Let’s Redirect That Anger

Laurie_dann profile picture

While the Nation teeters on the precipice of the fiscal cliff, certain lawmakers would rather spend their time and effort dealing with feel-good politics that will have no effect rather than dealing with the Nation’s business. If you want to be angry, let’s keep it focused where it belongs—solidly aimed at those who intend to pass legislation that will not fix any perceived problem while limiting the rights of law-abiding citizens.

What we are experiencing today is just the beginning. Gun owners are second-class citizens in the eyes of lawmakers and the media. We are stuck in a twisted time warp to the political correctness of the 1990s. And we are not going to wake from this nightmare anytime soon.

Diane Feinstein (no, I am not a General and therefore see no reason to honor the hypocrite with a title) is leading the charge with a new, more restrictive Assault Weapons ban. Fortunately, Feinstein knows a little something about guns. She has concealed weapons permits in at least California and Washington D.C. and who knows where else. Oh yes, Diane understands why ‘she’—a member of Congress, eligible for Secret Service protection, who works in a building guarded by armed capital police—has a need to also carry a weapon for personal protection. However, when it comes to the rank and file citizen she makes every attempt to limit our rights.

AR-15 AK47 leaning against a barnwood fence
From the outside and AR-15 or AK47 may look like an assault weapon, but it is the internal parts that determine the guns capabilities.

What is an Assault Rifle?

In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least these characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:

  • It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (for example, a buttstock; not a machine pistol)
  • It must be capable of selective fire
  • It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle
  • Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather than a feed-belt
  • It must be capable of having a firing range of 300 meters (over 1000 feet)

Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are not assault rifles despite frequently being incorrectly labeled as such by politicians and media. For example, semi-automatic-only rifles such as the AR-15 (based on the M16 rifle) that share designs with assault rifles are not assault rifles, as it is not capable of switching to automatic fire and thus are not selective fire capable. Belt-fed weapons or rifles with fixed magazines are likewise not assault rifles because they do not have detachable box magazines.

Are Feinstein’s Actions Anything more than Feel-good Politics?

Banning certain guns by name or particular characteristics is proven to fail and has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the gun is an assault rifle. I remember when California (Feinstein’s home state) banned the Intratec Tec-9. It was back on the street a short time later dubbed the TEC-DC9 (DC standing for Designed for California). About the only difference was a small change to the bolt design, but even without it, the TEC-9 would not have qualified as an assault weapon.

Feinstein and her anti-gun lackeys also take issue with certain military characteristics. In California, you could own an SKS, but not ones with any combination of three or more identified military style characteristics, bayonet lug, thumb-hole stocks and so on. Later, it was changed to be more restrictive and banned other characteristics such as detachable magazines and models outfitted with, or the potential to mount, a grenade launcher.

I guess you have to throw your—already illegal in all 50 states—grenades by hand in California. Now does anyone ‘need’ a grenade launcher? I doubt it. But if that was the litmus test, I can think of a lot of things we don’t ‘need’ but are not illegal. Senator and Congressmen may top that list…

High Capacity Magazine Ban

This is one of the two pieces of legislation that I believe has a shot of passing. Again, it is feel good politics. Limiting magazines with a capacity of over 10 rounds does nothing to limit a shooter’s ability to quickly put rounds down range. Smaller capacity magazines can be switched in a couple of seconds. Anyone with a few simple tools can build two 10-round magazines into a 20-rounder within 30 minutes—an hour if they want it to look pretty.

But would this make us, or our kids, any safer? Reduce the speed at which rounds can be fired? I offer Cheaper Than Dirt’s own sponsored shooter Jerry Miculek as exhibit A.

In this video, Jerry is shown shooting 12 rounds from a revolver in less than 3 seconds—and that required a reload.

By the same token, Jerry set another record by shooting 12 rounds from a revolver, blindfolded and drawing from a holster in just over 5 seconds—keeping all 12 rounds on a man-sized target from 30 feet. And on his belt? It was full of speed loaders. How many rounds could he accurately put down range in under a minute? Just doing the math with Jerry blindfolded, he could easily shoot 30 rounds in a minute from a revolver. Using his stats from the first scenario Jerry could shoot well over 100 rounds a minute from a revolver. Hmmm, I believe it is a revolver on Feinstein’s California CCW. Does that mean she really favors a weapon that could…

It really is worth a look at Jerry’s title and records such as shooting six shots each from 10 different revolvers in about 17 seconds. That is 60 rounds in 17 seconds or over 200 rounds a minute. Check out Jerry’s page at

Another myth being bandied about by politicians is that Modern Sporting Rifles such as the AR-15 shoots the same round as the military. I’ll cover that topic in a post about the .223 vs. 5.56mm soon.

What can be Done?

This is a much more in depth question. The Secret Service looked into school shootings back in 2002—during the first assault weapon ban— and did not conclude military-style guns as the problem. The Secret Service warned against profiling and came to the conclusion that there was not a single trait or type of person that could be used to identify a potential shooter. Any such list would list or attempt would identify too many people to be useful.

Interestingly, researchers noted that these perpetrators do not simply snap and commit these heinous acts. They plan. They acquire or manufacture weapons. These children take a long, considered, public path toward violence.

Many of the shooters told Secret Service investigators that alienation or persecution drove them to violence. According to the United States Secret Service, instead of looking for traits, it urged adults to ask about behavior:

Laurie_dann profile picture
Laurie Dann Wasserman—an American spree killer who shot and killed one boy and wounded two girls and three boys at a Winnetka, Ill. elementary school. She then took a family hostage and shot another man before killing herself.
  1. What has this child said?
  2. Do they have grievances?
  3. What do their friends know?
  4. Do they have access to weapons?
  5. Are they depressed or despondent?

No limits on video games, banning of high-capacity magazines or other ridiculous knee-jerk reactions were recommended. As I noted earlier, it isn’t hard to modify a couple, or even several, low-capacity magazines to manufacture high-capacity magazines. The individuals who perpetrate these heinous acts are the very personality type that would take the time to create such a work around to circumvent the law to create the tools necessary for an evil deed.

Are Guns Even the Biggest Threat?

Let’s look at the two biggest domestic terrorist acts in U.S. history. On October 19, 1995, two bombers were convicted of killing 168 people, including 19 children under the age of 6. The availability of guns was not the issue, but guns were not responsible for the deaths either. However, it was a gun that proved to be the fatal flaw in the Oklahoma City bomber’s plan.

Within 90 minutes of the explosion, Timothy McVeigh was stopped by Oklahoma State Trooper Charlie Hanger for driving without a license plate and arrested for unlawfully carrying a weapon. Where are the calls to ban or regulate racing fuel, rental trucks and fertilizer? Those were the instruments used to kill 168 people, not a gun.

That was the worst act of terrorism on American soil until the dark events on the morning of September 11, 2001 when terrorists with box cutters gained control of commercial airplanes, crashing into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon killing thousands of people.

When will the lawmakers and anti-gunners in this country realize the evil that has attacked this country in the past, and threatens to do so again in the future, cannot be stopped by the passage of yet another law? We have over 20,000 gun laws in the country now. Will 20,001 or 100,001 laws that only the law-abiding citizens will heed really make a difference?

Share your thoughts with 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 (191)

  1. Hines,

    You really should stop looking down your nose at people like you do. Its not only very rude but it can hurt your neck. And, if you do it in a rain storm you will probably drown. I really do appreciate your comments Hines because when you do it allows others to see how deluded people like you. Probably a good bet no one in your family has ever served in this countrys armed forces.

    Its also very tragic that you chose to breed and have kids. It must be hard on your grandchildren to have to let people know they are related to you. If your grandkids have to settle fights with guns then it is only because it is what you have taught them to do. Its sad how liberals have so degraded our society that it is now acceptable in many places to just go around shooting people. You Hines should be ashamed of yourself for promoting that lifestyle.

    And you try to speak as an educated man but easily try to deflect from the truth at every turn. That indicates to me that you are a man of very low and weak moral character. You speak as though the Supreme Court is an all knowing politically neutral group of people which you and I both know is not correct. If it was, it would be full of strict constitutionalists which it definitely is not. If it were we would have a court that based its decisions on the actual words of the Constitution and not by inventing an inference. The Constitution is not a living growing document nor is it simple a piece of worthless paper for you to wipe your butt with. In a free country we have the right to protest a gov’ts attempt to take away our rights even by an activist Supreme Court.

    Gun violence in America is tolerated by politicians (mostly democrats) who refuse to demand the police and courts punish people for violating the well over 15,000 anti gun laws currently on the books. Even Obama said after Aurora that its time “we” stop tolerating gun violence. I wanted to ask him if he had a mouse in his pocket when he said “we” because no one I know has ever tolerated it. How about enforcing those 15,000 laws strange as that might sound! Stop trying to make criminals of most of the law abiding citizens of America! Strangely even police states have a high rate of gun crime so how is outlawing them here going to work out?

    You seem to want the nanny state for some odd reason especially since you can’t point out to it ever succeeding in any country its been tried in. I do have distaste for a gov’t that wishes to have complete control of its populace right down to whether or not we can drink a soda with our pizza.

    Have you sold that rifle yet? Of course you havent because you are like a typical example of a soviet communist party member – some people are more equal than others and thats how you see yourself. You truly believe you are our better (more equal) which, you certainly are not. People like you who want to throw away my and others Constitutional Rights are no better than the stuff I have accidentally stepped in while walking in a Barnyard.


  3. It is difficult for me to comprehend your vision of the second amendment. You speak of it as if it is written by some divine being and dropped into the Constitution unsullied by human hands. It is no different from any other Constitutional provision. It was crafted by people and included in a document that also contains provisions detailing how it will be implemented, enforced, and interpreted. If Congress were to pass restrictions on gun ownership that the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional and the Administrative Branch proceeded to enforce them, then your Constitutional rights would be violated. If Congress passes restrictions, the Administrative Branch enforces them, and the Supreme Court upholds them then your Constitutional rights have not been violated.

    There are only nine votes that determine whether an act of Congress (or a state legislature) complies with the requirements of the United States Constitution. Neither you, Mr. Cooper, nor you, rsun, nor I are among the nine.

    None of us know which laws will be passed in Congress, but there already are laws restricting gun ownership among the states. If the Supreme Court declares those laws to be unconstitutional then they cannot be enforced. If the Supreme Court upholds them then they are constitutional and, just like any other law, defying them is criminal.

