy way. well, we got it. but at what cost?

      Do we give our children everything or do we teach them to work for it? How do they learn about the value of things if they have them HANDED to them???? we have slowly over the last 70 years, taught our children that we don’t have to work for things, we are entitled. We were the “Big Boys on the Block after WWII” and we sat on our own reputation thinking we were too big to fail. But Today we are on the brink of failure!
      Who else used to say they were “Too Big to fail”? ANYONE? And where are those entities now? It was Big Banks who used to think they were too big to fail, and yet they did fail! And, they had to be bailed out by Big Government, at the expense of the people they were cheating and screwing over! You guessed it folks, US, WE THE PEOPLE got screwed and cheated by Big Banks, and yet our “Elected Officials bailed them out so they could continue SCREWING US OVER…lol. How does this Government work FOR us??? Another 2cents message from an Aging Marine.

  150. NO PROBLEM!!!

    “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. National Registry.”

    – Ratified effective 15 December 1791 and Amended, 19 June 2014.

    1. Too bad so few understand what the phrase “well-regulated” meant in the language of the day. It had little to do with rules and laws.

    2. I was just talking to my wife about that. Her and I were discussing the usage within the English language.

      What these Anti-gunners and other mental midgets seem not to understand is that our forefathers spoke the “Queens English” or Proper English. The vernacular from then to now has changed drastically.
      We, today, speak American English, which is a bastardization of the language spoken by our forefathers. Back in the founding father’s time, “well regulated” was meant to describe a well organized and smoothly run, coordinated militia. It was never meant to give any Government the right to come in and “control” what weapons we could or could not. Notice the lack of stipulations saying things like “according to Government approval”. LOL, nope folks, Government was Never meant to come in and control/designate what we could own…. The founding fathers didn’t set this republic up like that. They were dead set against BIG GOVERNMENT. They never intended the Government to become as imbedded in our daily personal lives as it is.
      These types of questions and situations were posed and pondered by our FF’s. Benjamin Franklin said it best when he commented on it by saying ” those who would trade away essential liberties for the illusion of peace and security would deserve neither and soon lose both”!
      Why would that quote count any less today than it did back then?
      The simple answer is it doesn’t. It means the same now as it did back then. But the sad truth is that Anti-gunners will never admit these truths. LOL. Just my two cents.

  151. Keep in mind that the Bible as we use it today is a combination of books or stories selected by people that had an agenda. I am sure MOST folks who take the words as gospel have no idea the stories are “hand picked” I, foe one would love to hear from Mary, who was Jesus’s main lady. But that was not to be.. Just some food for thought

    1. Secundius and Joe, you are both right. You both have valid and reasonable points. It has been this way since the the dawn of time…those with agendas and the power to move them forward have always stuck it to the average man.

      Yes the Christian/Catholic bible is just a compilation of books….some are the same as the Jewish Torah, some are not. This Picking and choosing of what books were allowed into the Bible has been a source of contention and mis-trust between Jews, Christians (including Catholics) and other religions like Muslim faith for many centuries and has contributed to some of the greatest atrocities against man ever committed.

      The founding fathers were WASP’s..White Anglo-Saxon Protestant’s. They based their convictions and beliefs upon the Christian faith. This is why the anti gunners try and tear it down.

  152. The Amendment are to the Constitution, what the Commandments are to the Holy Bible. It you stat tinkering with the 10 Commandments, your saying you can modify and/or change the Holy Bible, to give it a whole different meaning. Think About It !

  153. Hank, first off, let me say I agree with you…to many people have gotten off topic, and it does make it challenging to reply, lol, but I love a challenge, which is why I continually come back and comment. I want to show people that Anti-gunners are not honest nor are they intelligent and sane.
    As far as fear? Hell yeah I fear these mentally incapables. Would anyone in their right mind want the guy who talks to imaginary people keeping loaded weapons in his house? Lol, not I. But, as far as restrictions….the 2nd cannot be modified, or else we lose it all together. The reason for having to have these rights written down and protected is because they may become unpopular. Think about it, popular speach doesn’t need to be protected….it’s the unpopular speech that needs protecting, thus we have a 1st Amendment…same goes for the 2nd Amendment…. We don’t need to protect our right to bear arms when its popular…it’s at times like these when we need the protection. The basic premise is the same for the entire Bill of Rights and The Constitution. That’s my two cents, brother.