    The United States was not created as an anarchy. Its laws are enforceable and we rightfully expect our fellow citizens to obey them. If the law of the land continues to tolerate the proliferation of more and more deadly guns, then I must abide by it, disobey it and become a criminal, change it, or leave the country. If constitutional restrictions on gun ownership are imposed, then you have the same choices.

    There are millions of Americans who believe that our government cannot prohibit them from selling and using drugs, force them to pay taxes or serve in the military, restrict what they do on their property, exercise eminent domain, criminalize sex with minors, prevent secession from the Union, forbid discrimination, enter into trade agreements and treaties, prohibit sanctioned prayer in schools, and probably many more things beyond my awareness. Your beliefs about gun ownership land you squarely in that group.

    It is revealing that in your world I cannot be simply a fellow gun owner who disagrees with your interpretation of the Constitution. Instead I must be something much less – a troll. I am, of course, actually just the person I have described myself to be. The main differences between us are our views of government and my distaste for a society where my grandchildren’s safety depends on who wins the gunfight in the hallway and where the bullets go.

    As much as I will miss you, there is no reason to continue these discussions. The near term end of this issue for me will be decisions by the Supreme Court. I hope they are for you, too.

  4. Hines,
    Guns are just your Issue de Jour and tomorrow you will have a new one which you will claim to be an expert on. Trolls will be Trolls and you can’t help what you are. Still, sites like this need Trolls like you to post to remind everyone of the type of people out there that want to deny them their rights.

    I don’t think you’re part of a large group writing or a secret organization etc. You remind me of the not as smart as they think they are people in college blathering on and on trying to sound intelligent and looking down their nose at others they feel are their intellectual inferiors. News flash you only come off as a liberal hack for the democrat party and a whiner. You lie and make things up

    BTW Did you ever sell that rifle you claimed to have that you want us to save you from shooting again?

    And as far as young, well I’m way past that. My Violent and selfish goals? I’m not a violent person by nature but 10 years in the military and another 20 years working in support of and seeing the Middle East and other not so nice places in the world I do know what’s worth fighting for and what this country will turn into if we don’t protect our rights – God and Constitutionally given. Oh, hope I didn’t spoil your day by saying “God”.

    There are many things that kill more people in America than guns that aren’t Constitutionally protected and I don’t see you going after them. The ultimate goal here isn’t to take peoples guns away, it’s to remove a key block of the Constitution to make the document irrelevant. And when the foundation and the document are gone they will be gone forever as will this country. Freedom is easy to lose and hard to get back. Move to North Korea so you can have your police state and a gov’t to tell you what to do every day. Be happey. We will be happy for you.

  5. DB! Welcome back. I cannot believe how clever and insightful you, rsun, and the others have been. Indeed, I am not a person at all. We are another government plot against you. We are, in fact, a secret cabal of government agents tasked by President Obama himself to seek out gun enthusiasts on arcane web sites and fool them into thinking we actually are a retired shooter. Our specific assignment is to discover the intricacies of your most cogent arguments so that we can turn them against you in subliminal advertisements imbedded in reruns of “Gunsmoke.” Ultimately our goal is to confiscate all of your guns, knives, clubs, and any stones larger than one-half inch in diameter (50 caliber) then subjugate you with overwhelming attacks led by brown-shirted Obama youth.

    Sadly, we now must report to the President that our cover is blown. We are trying to replace ourselves with even more nefarious operatives zeroing in on you, in particular. We obviously will have to be much more careful in the future if we hope to fool you. We are hopeful, though. You can see that we have been successful elsewhere. The people of England, France, Germany, Norway, Holland, Sweden, South Korea, Austria, Switzerland, Japan, Australia, and so many other countries cower in fear as their governments prepare to sweep in to slaughter them. Until that time tens of thousands of them are being killed each year by gangs of criminals preying on their unarmed, helpless condition.

    If only they lived in the United States where they could be safe from violence, protected by your view of the second amendment and 300 million guns.

    I hope you are young, and that sometime in years to come you will grow into a more realistic view of the world and develop less violent and selfish goals. If not, I hope at least that you neither suffer nor cause harm, and remember that the framers of the Constitution also took the time to define and prohibit treason.

  6. KM Hines,
    Have you sold that gun yet? You keep begging us to take it away so you wont shoot it again. And why should the gov’y track law abiding Citizens weapons? How about taking guns from criminals. Odd concept for you isnt it. Punish Criminals.

    Have you sold your car yet? You have no constitutional right to own or drive it. Automobile wrecks kill over 2000 children anually and maim another 250,000! They are literally children butchering machines!

    As far as disarming the populace goes. In 1932 Stalin murdered over 10 million Ukrainians. Stalin had disarmed the citizens of Russia and the Soviet Union after the revolution so no one could resist the genocide which killed 1/3rd of the population of Ukraine in slightly over a year. If the people had been armed, this could not have happened. After WW2 no Soviet leader tried to commit genocide again because the populace was armed to the teath and battle hardened. The Gov’t was afraid of the people.

    Yes Rsun, KMHINES is a troll.

  7. You live in a horrible world. You are surrounded by plots and deceptions, lethal threats and pending doom. Like the ultra-rich and their money, you want to hold on to all of your guns regardless of the cost others must pay. I have met you. I have worked with you and gone to church with you and lived next to you.

    I am a sixty-six year old retiree. I am on this site because this is where I sometimes buy ammunition, and I do not represent any group. In fact, I am much more of a loner than a joiner. I have been a shooter all of my life, but shooting never has been my life and never will be. I am intelligent, well educated, and a good communicator. I am on this forum to express my point of view, just like you.

    As a human being I am appalled by the number of deaths caused each year in America by guns. Each of those thousands of deaths devastate the lives of yet more thousands of people. As a citizen, I am concerned about the plethora of rhetoric coming from some groups of gun owners that they are amassing weapons and ammunition to defy the U.S. government. When, and why, will they begin their killing? Who will be their targets?

    I hope that our legislators can agree on some measures to reduce the number of violent deaths we endure each year. I a willing to participate in an effective solution even if doing so means that my own access to some weapons is restricted. I favor universal background checks, the effective tracking of weapons, and a ban on center fire semiautomatic rifles and carbines using detachable magazines. You obviously are free to have your own preferences.

  8. I have seen this on multiple forums and see the same pattern, a very concerted effort by a seemingly solitary individual to negate all the arguments to the contrary, seemingly on a noble quest to right all wrongs. My suspicioun is that this is not an individual but a group that is involved here using the same name and email on these sites, and then take turns to try and kill pro-gun speech anywhere, that way there is rarely fatigue that you will see from the rest of us, the only way to beat them is to learn to recognize them quickly wherever they appear and not engage these worms when you find them and then warn everyone on that discussion to do the same, THEY HATE BEING IGNORED!!!!

  9. Among the restriction being proposed in California is a ban on hollow point ammunition. Now Wisconsin has joined in with a proposed ban on hollow point or fragmenting ammunition.
    That’s hunting ammunition.
    No, they aren’t going to come after your hunting guns. Just the Military look-a-likes.
    Yeah. Sure.
    I got some nice waterfront property in Florida I can sell real cheap, too.

    I agree, rsun. KM Hines exhibits all the attributes of a troll. I especially like how he continually tries to put words into my mouth. If I state that certain of the Founding Fathers wrote of their beliefs, and quote their writings, he tries to construe that as me calling for armed insurrection. He’s full of opinions, but has backed none of them with fact. I can’t remember him quoting one fact, or a source for it. He’s full of BS. It was amusing for a while, but I’ve better things to do with my time.

  10. Hi, MacBeth. Hi, MacBeth. Missed you. Couple of your tests out of the way. Indeed, the 5.56 was not chosen for its lethality. That ended up being a side effect of its ballistics. Second, I assumed that the legendary “helmet test” was true. If not, I was wrong. I still am a shooter, and a good one. Third, a representative government selected by the electorate is a democracy, albeit not a direct one. You are right about the “rule of the mob,” which was a second aim of the Constitution. It is the Constitution and not the representative form that prevents it, though.

    Now, on to the discussion. The Constitution was written by representatives chosen by the people in accordance with the customs of the time. It was adopted using procedures selected by the representatives. It is enforced by the federal administrative agencies, and by courts. An action is legal if it is allowed by the Constitution, enacted by the legislature, enforced by the administration, and prosecuted by the courts.

    In our representative democracy even the Constitution is subject to the will of the people.Over time we have broadened those that are protected by the Constitution and those who may participate in the process of governing. We have revoked and replaced some provisions of the Constitution that reflected the prejudices and shortcomings of our forebears.

    For more than 200 years (admittedly a mere moment even among modern nations) we have strengthened our democracy, weathering several rebellions, a civil war, and a great depression. Now we have thousands of people hoarding ammunition and buying the most deadly weapons available to them for the express purpose of resisting that government.

    Have you thought about what that means? An unknown number of militias with unknown membership armed with unknown weapons, each with its own agenda and its own trigger for violence exist here. Who shall decide that our government is oppressive and that armed resistance is justified? And against whom will their aggression be directed? Shall it be justified for a secret militia to kill those who commit abortions? Or hire undocumented aliens? Or advocate for gay rights?

    Perhaps there will be left wing militias to kill those who oppose abortions or persecute Hispanics or worship in fundamentalist churches. Do you think that a nation as diverse as this one will suddenly agree on how and when to start killing our policemen and soldiers and fellow Americans?

    If you believe that a heavily armed assortment of secret militias are a safeguard of democracy then look at all of those countries whose tribes or religions or sects or ethnicities have killed one another for decades, armed to the teeth and free from any meaningful government intervention.

    If I must trust either my government or you to be well enough armed to subjugate me, then I will choose my government. If I must trust either my country or you to have my well being and my freedom at heart, then I will trust my government. I will help my government protect me against you, and you against me, by encouraging it to stop the efforts of so many to become so deadly.

    You appear to be interested in supporting a democracy only as long as if conforms to your morality and your ideas and your values. Otherwise, you reserve the right to overcome the rule of law with the barrel of a gun. I reserve the right to demand that my government prevent you from doing that. I believe that the current laws and provisions of the Constitution allow that with room to spare. If not, then I and millions of others will campaign for an amendment to the Constitution so that it is allowed.

    That is what “legal” means, MacBeth.

  11. KM Hines
    Been sick- still sick for that matter, but better. That you are wrong, I have no doubt. By that I mean in your apparent assumption that if you meekly comply with the current demands, that it will be the end, that the gun grabbers will be satisfied. I offer this, from the Daily Kos, for your consideration:

    How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process

    by sporks

    It’s nice that we’re finally talking about gun control. It’s very sad that it took such a terrible tragedy to talk about it, but I’m glad the conversation is happening. I hear a lot about assault weapon and large magazine bans, and whilst I’m supportive of that, it won’t solve the problem. The vast majority of firearm deaths occur with handguns. Only about 5% of people killed by guns are killed by guns which would be banned in any foreseeable AWB.

    Furthermore, there seems to be no talk about high powered rifles. What gun nuts don’t want you to know is many target and hunting rifles are chambered in the same round (.223/5.56mm) that Lanza’s assault weapon was. Even more guns are chambered for more powerful rounds, like the .30-06 or (my personal “favorite”) 7.62x54R. Even a .22, the smallest round manufactured on a large scale, can kill easily. In fact, some say the .22 kills more people than any other round out there.

    Again, I like that we’re talking about assault weapons, machine guns, and high capacity clips. But it only takes one bullet out of one gun to kill a person. Remember the beltway sniper back in 2002? The one who killed a dozen odd people? Even though he used a bushmaster assault rifle, he only fired one round at a time before moving. He could have used literally any rifle sold in the US for his attacks.

    The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence.

    Link to rest of article:

    In addition, you make several statement about the 5.56 NATO round that again make me doubt you real knowledge of firearms. Military test using the old steel helmet/fiberglass liner showed the 5.56 NATO would bounce off the liner at 600 meters. In contrast, the 7.62 NATO would not only penetrate the liner, it would go through the head inside, and penetrate the liner and steel helmet on the other side at the same rang.

    The modified .223 Remington was not chosen for its lethality. That is a common mistake made by people with little or no military experience. Post WWII military doctrine is based on the theory that is bettor, tactically, to wound the enemy, than to kill him. The 5.56 NATO was selected with this theory in mind, based on the fact that it would be a reduced lethality round, wounding more than it killed. The cartridge, in its original, civilian form, was, in fact, designed for shooting gophers and woodchucks

    This nation, despite your statements is not, and never has been a Democracy, it is a Republic. The form of Government was specifically chosen to protect the rights of the individual from the will of the masses, or as the Founding Fathers, “the tyranny of the mob” The Constitution was made by a Republican Government, not a Democratic Government.

    And which amendment has been made to authorize the actions you advocate?

    What legal action? That is the critical question. Do you assume that any action the Government takes is legal, just because they say so? If so, I suggest you go ahead and put on your collar. Do you seriously believe the government can do no wrong? Tell that to all the former residents of Manzanita. Tell it the Apache, Sioux, Cherokee, and Creek.

  12. Hi, MacBeth. Let me get a few things out of the way. First, I do not use the term “assault rifle” although I consider our use of semantics to avoid real debate less than helpful. I refer to center fire, semiautomatic rifles and carbines fed by detachable magazines. I know that those less familiar with firearms are grasping for a more convenient term than a long and inconvenient phrase, but none have arisen. Those of us who use them know which firearms make killing large numbers of people in a short amount of time feasible and how they do it. Sometime I may have to alter my preference for a limit only on center fire weapons if we continue to develop more powerful rim fires, and add clip fed weapons if those become common again. Perhaps we could call them semiautomatic versions of assault weapons, or SAVs, although I would be reluctant to add yet another acronym to our lexicon. If we as gun owners and users were really interested in rational arguments then we would help to create common terms rather than using their absence as a distraction.

    Second, my purpose is not to prevent murder. Were that my motive I would be much more interested in a ban on handguns through a Constitutional amendment. Our Constitution guarantees that we will, in large part, be free. Freedom often is more dangerous than but much preferable to its alternatives. My purpose is to reduce the number of incidents that involve a single gunman killing or wounding seventy people in theater or twenty-six people in a school before police can respond. The number of these shootings that have occurred is small, but they are becoming more common. I would love to see my country have a murder rate as low as most of the developed world, but the factors that cause our high death toll go far beyond the scope of this debate.

    If I have to defend myself against an armed opponent I would rather he have almost anything other than an SAV (sorry, but I don’t want to continue typing long phrases). Its rate of fire, reloading capability, accuracy, and penetration make either retreat or attack poor alternatives. It would not matter whether I was trying to defend myself with my bare hands or my 1911, I would likely be the loser in such a fight. Add the possibility that I would be facing not one but two, or three, or four opponents each with many 30-round magazines and wearing body armor and the scenario becomes outrageous.

    I do not want every maladjusted teenager with an urge to commit suicide to have the ability to take dozens of people with him. I do not want our country to experience more and more of the hideous events that have occurred in Columbine, Aurora, and Newtown. I do not want the rest of the world to see America as a bastion of senseless violence. I bought and use an M15A4. It is the semiautomatic version of an iconic American weapon. In its military version it is the longest serving battle rifle in our history. It is an engineering marvel and a testimony to American innovation. I enjoy shooting it. I use it responsibly, and I store it in a place inaccessible to all but the most well equipped thieves. I know, though, that if I can purchase it then so can thousands of people who will use and store it less responsibly. Even worse, I know that people who intend to use it for mayhem also will have access to it. Background checks are worthless when being 99% correct about a person’s intentions is not nearly good enough.

    You have criticized me correctly for not citing the source I quoted in my last comment. I did not think it important since I was not asserting its validity, but merely stating that there are other opinions. Also, I pointed out that neither our opinions nor the opinions of those we quote have any bearing on the eventual decision regarding the breadth of the Court’s Heller decision. The New York laws guarantee that the question will be answered by the Supreme Court, probably very soon. I might point out that if enough Americans come to view gun ownership and use too dangerous then the Constitution will not protect it. The original framers of the Constitution saw no reason to allow those who did not own property, blacks, or women the right to vote, and had no problem with slavery. Counting the Bill of Rights we have amended the Constitution twenty-seven times.

    You asked me to address the power of the .223/5.56. You and I both know that it has far less muzzle energy than either the .30/06 or the 7.62mm NATO (.308) that it replaced. We also know that such a comparison is meaningless. It is a deadly round (why else would we use it in military weapons) that depends on its high velocity and instability on striking flesh to create devastating wounds. It is effective at medium ranges (500 yards), and will penetrate a military helmet at 1,000 yards. The most common bullet weights are 55 grains to 75 grains, although weights outside these limits are available (e.g., a 36 grain version used for varminting). Its most desirous quality in full automatic and semiautomatic weapons is its very light recoil. Neither the 30/06 nor the 7.62 were usable in fully automatic battle rifles. The 5.56 was. Another advantage of the 5.56 is its size and weight. Soldiers (or anyone else) can carry many more rounds of 5.56 than either of its predecessors.

    You have commented that mass killings occur in “free fire oops I mean gun free” zones. First, shopping malls are not gun free zones. Second, anyone who believes that people who carry concealed weapons actually care that a theater is listed as gun free is delusional, and no one knows where armed guards or off duty police officers may be. A person willing to go into a crowd today and open fire has to know that some of those people may be armed. Most of these mass murderers do not expect to leave the scene of their crime alive. They know that they will be better armed and better prepared than their victims, and that they will have the advantage of surprise.

    You asked about rights and their limits. You seem to have a strange view of rights, seeing them as something apart from the consensus of the people around you. The Constitution was made by a democratic government, and can be changed or even nullified by that same democratic government. The process for doing so is, in fact, contained in that very Constitution. In short, it is not unconstitutional to amend the Constitution. We did so to free slaves (a taking of “property” without compensation), to extend the right to votes to women, to limit the number of terms a president may serve, and even to prohibit the sale of alcohol.

    As for existing rights, I have the right to travel freely in the U.S., but may not do so by driving a car unless I receive a license from the government to do so. My right to free speech not only prevents me from yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, but also does not include libel or perjury. Many of my rights are forsaken if I am convicted of a felony regardless of how minor and even if I did not commit the crime. My freedom of religion does not include the right to human sacrifice or cruelty to animals. I cannot decide for myself to use alcohol in public or to use controlled substances at all. I cannot sell or buy controlled substances even though we live in a society of free enterprise.

    You probably agree that the right to keep and bear arms does not imply an unrestricted access by every person to all weapons to be carried to any location. We already restrict and track the ownership of fully automatic weapons, and do not allow people to bear such arms as weaponized viruses, poison gases, land mines, antiaircraft devices and nuclear materials. Criminals and terrorists may not own guns, nor those with a history of domestic abuse. You may not carry your weapon into a courtroom, into Congress or the White House or into many other government buildings.

    I might summarize by saying that even though our Declaration of Independence declares that certain rights are endowed by our creator, our legal system recognizes only those rights created by ourselves in accordance with agreed upon processes. We cannot use our guns to prevent the people from adopting and enforcing the laws by which they will live. While I agree that you have not directly threatened an armed uprising, you maintain that is the purpose of your right to bear arms.

    You have compared your ability to resist the U.S. military to the Taliban. Even if that were a good comparison, it would not be a good argument. We have maintained a military presence in Afghanistan for ten years, and have killed thousands of Taliban and Quaida fighters. We have lost few by comparison. Furthermore, we are in a foreign country and devote only those lives and resources we care to lose to our effort. An armed uprising in the U.S. will be more comparable to a civil war. The U.S. troops will not quit until they win, because they will be fighting for our own country. Millions of Americans who do not agree with armed resistance to a legal action will aid them in their efforts.

    I hope that even if you continue to support the wide distribution of “center fire semiautomatic rifles and carbines using detachable magazines” (I am open to any term you care to suggest for such weapons) you will lend your voice to those who want universal background checks and effective ways to track weapons.

    Thanks again for your willingness to discuss this issue rather than demonize those with whom you disagree. It speaks well of you and the position you represent.

  13. KM Hines
    I have read, and reread my posts. I still see know where I have advocated taking up arms. I have stated that the ability to do so was one of the primary reasons for the Founding Fathers included the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Right. That’s why I quoted a Founding Father. If you had read Heller, you would know that the Justices themselves quoted Founding Fathers.
    I did state that it is a mistake to underestimate the ability of an irregular force to resist, and in many cases overcome them. If you think that statement is wrong, by all means, tell the Taliban. You might even be able to be a few old SS Troopers that would be interested. I do not think we are close to such a situation, although some, on both sides of the aisle, seem to be dedicated to provoking it.
    Quoting a source without citing it, by the way, is a poor way of carrying on a debate.
    The majority of the quotes that you decry my using, by the way, were quotes from the Heller decision, and were therefore quotes from those you say we must depend on to make the decisions. Either we go by what the court says, or we don’t. All of the sources I quoted were cited, by the way.