  154. Hank, easier or harder to acquire something means nothing. You still get it when you want it.

    Which proves the point of the uselessness of putting ‘restrictions’ on getting things. and why the obsessive compulsive leftist agenda simply uses regulatory tactics to garnish information to eventually use for tyrannical support.

    By the way, back in the fifties and sixties, as i posted elsewhere you could, indeed have high explosives and even anti-aircraft weapons if you used them out somewhere remote where they didn’t hurt or bother anyone. Thompson machine guns were hanging right next to the shovels in hardware stores if you wanted one. Everybody in the suburbs had a silencer on their .22 JUST SO THEY WOULDN’T MAKE TOO MUCH NOISE SHOOTING RODENTS AND DISTURB THE NEIGHBORS NAP OR RADIO SHOW! Now you get arrested for one without ‘registration’ and a tax stamp . Nothing had to be registered then, and far more ‘destructive devices’ were easily available. AND there were never any multiplicity of incidents, if any, like there are today with every ‘restriction’ except taking away your right to private transaction, and then ultimately seizing your Constitutionally protected guns.

    How do you explain that by saying you’d be ‘okay with stronger background checks and closing gun show ‘loopholes’ which is a government NLP mind trick to switcheroo the fact that the Constitution also guarantees your right to private property and commerce’

    Hitler used the previous German governments ‘lists’ of guns to eventually search and seize them all from private citizens.

    And by the way, the leftists anti-2nd Amendment gun grabbers already lost the ‘numbers’ debate to a miserable embarrassment on comparing gun injuries and deaths to everything else. Even doctors kill and injure more people through malpractice and bad prescription.

    So they are now doing absurdity logic by using the ‘oh, i suppose then it’s okay to have a nuke in your garage.’

    Come on, Hank. You’re not a Fascist Troll, are you?

    And by the way. We paid for those nukes. So yes, we own them and should be able to tell THEM, who work for US, what to do with them, but just like i might want to own a 747 jet. We can’t keep it in the house because of it’s particular needs and storage requirements and we don’t have the training or maintenance skills to ‘safely’ possess it.

    Just like a nuclear bomb. So we ‘trust’ others to ‘hold them for us.

    Small arms don’t apply to this category. Anybody can safely and quickly learn the right way to own and carry an AR-15 so they’re not ‘dangerous’.

    So please, Hank. don’t waste what little time we all might have left to enjoy our precious freedoms, whether we like them or not, with nonsense Arguments..

    1. I just want to quickly comment on something that Muhjesbude said..and I Quote: ” Everybody in the suburbs had a silencer on their .22 JUST SO THEY WOULDN’T MAKE TOO MUCH NOISE SHOOTING RODENTS AND DISTURB THE NEIGHBORS NAP OR RADIO SHOW!”

      He is exactly correct. That USED to be the way things were. Why, you ask?Easy! I will explain. It’s because we as a Nation, have lost our Respect for others and are out for only ourselves. We used to have respect for our neighbors; We cared and helped them. We didn’t support them. We used to live by the adage “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; TEACH that man to fish and you feed him for life” We USED to work for ourselves, but help out those who needed it. Unfortunately, as time went on, people became more selfish and greedy, and found ways to abuse the generosity of Americans. Hence, now we have multiple generations who have an “Entitlement” attitude. They believe that they are ENTITLED to the generosity as SUPPORT, and not just a helping hand up. Masses and Masses of immigrants come here daily, believing that they are entitled to these same generosities.
      When My fathers grandfather came here from Germany, his wife and two of his children died. They had nothing, and fell to disease and famine. My great grandfather worked 12-16 hours a day, sun up to sun down, and was always poor, right to the day he died, BUT our family survived. NOT because of handouts, but because of the hard work and foundation that my Great grandfather built. Today, everyone wants things given to them, and not have to work for them. I have had a supposedly educated, self proclaimed “hard working American” tell me that the Government was supposed to provide him with “…food, water, shelter and clothes….anything above that is what he needed to ‘Work for”. He is the embodiment of all that is wrong with the American people of today, and that is one of the reasons why our nation is in the state of decay that it is in. We have traded away pieces of our liberties for the illusion of safety and security, paving the way for Big Government to step in and say “Ok, we will take care of you but first we need to make you safe…some of the Constitution will have to be changed in order for this to happen…”. And what has America done? They swallowed it all, Hook, Line and Sinker.
      The more we gave away, the more the Government stepped in and said “We want MORE”. And now here we are, fighting for the very right that keeps them from stepping in and saying “You have no more control, you do as we say”. People sit back and say “What Happened”? we complain, and argue and shake our fists in the air screaming to the clouds “Where have our RIGHTS gone”!
      We are the ones who are in control, and we are ultimately the ones to blame for our own situation. It’s time we stood up and took our own responsibilities back, instead of sitting back saying “Oh well, I am only one man. Let the rest fight for it”. Thoughts like that have left us standing alone on the field of battle for our rights, and we are going to lose unless we band together. In order for us to band together we have to start caring about something other than ourselves!!!! Again, just my 2 cents.