    “A belief that we have a moral right to resist enforcement of those laws with a force of arms is an abandonment of our democracy (a republic is a form of democracy)and respect for our Constitution” First, a minor point. A republic is not necessarily a democracy, but I take your meaning. The point is, the Founding Fathers included provision s to protect the ability to do so in case, or rather, in their view, that democracy broke down into tyranny. That also brings up why we have a Democratic Republic, rather than a true Democracy. Democracies can, and have been as tyrannical as any depot. Adams fear of the people forming a true democracy and emulating the French was one of the primary reasons he signed the “Sedition and Alien Act” of 1799. The French Revolution is a prime example of Democracy becoming tyranny, then a dictatorship.
    Do I feel Obama has come dangerously close to becoming a dictator? Yes. I also felt Bush the younger also did. The Patriot Act and various NDAAs walk all over the Bill of Rights. Both essential made laws by Executive order. Made laws by dictate. What’s the definition of a dictator?
    You state you have a “vast knowledge” of firearms. If so, define Assault Rifle. Tell me about the tremendous power of the .223 Remington/5.56MM NATO cartridge.
    Also, while it really isn’t germain to the discussion, why don’t you post some figures to show why these “terrible” weapons are singled out, say instead of baseball bats and hammers. I’ll break my own rule, here, and let you look up the data, I think it would be a good experience for you.
    You say you are not a troll. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Sol Alinsky would love you though. He loved people that were willing to compromise their principles. He knew he could always count on them to lose
    Do you accept those types of restrictions on your other rights? And don’t drag in the canard of Holmes’ “cry fire in a crowded theater”, it’s not comparable. You are still allowed to carry the means of shouting fire into the theater. Yet you are denied the right to carry the means to defend yourself.
    Remember, all the mass killings actually have two things in common that you seem to be ignoring. They all happen in “free fire’ oops, I mean “Gun Free Zones”, and they all involve drugs, psychiatric medications that have been shown to cause psychotic, violent reactions in a number of patients. Buy the way, the fallacy of the “Gun Free Zones” is shown by the number of shootings that happen in them

    Be sure, before you rush to give up a right, that you really know what you are doing.

  14. Thank you, MacBeth. Although your arguments are flawed, they are arguments rather than name-calling. That represents true progress. For the record, I am no “troll.” I very likely have more experience with more kinds of weapons than the vast majority of people who frequent this blog or who make purchases at Cheaper Than Dirt. Neither you nor I are Supreme Court Justices and so our opinion regarding gun ownership and use has no legal weight. Neither do the opinions of those we quote. The test of whether limits on center fire, semiautomatic rifles and carbines fed by removable magazines meet the requirements of Heller undoubtedly will soon follow the recently adopted laws in New York.

    I, and others, believe you are wrong about the weapons addressed by those laws. Consider the following:

    “How Heller Affects Gun Control Laws

    How much the ruling in Heller will affect gun control laws in various cities and states remains to be seen.

    The gun control law at issue in the Heller case — a nearly across-the-board gun ban in the District of Columbia — was considered to be the strictest gun-control law in the nation. Because the Supreme Court’s ruling concerned only this strict ban on handguns, the decision leaves unclear whether less-stringent bans in other states and cities will survive constitutional challenges.

    And, although the Supreme Court’s decision adopted the broader, individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, the Court also made it clear that the right to own a gun continues to have a number of significant qualifications or restrictions, including:

    Not everyone can own a gun. The right does not extend to felons or the mentally ill.
    Guns cannot be carried everywhere. Laws forbidding individuals from carrying firearms in “sensitive” places, such as schools and government buildings, will probably stand.
    Certain restrictions on the sale of guns are allowed. Laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms will most likely stand.
    Individuals do not have the right to carry certain types of guns. The right does not protect guns that are not generally owned for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. Just what kind of handguns may be possessed is not explicitly set forth in the opinion (apart from the one specific reference to sawed-off shotguns, which are not allowed). The Court did endorse the “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons,'” but did not state whether such weapons include assault weapons or semi-automatic weapons.
    Concealed weapons. Laws forbidding people to carry concealed weapons on their person (or in a place close at hand, such as the glove compartment of a car) probably remain valid.
    Sentence enhancements. A variety of criminal laws provide for increased punishment of offenders who use weapons when committing a crime. Heller does not affect the validity of these laws.

    Given this long list of qualifications, it remains unclear how Heller will affect the many different types of gun control laws that exist in cities and states throughout the country.”

    The point of my comments is not whether one opinion or another is valid. Rather, it is that we have a process for making those decisions established in our Constitution and defended by generations of Americans. Regardless of how vehemently one or more of us may disagree with the decisions made in compliance with that process, it creates the laws of our land and provides the framework within which we exist together. A belief that we have a moral right to resist enforcement of those laws with a force of arms is an abandonment of our democracy (a republic is a form of democracy)and respect for our Constitution. In fact, it tears down the very document you rely on to own any guns at all.

    Surely you do not want your right to keep and bear arms to rely on your ability to win a gunfight with the U.S. military. Surely you do not want everyone who disagrees with a Supreme Court ruling to grab a gun to support their position.

    I have made a personal decision that I cannot support the continuing proliferation of weapons like my M15A4 in our society. I do not believe that they can be made freely available to rightful owners without also making them available to heinous criminals. However, I would never consider acting criminally to deprive you of such weapons if Congress and the Supreme Court granted you access to them.

    Defend what you see as your right to own what-the-politicians-and-the-public-call-assault-weapons. Please reconsider, though, the notion that decisions to the contrary justify an armed response. Americans do not respond well to such threats, and you would not survive long using such tactics.

    Oh, and if you still are reading, bye Frank.

  15. DB Cooper
    Sounds like another case of a convicted felon out with a gun he’s not supposed to have.
    I bet he gets away with it, since selective enforcement seems to be another hallmark of the Progressive mindset.

  16. These are the kind of people trying to take our rights away from us.

    A Virginia lawmaker who drew gasps from his colleagues when he brandished a borrowed AK-47 during an anti-gun speech Thursday was found guilty in 2002 of committing a vicious 1999 assault, was sanctioned for legal misconduct while prosecuting a rape case, spent six months in jail for contempt of a federal court, and saw his law license revoked in 2003.

    Democratic Delegate Joseph Morrissey brought the rifle to the floor of the House of Delegates to demonstrate how easy it is to carry firearms in Virginia. Republican Delegate Todd Gilbert interrupted Morrissey’s speech to ask him to remove his finger from inside the gun’s trigger-guard — a basic gun-safety practice.

    “I don’t think you should be able to possess an assault rifle,” Morrissey told ABC News on Friday.

    Read more:

  17. Frank.
    Thank you. I suspect KM Hines is actually a gun control troll and agent provocateur, with a totally closed mind, but I don’t consider the effort lost if people with open minds also read the posts

  18. KM Hines wrote:
    “Your speculations about gun rights are just that — speculations. They are not supported by Supreme Court decisions, by history, or by existing laws.”
    Have you read Heller? MacDonald? Any of the other decisions they cite? This statement is from the Heller decision “The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms” If the right was ancient at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and Bill of Rights, then it would have to predate them.
    Then there is this, also from Heller “The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster.”
    A ban on semi-automatic weapons would also be a “prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.”

    Heller also contains this statement “Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

    Continuing in Heller, the court stated “This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth mendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed”

    Also from Heller “And, of course, what the Stuarts had tried to do to their political enemies, George III had tried to do to the colonists. In the tumultuous decades of the 1760’s and 1770’s, the Crown began to disarm the inhabitants of the most rebellious areas. That provoked polemical reactions by Americans invoking their rights as Englishmen to keep arms.”

    But wait- there were other considerations than “No taxation without representation”?

    The Court goes on to say in Heller “That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the ablebodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or
    standing army to suppress political opponents” There’s that word, and from the Supreme Court. Tyrants. Apparently they recognize that resistance to tyranny has something to do with the right.

    Now, would you like to be more specific as to which part of my “speculations” are not supported by Supreme Court decisions? Have you ever read a Supreme Court Decision?

    “We have tested the theory that unfettered access to guns increases safety, and we are losing ten thousand lives a year as a price.”
    When? Gun control laws are, in fact, the last of the “Jim Crow” laws enacted after the Civil War. They were enacted to make sure that the “wrong” element didn’t have access to fire arms. The were aimed primarily at Blacks, with “poor white trash” being a side benefit. One fourth of gun deaths occur in just four cities, cities with the strongest gun control laws in the country. In addition, the gun homicide figures counts anyone killed with a gun as a homicide. The granny that killed the home invader the other day is counted. The cop that shot the felon that decided to shoot it out is included. Homicides? Yes. Murders? No. Why is all the sturm und drang over semi-automatic rifles, anyway. They are, remember a subset of all rifles. Latest FBI figures show half again as many “homicides” committed with bats and hammers as with ALL rifles.
    BTW, ask the shop keepers in “Korea Town” if they really needed those AR 15’s and high cap magazines during the Rodney King Riots, and where the Cops that were supposed to “Protect and Serve” them were during the whole thing.

    “Most of the gun deaths among children occur here, in the United States.”
    Parroting disinformation doesn’t make it right. Few gang bangers are children. No serious effort is being made to control them. They kill each other frequently and often, and every 17 year old gang banger is reported as a child.

    “We also have tested it in countries that are awash in tribal, ethnic, religious, or racial armed militias that drive death tolls far above what even we experience.”

    They have been killing each other since before the discovery of gunpowder, and in some case before the discovery of fire. While you, as a “Liberal” have probably bought into the lie that the Mau Mau were freedom fighter, the were tribal based, and far more of the time and energy went into torturing and killing their tribal enemies than fighting the British. Their preferred weapon was the Machete, by the way, and rape was one of their favored tools of intimidation, and figure strongly into their “religious” rituals they practice before their attacks

  19. KM Hines wrote:
    “If you really believe that the United States government is going to become murderous and tyrannical”
    You really need to read some history. And not just the Cen Gov approved version.
    How about the “Patriot Act”. A truly bipartisan piece of legislation. Then the various NDAA’s. What happened to the Bill of Rights? Note that they are some of the truly bipartisan legislation to come out of D.C. Your “Lord and Savior” has used them to kill far, far more innocent children than Lanza did, without the excuse of being on psychotropic drugs. He decides to summarily execute an American citizen in violation of the 4th Amendment, and to hell with who ever is in the vicinity. Then to make it better, he waits until the first responder get on scene, and kills them. While watching it on his big screen TV. Not just in Afghanistan, but in Pakistan, our supposed ally. And in Yemen. And in Indonesia. Sounds “Murderous and Tyrannical” to me. Of course, Indefinite detention became okay when your hero replaced the Chimp in Chief.