  155. Just more of same nonsense and anti-gun agenda from Boxer and Feinstein. Any reasonable person can see that the family made an attempt to try and stop the Isla Vista tragedies. Boxer and Feinstein just want to use this incident as another excuse to slowly erode our rights.

  156. Aging Marine:
    Some of these guys are getting too far off topic for me. No wonder they scare the crap out of everyone else and we have so much pressure for gun control. I don’t like it and I guess if you’re living in the boonies it’s okay but in an urban/city setting they’d scare the hell out of everyone that not being fitted for a straight jacket. What’s your take on this? Hank

  157. Just to be clear. I am, as most of us here, am a Card Carrying member of the RIGHT to KEEP & BEAR arms!! I just find it amazing that the further “regulation” of powder(s) hasn’t happened yet. My East & west coast non gun types did not believe that the powder used in the Boston crap was legal to buy. When you grow up NOT knowing these things it has surprised many COAST (east & west) folks! Believe it or not but there are many people that do not own firearms and never will. LOL (just kidding) And there numbers are GROWING….FAST!!!!

  158. Lol, OK that was a Legitimate use…but it wasn’t necessary. The stumps could have been removed in other ways. Besides your nearest neighbor was how far away??? Lol I guess at least 1/2 mile away, if not more. So again, there is no NEED for explosives to be in the hands of the average citizen. It’s only a convenience.

  159. Okay, it’s Hank, i think i’m responding to. This is a very difficult concept to grasp in terms of cognitive bypass.

    With reference to explosive powders being ‘kept out of the hands of evil dangerous to other people psychos’, and ‘focusing’ on doing that as a cure, you have to understand the futility of the reality.

    You must factor in human nature and behavior and psychology and you will come to this conclusion.

    To mitigate a bad behavior problem by removing a material physical object used in implementation of the dangerous behavior. you would have to create an environment where the physical object NO LONGER WAS IN EXISTENCE ANYWHERE AND NO other FACSIMILE COULD BE SUBSTITUTED WITH THE SAME CAPABILITY.

    In the real world where normal people who use the same physical material object without harming others, this would be impossible to accomplish unless you also deprived the same people who did NOT have a bad social behavior problem with the material physical object, and may even have a real benefit from their usage of it? Especially since the ‘object’, in and of itself, poses no actual danger or threat.

    Think about that carefully for a while.

    Certain people in our society would agree to ‘trade a benefit, even a right, in order to mitigate a deleterious human behavior that can be ‘cured’ in several other ways.

    This is the core problem with the gun rights issue.

    We all need a complete mental ‘shift’ on the topic. Because then it really won’t be a ‘gun violence’ problem anymore.

    It will be factored down to the real problem.

    Human nature gone amuck in a dystopian culture.

    And then carefully manipulated by agenda based socialist engineers by imposing their own self centered proprietary version of morality and rule of law, upon every body else.

    Then ask the question,

    1. OK. So if we gave everyone a nuclear weapon we’d all be OK?

      I’m trying to wrap my head around your concept here. Because some people will take this concept to the maximum degree, where would the best solution lie?

      I personally feel an expanded background check, closing the gunshow loophole and banning Facebook type sales would be a pretty good tradeoff. I know many others would disagree with me.

      Currently it’s much harder to get a cosmetology permit, a contractors license, a passport or even a drivers license that it is to buy a gun.

      Then there’s the incontinent fact that guns in the home are 22 times more likely to be involved in accidental shootings, homicides, or suicide attempts. For every one time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were 4 unintentional shootings, 7 criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

      I hear a lot of complaining from my fellow gun owners ranting about Obama, but these issues existed before Obama. Where are possible solutions? Or, even a partial solution?

  160. I know of quite a few Republicans living in Texas, that would disagree with you on your talking points.

  161. Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein and the other cronies assembled for their cause should keep their noses out of the National limelight and worry about that cess pool on the west coast called California. Those living in Texas and like minded pro-gun ownership states do not need their brand of self-serving politics to make a personal agenda reality. God, guns and guts made Texas a great Republic. Godless, gunless and gutless is what the other side is selling and we aren’t buying it!

    1. Easy there turbo. Without California, we’d starve to death with no TV or movies whilst drinking only french wine. That would suck.

  162. I had a similar bet with my army buddies, except for fifty-bucks. They said I was crazy and a fool when I stood over a block of magnesium with a oxy-acetycholine torch all-day and couldn’t get it too catch fire, All I did was to melt a hole through the center of the block. They thought in was going catch fire in a very impressive way, and I wasn’t going too live through to explosion to collect the bet. My mos was 67Y.

  163. Joe, earlier i attempted to explain to Beau and AgingMarine that there definately IS a good legitimate use of ‘explosive’ bombs, if you want, for average citizens. But i don’t see the post so i don’t know what happened.

    But it referenced a similar experience to your own concerning field clearing of stumps to prevent excessive abuse to your tractor…

    Back in ’69, i used to be able to buy a 20 case of Atlas 40% dynamite for twenty bucks over the hardware store counter cash and carry with no paper work at all!

    But what do you mean Black or Smokeless powder IS coming to an end? They’ll never pass another agenda based draconian law that financially affects an entire small business industry of reloaders and Black powder shooters? Unless somehow in our worst nightmares come true and we can’t fire those five or six Democrat Senators who will Definately try to ban us from even leaving our NSA monitored homes?!

    But it wouldn’t matter anyway Without giving any more evil morons any ‘ideas’. Tt will suffice to say herein that as CD , i believe, alluded to. They would have to ban everything from matches to xxxxx to xxxx to xxxxxmxmx, and any number of ‘ingredients’ available to someone who ‘knows’ in any number of common stores and vendors otherwise used in other applications which are literally easily configured to explosives equal to or better than black powder.

    Once in law enforcement i had a heated office ‘debate’ with a BATF agent who was one of those somebody else said here who didn’t want anybody else to own guns but police, that i could spend less than two hours driving around the neighborhood getting the stuff i needed to make the functional equivalent of the most illegal of banned explosives. And bring it back and assemble a working item in less time.

    I’m not a chemist but my army mos was 18B. I won a hundred bucks on that bet. Everyone in the office was shaking their heads in amazement. which proved my point that you can’t cure social psychological problems of individuals by useless draconian prohibition of extreme Crime PREVENTION by banning physical objects.

    As far as ammo, well, it would only be reasonable and self contingent that ammo components would be included in the ‘right of the people to carry firearms’, They can’t be mutually exclusive due to the inherent nature of their mutual dependency for purpose.

    The NRA would immediately do court challenge to that.

    But! That’s not going to stop their back door agenda tactics. They already are trying to restrict ammo in other ways like making it illegal or just ‘inclusive’ in the already illegal use of toxic ‘lead’ in stuff.

    And then the good cheap foreign ammo is on the ‘gone’ list under Hillary’s favorite UN treaty protocol.

    So get it while it’s now cheap again. The tipping point is in six months.

  164. Well, we all know this…The fact we can still buy Black Powder after the Boston bomb is just amazing…And to hope that this bastardization of the use of Black Powder will NOT happen again is wishful thinking. Our ‘time’, of being able to purchase, without restriction, Black or Smokeless Powder IS coming to an end!! The Second Amendment gives us the ‘Right’ to keep & bear arms…..but not ammunition!!! TRUE!!