  20. KM Hines said:
    “It is difficult to discuss this issue with people who believe that they are arming themselves with AR15 rifles in order to defend themselves against a modern army. The United States military has drones and hellfire missiles, bunker-buster bombs, cluster bombs, sophisticated sensors, cruise missiles, helicopter gunships, heavy artillery, fully automatic weapons including Gatling guns that fire six thousand rounds of 20 millimeter ammunition a minute, excellent body armor, and well trained troops. They have the advantage of coordination and defensible supply lines.”

    How’s that working out for them? Taliban all gone? How about As Qaeda? Oh, that’s right, Jihadists are just a figment of our imaginations. Ever hear of the rising in the Warsaw Ghetto during WWII? Less than 500 fighters, literally starving to death as the fought. 68 guns, mostly antique, low powered revolvers, and homed bombs and firebombs. At the onset, the Germans estimated it would take them three days to wipe them out. After seven weeks, and the deployment of almost 10,000 troops, the Jews still fought. The Nazis used artillery, tanks, and aerial bombardment. They finally resorted to poison gas. They still didn’t eradicate all of the Jews
    If you read a little history every once in a while you’d find that well trained troop don’t fair that well in opposition to dedicated guerrillas. You’d also know that there are no such things as defensible supply lines
    Note also that, in fighting the Taliban, US forces have continually outnumbered them.
    The Army, including reserve components, has 1,130,000 troops, of which over half, and as much as 75% are non-combatant support troops. No more than 600,000 combat troops. While some estimates are that there are twenty million homes in the US with firearms, there are estimates, based on deer tag sales, that there were eighty million deer hunters in 2011. Using the estimated figures for the percentages of the way people become involved, approximately 1/3 of those will resist. That’s over twenty six million. That’s 44 to 1. And that’s not counting all the gun owners that didn’t go deer hunting.

  21. To KM Hines – You sir, are obviously two bits shy of a dollar (in other words, you are a little nuts). I am the paranoid one? You believe that big brother is watching everyone and they are keeping records of everyone purchasing guns and ammo? And furthermore, since I have voiced my opinion on the second amendment which is really no different than every conservative talk show radio host and every conservative TV personality and every conservative that ever lived (including the founding fathers) – that makes me some kind of target? Add to that millions and millions (at least 20 million) of gun owners who feel exactly the way I do and who believe the second amendment has the main purpose of protecting the populace from what could be a tyrannical government. My question to you is: Why are you so afraid of the government?

    Let’s just say you are right and that in your nutty world of 1984, the government has the goods on me. They know I have several “assault rifles” and I reload my own ammo and currently have a nice little stockpile (this happens to be perfectly legal in my state and locality). So what? If they come to my door and say, “we’ve got the goods on you Frank, turn ‘em in!” My response will be, “turn what in?” How can I prove that I don’t have something? And, how can they prove that I do through credit card receipts from places like Cabelas, CTD, etc. If they really press me I will say someone must have stolen my identity. They can search my property all they want and they won’t find them (I will have had plenty of warning because the odds of me being the first of over 20 million plus gun owners to be visited are sort of low). So what’s the outcome of all that? A big fat zero, that’s what.

    By the way I believe the government knows all too well that if they want to induce civil unrest and a possible civil war, all they need to do is what you have described (go door to door and search every property – in every corner of the country). A tall order, isn’t it? In that case the people will know instantly that the government is made up of a bunch of lying communists out to enslave them. Even if the government were able to put down any initial resistance, do you believe that Americans would allow themselves to be another North Korea?

    Civil war would not be pretty I am I not saying by any means that I want to see this happen. Only a fool would openly want that. But there are times when freedom loving people have no choice but to fight. That is what the second amendment is all about. If you don’t know that, I suggest you educate yourself about a topic as important as this one, before you go on a blog such as this and make yourself look stupid.

    We are a constitutional democracy? This is yet more proof that you are either nuts or not so bright or a combination of both. We happen to be a constitutional republic. There is a big difference between the two. And by the way, if I were truly paranoid (like you) I would not be posting all this stuff, would I?

    As far as putting up with people who don’t share my opinions I put up with them because I can’t force someone to think the way I do. Either can you. If you can’t take being criticized, then don’t make yourself a target for criticism. I gave you solid, provable, historically correct facts about why you are wrong on several levels. All you do is drum out your personal opinion. Having an opinion is fine as long as you don’t lie to strengthen your argument. Lying and making statements without knowing whether your statements are facts is the same thing.

  22. FRANK —

    So let me be sure I understand your point of view. First, you need to be heavily armed so that you can resist a tyrannical U.S. government that will ignore your second amendment rights, but you do not need to worry about the government keeping a registry of guns because that would be a violation of federal law. Perhaps you might think that through a little better.

    While you are thinking, keep in mind that the right wingers pushed through new powers for the federal government (now adopted by the left wingers, a sure sign of conspiracy) to collect information about American citizens without the approval of any court or possession of any warrant. The information they may gather includes groups you may belong to, books you may read (perhaps no problem there), and your bank account and credit information. Have you bought any guns and ammunition using checks or credit cards, Frank? They do not even need to tell why they want the information. That authority, of course is irrelevant if they have become tyrannical despots who ignore the Constitution and federal law anyway. And Frank, they would not need to confiscate 300 million guns, or arrest tens of millions of people. They could selectively target you and people who have expressed opinions like yours. They could look for people who have purchased only large amounts of ammunition or multiple firearms, or bought AR15s. You probably are already in government databases, and your influential opinions might already have made you a primary target for Seal Team 6.

    I hate to see anyone do anything half-way, Frank. If you are going to be paranoid, do it big time. Change your name, move, hide your weapons, and use throw away cell phones for communication. Live in a secret compound in another country. That’s how Bin Laden did it. Perhaps you could pose as a college English professor, or better yet as a liberal. They would never catch you then. Or, of course, you could just get serious about living in a Constitutional democracy with a lot of people who may or may not share your opinions or vote your way.

  23. Frank,
    I’m beginning to like your views more and more. Thanks for the re-assurance. As I wrote a couple of my legislators, I don’t eat, breathe and sleep 2nd Amendment, but I do believe in what it stands for. I love my country but I despise most of it’s leaders. If OBAMESSIAH and his WEATHERMEN (Yes they are still around) want to take my guns, then he will have a fight on his hands. I’m sure they know where I live. Of course I am one of those: Un Ed Gee Kated, In-bred, Gun Toten, Toothless, Rid Necked Southerners you heer bout all the time.
    BTW: Frank you are welcome at my house anytime.

  24. To KM Hines – I have a problem with a couple of things in your post. First, the gun deaths of “children” are made up of about 98% gang bangers. They consider anyone under the age of 18 to be a “child”. That blows away your views about gun safety issues.

    Next, it’s a good thing you told us all about them thar “hell faar miss isles” We uns didn’t rightly no about no fancy high falutin gadgets that these here government types have! I feel so much better after being lectured by you. No I don’t.

    Did you ever hear of “guerilla tactics”? They were used against us in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan to name a few. They can bring a much larger better equipped force to its knees. So don’t think that fighting the U.S. government is impossible because it isn’t.

    We outnumber the standing Army more than 50 to 1. Sure there would be lots of casualties but if anyone and I mean anyone at all tries to put me in a concentration camp – I WILL fight. The more likely scenario is that you may have to fight a local government like a corrupt sheriff’s department. That has already happened in this country in the last 75 years – several times.

    “They have most of our addresses” because of the stuff we post here. It sounds like you fear the government way more than we do. Can you imagine what different an outcome the revolutionary was would have taken if the founders were so afraid to talk about grievances – that they never did? We would all have Canadian accents today and would be saying “aye?” a lot.

    The things the Tyrant in Chief has just proposed are nothing short of ridiculous. Doctors will become snitches. A ban on what comprises at least 50% of all rifles in this country (Ars). A ban of anything bigger than 10 round magazines. Etc. etc.

    Hail the messiah!…… OBAMA! OBAMA !

    This will be my last post here. This blog has been nearly taken over by liberal progressives (just like the Democratic Party). I am weary of BS lies.

  25. To mike – that is a big lie about coming to your house to get your guns. The government is not supposed to be keeping a registry and if they did it would be a volation of federal law. The only thing they might have been doing is keeping a list of people who have purchased any kind of firearm thruogh the instant FBI background check from the Brady bill. If they were doing that we would know about it. They may eventually tell everyone to turn them in but that is very far-fetched. How would they go about collecting every gun in this country which numbers in the hundreds of millions? They can’t. I don’t know about you, but any call ro register I will ingor and the same with a call for a turn in. Obama and crew can go to hell.

  26. What happened in Newtown is a tragedy…but what if that crazy bastard had a butcher knife and hacked up 26 people….would our President (and I use that term loosely) be trying to ban all cutlery. No he wouldn’t. All he is trying to do is hurt law abiding Americans, criminals and crazys don’t care about laws. Now I might not have enough rounds to drop multiple attackers.I guess I will have to just put 1 in their head.

    A government big enough to give you anything you want is big enough to take everything you have – Thomas Jefferson

  27. MacBeth —

    It is difficult to discuss this issue with people who believe that they are arming themselves with AR15 rifles in order to defend themselves against a modern army. The United States military has drones and hellfire missiles, bunker-buster bombs, cluster bombs, sophisticated sensors, cruise missiles, helicopter gunships, heavy artillery, fully automatic weapons including Gatling guns that fire six thousand rounds of 20 millimeter ammunition a minute, excellent body armor, and well trained troops. They have the advantage of coordination and defensible supply lines. They also have most of your addresses because you persist in giving your location to sites like this so that you can express your opinions.

    If you really believe that the United States government is going to become murderous and tyrannical then horde ammunition, hide your guns and shut up. Burying your AR15 in a tube somewhere in the woods would have two excellent results. First, you would have it available for your heroic act of defiance if the events you fear really occur, and second it would be off the street if they do not.