  165. I think, he’s suggesting “Suicide by Police/ATF”, he’s trying for martyrdom
    statice by any means. I don’t what agenda is, but is seem like he’s trying to provoke a measured responds.

  166. Aging Marine: I suspect that you and I may have crossed paths at some time in the past. I think you know as well as I that having the materials in the right hands makes it go boom and it’s not rocket science. Hopefully we can keep those materials out of the hands of some demented character who makes it go boom at a public gathering like those two idiots did at Boston. A lot of people have started reloading ammo since this BS ammo shortage started and that gives them a potential resource for destruction. I just hope these jokers are balanced on their mental teeter-totters because if they aren’t we’re all in trouble and sadly we’ll all pay for it..

  167. Well several years when I had cleared 20 acres of land, after the old growth oak was cut the STUMPS remained. And as my home was going to sit there the stumps had to go..the backhoe was available but very time consuming…need I say more?? not all of us live in the ‘city’. So there ya go! An average citizen in need of explosives, and got them after some paperwork

  168. Hey guys aren’t we getting a little off track here. We’re supposed to be objecting to the infringement of our second amendment rights and possible confiscation of our legal firearms and some of you sound like you’re stockpiling ordinance. Truthfully, that scares the crap out of me and like another aging Marine, I had to work with that stuff and I wouldn’t want some clown to accidentally level the block I live on.

    1. We are kinda getting off topic, but, this topic is so diverse and complicated that it is all too easy to get “side tracked” lol.

  169. “Just sayin,” hu? So let’s go knock down his door and blow his brains out, right?

    If you are as “responsible” an exerciser of your Second Amendment rights as you are of your First Amendment rights anyone who crosses YOU is in a lot of trouble.

    Ya know who else used that “just saying” line? Rosie O’Donnell at the Million Moms March. She used it as a lead in to her anti gun tripe because she KNEW she didn’t know WTF she was talking about and wanted to cover her ignorance.

    1. Sorry, I don’t watch Rosie. I have a job. I’m sure you enjoy watching Rosie though.

      Please explain what you mean by “So let’s go knock down his door and blow his brains out”. Who’s door?

    2. Fuhghehdaboudit. I

      You suggest: –“If so, man-up and you may get your wish for a firefight with the police or FBI in just a few hours, right there at home. How convenient for you.”.
      And then you ask for clarification? it’s apparent you’re a bloviating brain dead new comer..

  170. Opinions aren’t worth much anymore. If you want to keep your rights you are going to have to do something. I am concerned not enough people will act in time to make a difference. Waiting to see what happens…in what universe was that ever a good strategy? Been there. Done that. Lots of people lost everything. Some lost their lives. [Heading over to NRA website to do some more “something”.

    1. Want to do something, instead of waiting?

      VOTE. Vote in numbers. We will. Rest assured.

    2. It’s not so easy to get people out voting on what the media has turned into such an “unpopular topic”. I agree we need to vote, but we also need to make the damn topic not so ” unpopular “. The best choice isn’t always the ” popular” one…..BUT, the popular ALWAYS wins over the others….better or not. Sad but true fact.

    1. UBER FLASH! McVeigh was simply willing to kill other Americans and cops. LarryB sounds a little like McVeigh here. . .I’m just sayin.

      BTW, I may be for responsible gun ownership, but I am staunchly anti-bomb.

      Or, does someone here want to try and make the case for bomb ownership too? Let the wacko fly!

    2. Lol…name one LEGITIMATE reason for an average law-abiding citizen to have a “bomb”. You can’t. Explosives are NOT covered by the 2nd Amendment. They serve no legitimate purpose but to destroy. PERIOD. Their use in demolitions is the only place where a ” average citizen ” would have any legitimate need of them, and as such demolition explosives ARE legal, just VERY highly regulated.
      I was trained in explosives in the Marines. My mos required me to be, and I can tell you that even TRAINED persons can make mistakes that kill. Non-electrical blasting caps, AND TNT are both very volitile and UNSTABLE. They both can be set off just by heavy vibration! C-4 is more stable and can literally be lit on fire and not explode. I sent people diving for cover by demonstrating this fact…..funny as hell, but I digress. I don’t believe there is any legitimate reason for any of my neighbors to legally own explosives and/or “bombs”. I have firsthand knowledge of the workings of most explosives and they are not for playing with. Just my 2 cents.

    3. Well several years ago when I had cleared 20 acres of land, after the old growth oak was cut the STUMPS remained. And as my home was going to sit there the stumps had to go..the backhoe was available but very time consuming…need I say more?? not all of us live in the ‘city’. So there ya go! An average citizen in need of explosives, and got them after some paperwork

    4. Owning the ingredients and owning a bomb are two very different things, CD. I believe I understand where you were headed with that comment, but in today’s day and age, being careful what you say isn’t a bad thing…lol. Don’t give “big brother” any more reasons to dig into our personal lives. They are already in too deep as it is.

  171. Oath breaker lawmakers like Boxer get NOWHERE without the complicity of oath breaking enforcers, i.e. police.

    1. Well if the truth be known it is likely that most if not all of LEO (Law Enforcement Officer(s)) would love to be the only ones to have access to firearms, especially concealed ones. From a standpoint of LEO it would be so much easier for them if anyone with a firearm was a badguy. No worries just shoot them without a concern.

    2. So now you’re against the police? You gonna shoot a couple of cops?
      Are you another Timothy McVeigh?

      If so, man-up and you may get your wish for a firefight with the police or FBI in just a few hours, right there at home. How convenient for you.

  172. Unfortunately these politicians gain momentum every time someone commits a violent crime and in particular uses a any type of firearm. Then they start with the innocent children and suffering parents propaganda campaign. It all points to firearms, but what’s worse is the real issue is never addressed and we all have allowed it to happen. It seams that there is every excuse for bad to unspeakable behavior except for personal accountability. The people reporting news use to have ethics now they seem to have an agenda. Mr Bloomberg has an agenda masked as a crusade vowing $50 Million dollars. The rich can afford to live in large estates with state of the art surveillance and security plus ex-Spec Op armed contractors for security, The powerful have now decided to disarm the populous, its a distraction technique and only in there interest. If Mr Bloomberg genuinely wants to make a difference, then he would have dedicated that money to help Police Departments in the pursuit of real criminals, the people whom are responsible for lethal violent crimes. When President Obama took his Oath to protect the Constitution, that oath becomes a pledge to also protect the Bill of Rights if not in actual words, but in Spirit, as it is one of the foundation pillars of laws in our government. So as the Commander & Chief is he defying the military oath to support & defend against all enemies foreign and domestic. His original campaign of turning Hope into prosperity has instead become lost in translation. As Americans we have become a society of only self-interest. We’ve lost our way. We no longer have a sense of community. We are in clear and present danger of losing everything. They have turned “By the People and for the People” into just lip service. If we fall even our allies will turn. To our fellow Americans whom don’t seem to understand, just look at the history of any country were there citizens were disarmed. Once disarmed there government did what ever they wanted without pause. A person has intelligence and people need leadership. So what will it take for us to become the America were meant to be.
    Good Hunting
    William Martinez

  173. The NRA and the Tea Party want “too destroy the very existence of the United States”?

    Really? Do you read your posts before sending them?

  174. I’m a registered democrat and a firm believer in our second amendment rights. I chose not to own an AR… I simply have no use for one. However as a law abiding citizen I don’t want the government to tell me I cannot choose to buy one if I wanted too. I’m a US citizen & never broke a law. I want the right of choice. That’s why people are racing to buy guns.. some are hoarding.. because they want their ability to choose. I have a rifle and shotgun to harvest game for my table. A God given right I will not give up.

    1. Unless you are branded a ‘criminal” I was under the impression the Second Amm. said, “The right to keep & bear arms shall NOT be infringed” Now go ahead and be accused of a domestic violence crime, or child support or drunken driving, or some other law that might be created to brand you a criminal. I can understand someone who has used a firearm to commit a crime…but the rest becomes a stretch for me and many others!

  175. Folks: Please let me toss in my two cents here. I always thought the NRA was a bunch of extreme right wing kooks and I still pretty much agree with that position, but they’re the most powerful organization I see doing anything to protect our right to keep and bear arms. That’s why I’m a member.