    Your speculations about gun rights are just that — speculations. They are not supported by Supreme Court decisions, by history, or by existing laws. We have tested the theory that unfettered access to guns increases safety, and we are losing ten thousand lives a year as a price. Most of the gun deaths among children occur here, in the United States. We also have tested it in countries that are awash in tribal, ethnic, religious, or racial armed militias that drive death tolls far above what even we experience.

    This should not be a nation where who is right or wrong, who prevails or loses, is decided by firepower. We were created and have survived as a nation of laws. We defend ourselves against a tyrannical government by being the government. We protect against abuse of power by separating that power among the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court. We elect Representatives every two years, Senators every six years, and Presidents every four years. We then trust those people to represent our well being. We limit their power through a Constitution, and if we are dissatisfied with their actions we replace them.

    I believe that capital punishment is state-sanctioned murder. My government does not. I believe that fighting an unjust war is murder. My government does not. I believe that government surveillance without a warrant is unconstitutional. My government does not. It is still my government. If I were to try to prosecute my dissatisfaction with my government through a force of arms it would be called treason. If I killed people in the process it would be called murder.

    Keep guns for self defense, for hunting, for recreation, or just because you want to. I do. So do millions of other Americans. Then think about compromising with those who truly are disturbed by the destructive capability of a center fire, semiautomatic rifle or carbine with a detachable magazine or a semiautomatic handgun with a high capacity magazine. If you are worried about a “slippery slope” then consider that if we have the ability to stop control of those weapons then we certainly would have the ability to stop the control of more sensible weapons. If, on the other hand, we fight this battle and lose then we will have weakened our position for any defense of firearms. Consider supporting universal background checks. Surely you do not favor selling guns to the mentally ill, to criminals, or to terrorists.

    Constitutional rights are protected against abuse by the Supreme Court, which has decided that the right to keep and bear arms applies to individual citizens. It already has decided that some gun laws adopted by state or local governments are illegal. Although I see nothing that appears to be unconstitutional in what has been proposed by the President, my opinion also is pure speculation. I am certain that each requirement will get its day in court.

  28. I am pretty much done writing here. This is a huge waste of energy for me. I will now totally redirect my efforts to getting all of my friends, neighbors and anyone else that’ll listen to get loud and involved with their reps, senators and the President to let them know that what they do has become intolerable and unacceptable. While talking to an audience of people who agree with me makes me feel better, it does no good unless we let these ELECTED PUBLIC SERVANTS know who their boss is they will neither hear nor listen. If we don’t flood their offices with letters, emails, faxes, jam the phone switchboards and threaten them with recalls we may as well be tilting at windmills. We had better organize, and aim a concentrated beam of anger at them or I fear that they will use the cacophony and confusion to yank the Constitutional rug right out from under us. While it is good to donate to the NRA and other legitimate groups to represent us in Washington we also need to be personally involved. We need to make them hear us individually as well. If we show them that we are smart enough to find them without the aid of a large organization they’ll know that we mean business.. Time to get our crap together before it’s too late.

  29. Now that POTUS has pitched his 2nd Amendment plans, can anyone tell me or give me an idea of what is really going to happen? Should I be preparing myself for a visit from ATF or FBI? Should I start hiding my firearms? Including my .50cal Flintlock?

  30. Mike – don’t worry about ranting if you have something to say which you have done. The magazine ban may seem a harmless enough move now but it goes way deeper than what it seems at a superficial level. It will be the end of this country as we know it. If this sounds melodramatic just think about firepower in terms of a LEO. Cops have AR15s with 30 round mags. Why don’t they only have 10 rounders? Because: the threats they face have 30 rounders and then some, that’s why. It really depends on what part of the country you live in when it comes to your attitude towards this. The civilian is also faced with the same threats cops are. Why should civilians be at a disadvantage when they may be (and the odds are with that increasingly as time goes by – there are an estimated 1.4 million gang members in the U.S.) facing the same exact threat cops are? The fact is the number of deaths that can be attributed to high capacity mags is so small it defies logic as to how banning them will have any noticeable effect on safety. If you weigh the safety issue with the issue of taking needed firepower away from the populace there is no argument at all for the banning of “high capacity mags”. It is very clear. We will be giving up our country and our freedoms because of a few tragedies. What a pansy ass country we are turning into. It makes me sick. And don’t forget the same people who called us baby killers are now in power at the White House. As liberals, they are incapable of telling the truth. Good luck with the VA. Take it easy.

  31. I don’t currently own one of the long guns that are being the current prime targets, but I can see myself purchasing one and having it set up for multiple calibers. I have used rimfire gungs with higher capacity magazines to just shoot and have fun. If you are out in the field shooting, you may not want to carry two or three magazines or ammo to refill your magazines away from the house or vehicle. You just have to make sure that the area you are shooting in is safe and that there are barriers, man made or otherwise to protect those in surrounding areas (which is good practice regardless of the capacity of your firearm).

    To the point of
    There has been much conversation about why a person should be able to own a military style weapon because in their opinion it creates too big of a risk.
    If you think that military style weapons in too many hands will always result in someone doing something stupid or evil then check out Switzerland. If you have heard the following before please hang with me as others may not have read it.
    I double checked the information at lunch today, and the best information I could find indicates that PACIFIST country Switzerland still requires male citizens over 18 to go through military conscription. Part of this is firearms training, they are issued a fully automatic weapon (actually selective fire) that shoots the 5.56×45 Nato ammo. This is basically the same as the domestic .223 Remington ammo. They are required to keep the weapon at their residence while they are on active duty. Until 2007 they had to keep military ammo at home as well. The pictures of the military issue ammo appear to be regular ammo not preloaded magazines. So, they were issued at least one military magazine, and ammo is not that hard to obtain. When they finish their active service, they have the option of retaining their military issue weapon, it just has the automatic/selective fire mechanism removed and they have a semi-automatic weapon returned to keep in their house.
    So, they actually have actual military weapons under the control of the general public.
    Switzerland’s population in a 2007 census was less than 1 million people less than New York City’s population in the 2011 census. However, there were less than 100 murders involving firearms in Switzerland.
    Imagine that a pacifist country with full auto weapons in private residences and a low murder/death rate due to firearms. Why do we think eliminating them is the only way to control murders? Their laws for purchase of ammo and firearms does not appear to differ very much from what the USA already has in place. I know I am whipping a dead horse, but many of the places that have complex gun control laws have high crime and high murder rates.
    Some of you may want to investigate this on your own, there was some interesting analysis work on the data that showed what groups committed what percentage and type of crimes in 2010.

    Dave (midwest)

  32. KM Hines,
    In response to your post listed as #152, here is a copy of a letter I sent to My Congressional Delegation:
    A duly constituted body of Government Agents, under orders from the legitimate government moved to seize weapons and explosives from a self declared Militia. The Militia insurgents took position to block the Law Enforcement Agents access to the cache of military grade weapons and other materials. Suddenly, a shot rang out. The Date? April 19, 1775. The place? Near Concord, Massachusetts. So started the American Revolution. Now, two-hundred thirty-eight years later, the rights those Militiamen stood and fought for are under attack, all in the interest of making us “safe”.

    Make no mistake. Despite what is written in the history books about “no taxation without representation”, to the average colonist, it was not really an issue. Most bought little, if anything that was taxed. It took a certain income level to be one of those who purchased the items taxed, and the vast majority fell below it. The war started with gun control. Within six hours of word of the impending raid going out, it’s estimated that thirteen thousand men had assembled to resist the government. That’s without any modern electronic communications devices, remember. Thirteen thousand to stop a gun control raid.

    Senator Feinstein’s latest legislation ignores the wording of the Constitution when it says “shall not be infringed”. Remember, the Supreme Court has already ruled that “The right of the people to keep and bear arms” means just that The right of the people as individuals. Remember, also, that in Miller, the Supreme Court ruled that short barreled shotguns were not covered by the second amendment because, in essence, they were not military weapons. Senator Feinstein’s proposed legislation is, in fact an attempt to subvert the rights of the people, essentially an attempt to subvert the United States. As such, it come perilously close to an Act of War on the United States.

    Many conservative writers when covering the subject, and also many lawyers and judges who really should know better, speak of “Second Amendment Rights”. The right to keep and bear arms, are, in fact, not dependent upon the Second Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right, and is necessary to be able to enjoy the right to self defense. Like the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, they are fundamental rights. They, like the the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence are among the “self evident” rights. Are the rights to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” no longer in existence because they are not enumerated in the Constitution? All the rights enumerated still exist,even without the Bill of Rights. The US Constitution exists, not to grant rights, but to limit Government power. Strictly speaking, the term “Constitutional Rights” is a misnomer.

    Note also, when the Founding Fathers spoke of self defense, they didn’t mean just defense from common criminals. They also included self defense against the Government, and in their writings they show that they felt that the public, the people had the right to any weapons the military had, so as to be in a position to resist them. To think that they were not thinking in such terms is to ignore, not only their writings, but also the history of the preceding two decades.

    The whole Bill of Rights was considered superfluous by many of the Founding Fathers. It was insisted on by men who had the mindset of what, in this day and age, we would call a safety engineer. Belt and suspender types. Thank heaven for them. Writing under the name “A Pennsylvanian”, Tench Coxe, delegate from Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress was one of those men insisting upon that bill of rights. He wrote “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… [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” Notice that the “power of the sword” the right to keep and bear arms is not under the authority of the Federal OR State Governments, it resides with the people

    Our natural rights, fundamental rights, god given rights, call them what you will, have been under assault almost before the ink of the signatures on the Constitution was dry. Every branch of Government, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial, has attempted to limit the rights of the people, while enhancing their own power. They are, as a whole enemies of the people, and of individual liberty.

    It is time to remember your Oath of Office- “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”

  33. Frank,
    I appreciate the comment. I am not against giving up firepower. Matter of fact I actually own a couple of weapons (M1A Semi Auto, and 1911 Semi Auto that are on or soon to be labeled “Assault Weapons”) Weapons very similar to these saved my life more than once. I hope and pray I never have to use them to defend my life again but I will if I have to. And I am totally for LEO’s having as much if not more than the element they are sworn to protect us against I actually have a brother who is a police officer. He agrees with most if not all of the responsible gun owners. And would stand behind them from a LEO’s point of view. I too agree with your reference to the ban of the rifles. And I know these “Anti-gunners” especially our grand “Commander-In-Chief” will not be satisfied until our 2nd Amendment has been so basterized to their way of thinking that no one will be allowed to even posses a .22 single shot. I am not a politician. Never have been and never wanted to be. I guess I have to much of a conscience. Matter of fact, not playing politics cost me promotions and forced me to retire from teaching. I have always done what I was told to do, for the most part including go to a place and fight in a war I had mixed emotions about and then return home to be labeled a baby killer and war monger. I guess if it came down to me being classed a criminal because I defend the 2nd Amendment, then so be it. If the high capacity magazine ban can not be passed without attaching the rifles as well, then I stand with you Frank.
    BTW: The only time I actually played politics was when I was fighting the VA for my earned benefits. And I almost died in a VA Hospital doing that. Now C-I-C is threatening to cut those. I still love this country but despise its so-called leaders. Hope I didn’t rant and rave to much with this post?

  34. To Mike, Yes it makes sense. However, I am saddened when I hear a brother Vietnam vet say that they are willing to give up firepower for some unknown public safety benefit. When I got back to the states in 1970, I stood on a street corner in Chicago and observed a cop directing traffic with the old S&W 38 special on his hip. My first reaction was, “My God, how can he protect himself with that?” If we give up high capacity magazines (and let us be clear that the rifles those magazines fit in will be banned too) we give up the balance of power between the government and populace. At that point, if some despot wants to put you in a concentration camp, pack your bags (if they allow that). Another way to look at this is: If a cop needs an AR15 and 30 round (or bigger) magazines or a Glock 19 with 19 round magazines then I need them too. When seconds count the police are minutes (sometimes 20 minutes or more) away. Most cops know this and they are firmy behind people protecting themselves (regardless of what you hear on MSNBC (Pravda). What do you do if you have 4 or 5 armed gang bangers break into your house, plead for mercy? This is so simple I will never understand why anyone cannot get this. I hope the VA has taken care of you; they have done little for me.

  35. I am a responsible gun owner/shooter/hunter. I am a volunteer Hunter Safety Instructor and have been for many years. I served in Vietnam from 1973 through the fall of Saigon in 1975 actually dodging bullets/rpg’s etc while assisting with the evac of US personnel in Saigon. Unfortunately one of those rounds found my stomach and lower intestine. Even though I was seriously injured, by the grace of God I made it back home.

    Personally I don’t have any big objection to regulating large capacity magazines/clips. What I do have is a problem with our elected officials using tragic events such as the New town shootings to play on the sympathies of Americans to sway opinions. In my opinion this is not the democratic process of law making that I fought and almost died to protect. What also bothers me is the way politicians can turn a small adjustment to an already existing law/amendment in to a larger adjustment that only lawyers and politicians can understand. Then the democratic process is no longer. I hope this comment makes sense?

  36. To KM Hines- Wow, I don’t know where to begin. You are probably the most ignorant and misinformed individual that I have ever had the displeasure of conversing with. If anyone is a parrot, it is you, KM Hines. You repeat things that liberals AKA communists have promoted for at least 50 years. Their view of the Second Amendment is that it doesn’t mean what is says and it is an outdated document that was written by a bunch of white racist slave owners. I have even heard a “journalist” say that Thomas Jefferson was quoted as stating that “future generations should no more be held to the same constitution, as one would be held to the britches they wore as a child”! This is pure bullshit and the idiots that call themselves “journalists” know that it is pure bullshit. Do they care about lying? Hell no. That’s what liberals do. You guys don’t have any valid points and your ideas suck so that’s what you are pushed to do. That’s why liberals are the nastiest people in the world. They are very similar to communists when it comes to being nasty. I saw firsthand what communists have to resort to, in order to court the sentiments of the population they control. They would go into a farming village and drag out whoever they thought was the leader. They would then shoot him in the head, execution style and hang the body upside down for all to see. This was a common thing in all areas of Vietnam. This is what idiots resort to when they don’t have any real solutions or ideas that work. It is very obvious to me that you, just as all liberals do, are interpreting the constitution to conform with YOUR ideas. The Second Amendment guarantees that the citizen has the God given (or nature if you also have a hang up on that which most libs do) right to possess and carry small arms comparable to whatever the official Army Infantry weapons happens to be at the time. This includes fully automatic rifles and if the Army has 150 round magazines then the citizen has the right to them too! We submit to background checks and the need to have a class 3 FFL to own machine guns because we understand responsibility. Technically, though things like background checks and class 3 FFLs are infringements as are any “waiting periods” and a host of other government imposed laws we adhere to. This is what the Second Amendment says. It has been proven over and over again by constitutional scholars and that’s what the original intent and in the context of the situation at the time it was written. If you don’t like that, get it repealed. The gun poll taken by Glenn Beck’s showed that 99% of almost 5 million participants said they believed the SA was to protect citizens from an oppressive government. But I guess you think they are all wrong and you are right? Radioactive dirt bombs? Oh Please, go out and grow a brain and post something that actually makes sense. By the way, whatever kind of shooting you do, your buddies in the current administration may just put a stop to that, soon. When did I say anything about shooting police officers if they came for my guns? How do you know that I am not a police officer? I guess I would have to shoot myself if I resisted! That is also an insult but I consider the source – an ignorant liberal like you.

  37. FRANK: I am a liberal, and I post here for several reasons. First, I also am a shooter and I have visited this site for years as a customer. Second, this is an excellent site to share views with other shooters. Finally, I do so because I want to. Just like you.

    I want my fellow shooters to understand that there are millions of people in the U.S. who disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the applicability of the second amendment. Such disagreements are not unusual. You probably have friends who disagree with Roe vs. Wade, Miranda, and many Court decisions that interpret the first amendment as prohibiting sponsored prayer in public schools. Court rulings do not end disagreement, but merely clarify legal requirements.

    I post on this site to say that even those of us who believe that the right to bear arms applies to individual citizens do not necessarily believe that it is a right with no restrictions and an invitation to be irresponsible. Nearly everyone believes there is a limit to the destructive capability available to individuals. Radioactive dirt bombs, nuclear artillery shells, mustard gas, weaponized viruses and land mines must be able to be restricted even under the Supreme Court’s second amendment ruling. It is no more illegal to ban fully automatic and semiautomatic center fire weapons fed by detachable magazines or belts than to ban those other weapons. In short, you are overstating the scope of the second amendment as interpreted by the Roberts Court. That decision left open the right of the federal, state, and local governments to limit weapons in ways that could be tested legally after their adoption. You also are acting as if today’s interpretation will last forever. Court rulings sometimes are overturned by future Courts, and Constitutional provisions are sometimes changed by future amendments.

    Our nation is now assessing whether to limit the kinds of weapons that are legally available to individuals, the individuals to whom the right to bear arms applies, and the procedures we will use to enforce those restrictions. Any decision we make will be subject to legal challenge and review. When that process is completed each person must decide, as with any other law, whether to abide by its mandates or disobey it.

    I have heard just like you the “cold dead hands” speech. While it sounds noble, what it means is that you will disobey laws adopted through a democratic process and kill police officers who are performing their duty to enforce them. You are saying that you do not believe in the nation that hundreds of thousands of Americans have died to maintain or the government created by our Constitution. If that happens, Frank, you will not be a hero, any more that a person killing police officers to protect his cache of poison gas would be a hero today. You will be a traitor and a criminal.

  38. Beating a dead horse is such a waste of energy and resources. All of this writing here should be redirected to the people in power who seem to think that we are their property. Gun owners as well as any right minded (Constitutionally minded) citizen should be raising cane with them about all of the policies that they seem to think they can ram down our throats. Wake up folks and let them know by flooding their offices with faxes, letters and emails and don’t forget to jam the switchboards as well. Get busy before it’s too late. Nothing is more irritating than to read all of the valid complaints an concerns knowing that many will not go beyond an audience that mostly agrees with them. It’s alright to seek validation for your opinions but it does no good unless you let those in power that you are paying attention.

  39. To Ken: I just have one question for you: What did you hope to accomplish by stating that “your friend” (not you – of course) said that anyone wanting to possess an AR15 type rifle was just “an ego thing”. I hate to say it Ken (if that is your real name) but that sounds like BS right off the bat. That’s exactly what liars do: they redirect any possible wrath their controversial comments might make to some distant third party. Any police detective will tell you that this is a common tactic of the not-so-honest subject. OK, let’s put that aside and assume you really do have that friend. Do you agree with him? You have not said so one way or the other so far. It is hard to believe that you do not have an opinion about this since you are the one writing this post! I submit to you that this is your idea; your manifesto so to speak, about the correctness of so-called “assault weapons” being in the hands of civilians. Since you made the statement, even if it was indeed someone else that initially made that statement, YOU are responsible for the content! If you didn’t want to take responsibility for stating that, then you should have kept your fingers off the keyboard! Making statements to the effect that AR15 (and all the other rifles in the same category) are owned by a bunch of egotistical freaks you just want to play out a Rambo movie with a real rifle is beyond insulting. In fact, thems fightin words! I cannot believe that anyone who actually understands the Second Amendment could think that way. In fact, it is the very people who despise the SA and all it stands for are the ones doing that. A liberal that believes in the SA? That’s a contradiction in terms if there ever was one. That’s not what liberals believe in. They believe the SA protects our right to hunt! And not much else! If you think you are a liberal but really like the SA, you may not be a liberal after all! I am wondering why any liberal would even post something here. The only reason I can think of is that you guys are just trying to get anyone who may be on the fence and possibly pull them over to your side. Good luck with that! And to all you true libs out there: Have a crappy day!

  40. TO KEN F. — You probably realize by now that having an opinion on this site different from the NRA and its minions not only makes you a liberal (perish the thought) and a socialist, but also a liar about your experience with and possession of guns. Ignore the parrots and post what you want. You are not the one being offensive. Thank you for your point of view and your respectful presentation.

    As for myself, I remain a life-long liberal and a life-long shooter. I have never found the two to be in conflict.

  41. To Frank,
    I really don’t owe you any explanation but thought you deserved one considering you went to all the trouble to call me a “liberal troll” by injecting my “socialist rhetoric” into this blog.
    My fantasy friend has been a member of IDPA since 2007 and shoots in their events every month.
    As far as the “patriots” on this blog, my idea of a patriot is someone who feels strongly and cares enough about his country to serve in its armed forces, not someone who listens to individuals like Alex Jones and everything that they type is right out of his mouth.
    To those of you, on this blog, who are x-military or are currently serving, as I did, this was NOT aimed at you! You have my respect and admiration.