    1. Hank, that’s exactly the reason I’m a member also. Personally, i don’t hunt or even like guns. Had to use them in war and police work in my un-enlightened misspent youth, and kind of wish…I hadn’t , or rather there wasn’t a need to use them anymore as civilization advances.

      But i don’t see that happening anytime soon. So I suppot anybody who at least acts in some way to preserve the only law in the world that makes America different from all the rest of the countries destroying themselves in tyranny and violence..

      Which is The right of its individual citizens to have firearms to preserve their own liberty and justice because they can adequately Defend themselves against tyranny, instead of falling to it..

      Most posters here already are ignoring poor Secundius. He’s probably a Catholic, which is part of the problem. How can you support the 2nd amendment when a Massachusetts Biship is calling for more Gun Control!”?

  176. The NRA of 1789 was a gun club. The NRA of the 21st century is not, its morphed into a completely different BEAST. It doesn’t even listen to its own members any more. They like the Tea Party want too destroy the very existence of the United States. And turn it into something else. What that is I don’t know and I think, even the NRA doesn’t know.

  177. Feinstein and Boxer should be referred to as “THE EVA BRAUN SISTERS” in the media. Maybe it would open some eyes.

  178. Dear Secundius,
    The reason THERE was no NRA in the 18th century is because the constitution didn’t exist until 1789. Well into the 18th century, and no one even thought it necessary to protect the right to keep and bear arms. And BTW the SCOTUS has validated the NRA “definition”.

  179. Stop reading the NRA’s reading and definition of the 2nd Amendment. Their was No NRA, in the 18th century. The 18th century 2nd Amendment is the CORRECT ONE, Not the NRA’s interpretation of it. By your way of thing, the Holy Bible can be interpreted its writings and meaning any way and/or anyone else, they want too.

    1. Hallejuhya!! Secundius! PRAIZE DEE LAAAWD!

      While i declined to post anymore here in response to you or red-girl due to your obvious cognitive decedence, especially since i asked you a simple question to define the differences in the NRA’s version v. the original 2nd Amendment, and you still can’t explain that…

      …I now am compelled to admit my first impression of you was prematurely judgmental.

      When you said above “By your way of thing, the Holy Bible can be interpreted its writings and meaning any way and/or anyone else, they want too” [Sic]…

      You ‘redeemed’ yourself in true mental epiphany! Because you are absolutely correct in the remarkable insight of what you said from the miracle of your brain being resurrected after three days of self crucifixion from cognitive decedence!

      Being able to interpret and derive a variety of ‘meaning’ from the Bible is exactly why there are no less than 3000 different practicing Christian sects around the world today. All interpreting their own proprietary profit motivated agenda based version of the Bible in an effort to milk the sheeple in the ‘flock’ for all their worth while imposing their own corrupted version of morality, replete with hatred and egotistical holier than thou perversion, that most of us don’t want or need.

      All these numerous Christian ‘knock off’ religions have the early Holy Roman Catholic Church to thank for their franchises.

      Evens the Islamists stole a lot of the Bible’s ‘holy material’ for their own version, the Qur’an. in around 625-640 AD

      The hero of the story– around 325 AD after the Council of Nicea– is Constantine the Great’s old bud Bishop Eusibius who first invented the ‘Holy Bible’ to help keep the peon (pronounced pee-on) sheeple under control by scaring the BeJEEEsus out of them with the ‘Fear of God’!

      So he had to keep it interesting, but intentionally ambiguous enough–and of course written in old Latin so that nobody could translate it except trained priests– in order to modify and redact the ‘lessons’ and ‘history’ of the Bible any time they chose to suit the particular population manipulation agenda at the time, or as ‘required’ to keep their royalist elite power base perpetuated.

      So you’re right Secundiuis. You CAN, and actually anybody with a two bit minister diploma can, and does, exploit the ‘holy bibble’ (sometimes pronounced ‘buy-bull’) as they see fit. Even pedophiles and rapists and other criminals committing their ‘sins’ in the ‘name of god’ because…

      .”…it SAYS so in the Bible!! THE FREAKING WORD of GOD, You heathen doomed to si