  42. Good Morning Dave. I agree with absolutely everything you said in that last post. The armys stupidity of wanting to close down the tank manufacturing facilities to “save money” shows how little the gov’t understands business and manufacturing. Once you shut a manufacturing business down its gone. A perfect example is the space program. Nasa has discussed starting up the Saturn V program again but cant because the technology to build it doesnt exist anymore. The engineering knowledge is gone. Nasa sends engineers to the space center in Huntsville to study the Sat V’s and components to try to figure them out. You close down the gun companies and they will be gone forever and we will be buying our guns from China.

    Just as a note the (hopefully I havent killed to many brain cells since I had all of my military history classes years ago) rifle wasn’t new at the time of the revolution. The euro armys didnt want them because rifled firearms were more expensive, slower to produce AND they were slower to reload. Muskets shot a ball that was smaller than the inside diameter of the barrels and required a patch sufficiently large enough to ensure a seal but are still quickly loaded. They felt volume of fire was the formula for success. The rifle fired a Ball slightly larger than the diameter between the lands so it had to forced down. Rest is history. Technology changes but the words and the meaning of the constitution hasnt.

  43. DB
    Yes, I agree that they did mention about shooting in mass and that they set up in columns so one row could give cover fire while the others reloaded in a crouch, or something along that line.

    What I was trying to get across is that the rifled guns were superior accuracy wise and if I remember correctly a fairly new development. That I believe may have helped due to our French connections during the war. The colonists did not have a problem with civilian or civilian soldiers owning and possessing the latest technology and keeping in their residence.

    Some people are arguing that citizens do not have a right to own these high tech guns and that basically there is no basis for that view point. This would tend to point to the contrary or the framers of the Constitution would have stated that you could only have smooth bores, shotguns, etc.

    With today’s development in California, shot guns will rapidly be added to the wish list. As far as I know it is too early to know exactly what type of shotgun was used in today’s high school shooting.

    Good luck to us all and keep the faith. I feel we have a tough road ahead of us and if there are changes in the structure of the Supreme Court I think there we be no stopping some people. We just have to try and keep the courts involved and hope that enough law makers continue to see that although deaths involving firearms make good news for the networks, there are far more kids dying every year by multiple causes that the general populous will not stand for.

    Oh, looking at our National Security:
    Looking back to what I have read/been told about WW2 we had one key thing that stopped the Axis Forces.
    US manufacturing might, the Resident President said that some manufacturing jobs have left the US forever. We need to focus on the high tech jobs that are now developing.
    People are now trying to get rid of or at least reduce the amount of civilian arms available. So if Remington, Savage, Winchester, and various other arms manufacturers cease to exist or are a fraction of what they are today. Who will supply the large number of weapons our country might need in a major conflict? Who will make the shoes, clothes, bandages, and other supplies that would be required. The Resident President seems to believe that there will be enough good will he can bank on someone supplying us, or he seems to believe that there will Never be a major conflict. Isn’t that why Japan, Germany and others were able to build up arms and technologies while the we maintained armories of obsolete or old technology?
    Just wondering how many others out there see this as well?

    Dave (Midwest)

  44. @ Ken F.
    Being in the industry, I actually have many friends who hunt with ARs — in many calibers to ensure the platform is appropriate to the species being hunted. MSRs are even finding their way to Africa for big game, dangerous game.
    If you look to every popular rifle through history it got its start as a military weapon. It is a natural progression for members of the military to want to own something they served with, relied on and defended our freedoms with. In the past that was possible. There was no worry of an ex-military member owning an M-14, M-1, Remington 700 or Springfield 1903 – although all of these weapons are more powerful than modern day MSRs. Actually, if you look back to the rhetoric of the day, many of these platforms were questioned particularly the Remington 700 and Winchester Model 70 where dubbed sniper rifles with no place in a civilian market.
    However, today’s M-16 or M4 does have fully automatic capability and is illegal in most states. The next closest platform is the MSR. It looks very similar and feels very similar; it gives that sense of nostalgia people are longing for.
    Because this platform is most common in .223, it is not truly a matter of power. If it was, there are many more powerful calibers. Your issue seems to be with capacity. Your point, about YOUR neighborhood is likely true. But not everyone lives in your neighborhood. Being a gun owner means making rational, informed decisions. Your neighborhood may not be the place to use a MSR for home defense. That being said, just because it does not fit your situation, is not reason enough to limit everyone’s ownership.
    I have been to the range and watched a 90-year-old man’s face light up. He came alive with stories and memories of his service in the War to End All Wars at the sight of weapons that were familiar to him; guns that were the most modern and devastating of its day. Today is no different. It has never been the weapon that was the problem; it has always been a question of how the person used it… ~ Dave Dolbee

  45. To ken: There is more to socialism than curbing free speech. The founders considered RTKABA number two on the list of essential rights. I never said I thought 20% of the people on this blog were ex-military. Read my post one more time and you will see that. I still think your story is fabricated. People that shoot in competion know about the various categories such as: High Power Rrifle (largely done with AR15s these days)and “3 gun” (done with sidearms, shotguns and yes those evil AR15s). What I meant about patriots making up this blog is: They all know what I just had to explain to you.

  46. Thats your opinion Mr Hines. I am intollerant of people who have zero intellectual integraty. You whine and snivile and cry about owning an AR and all the noise it makes whe you shoot it. If your neighbors are complaining about the noise then you need to go to jail for discharging a firearm in the city limits. You seek to take away my rights and the rights of millions of other people who are breaking no laws. You pretend to be someone your not and expect myself and other to just shut up and be good little subjects to be oppressed as people like you see fit. You wish to do feel good stuff while ignoring the true problems this country faces. You and your ilk like to play your games showing people how brilliant you are but you cant even keep facts straight. Example Colorado Theater shooting. The guy passed by several theaters to get the the gun frr zone threater, you and your ilk started going on about ARs needing to be banned to stop this mass slaughter and obama got on tv ranting about why do we need AK-47s. Funny isnt it that the guy used a 12 gauge shotgun but you never want to bring that up because it doesnt fit your storyline. It has a tube and not a magazine (BTW Clips havent been used in a US Army rifle since the M-1)to load rounds in. And I am still waiting to find out for sure what the Conn shooter used cause the cops reported the AR he took was found in his car.
    Our country is bankrupt and our politicians waste time trying to take away a constitutional right rather than deal with our countries debts and economy. Now that is the true crime of the century.

  47. -Constantly asserting that we have Constitutional protection that extends to any and all weapons, or that we will refuse to comply with federal and state laws, or that we will kill police officers who attempt do their jobs by enforcing a legally adopted ban on such weapons does not make us revolutionary heroes. It makes us criminals.

    Funny that sounds just like a pre WW2 German or Ukrainian. My wife is Ukrainian and after the Conn. school murders she voiced her anti gun feelings. She has undergone a change of heart after I asked her a simple question. If the 10,000,000 Ukrainians that Stalin murdered in mass had been armed do you think Stalin would have been able to murder them? And why after WW2 did Stalin not do anymore wholesale slaughtering of his people? Probably because they were armed to the teeth.

    You automatically assume if someone has one of these weapons they are going to kill a cop. I could say the same about police cars. Justa as many cops are killed by their own cars as any other way. You parse words and interpret the constitution in a way to suit your views but I submit the coma which seperates the sentence fragments seperates the meanings and intent also. You are also reading it as modern english and not as it was spoken or interpretes over 200 years ago

  48. Dave, Just wanted to correct your history a little. The Brits didnt line up in a gentleman manner they lined up because the smoothbore muskets were so inaccurate that they had to mass their firepower to insure someone actually got hit. I have read accounts where a volley was fired and no one was hit! True that was probably very rare but it is possible. Cannon inflicted the most casualties and did so at longer ranges and thats how they got the name in the army as “The King Of Battle”. The americans with their rifles adopted gorilla or saper tactics of harrasing the Brits with accurate long range fires simply because they didnt have the manpower, equipment or training to attack using traditional warefare until later in the war. One of the things the Brits hated about the snipers was “The Americans have a disturbing tendency to target officers”. The brits still faught with the understanding that only officers were supposed to engage other officers in direct combat.

    Unfortunately the army of the europe continued to fight in these same massed formations which resulted in the wholesale slaughter of soldiers from the Revolutionary War through WW1. Weapons changed but tactics didnt. The US finally learned its lesson after the Civil War and by the start of WW1 had developed the same light infantry tactics we still use today. Unfortunately by the time we entered the war it had digressed to a static trench warfare. Massed troops crossed open battle fields and sometimes died in the thousands in a day. Thats why Pershing refused to allow his troops to be used as reinforcements for the euro armies.
    When I was in the Infantry Officers Basic Course in the very early 80s one of the other Lts showed me his Great Grandfathers Infantrymans handbook from when he was there at Benning for training. It showed the same wedge formmations, overwatch, bounding overwatch etc.

  49. Ken,
    There are a lot of things we dont need but few are protected by the constitution. Changing the constitution is a very bid deal and the founding fathers felt the right of the citizens to keep and bare arms was so important that is was put at the top of the list. If you so casually toss out your rights it wont be long before you no longer have rights.
    What I cant figure out is why so many people would go to war and kill people to protect a womans right to butcher her unborn child, which BTW is not in the constitution (the Courts said it was part of her right to privacy), yet the same people will try to deny everyone the right to defend themselves from those that are bigger, stronger, meaner etc which is in the constitution.

    Further a gun owner has the “right” to privacy and LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. I fail to see how a person who was brutally beaten and/or murdered is morally superior to someone who shot and killed his attacker. I’ll let God sort that one out but I’m confident on on the correct side.

  50. Robin, Your comment on why is our gov’t afraid of us have high capacity magazines is an excellent point. Most people truly do not believe they will need a high capacity mag because the US will be invaded(You guys living on the southern Border are excluded from that last sentence). However those of you who have never been deer hunting and gotten buck fever or have been in combat have no idea what the adrenaline and scared to death rush will do to your accuracy. Truly bad people arent going to be scared off by wild shots.

    Many years ago when I was a young 2LT. Inf type and old snake eater took me to what would now be called an urban assault range he built and gave me some really good lessons and a few kick in the pants when I didnt listen. One of the things he told me was “You dont kill people for a living….these are going to be the mistakes you will make………………and this is why you’re going to do this………… One of the things he pointed out is that during a home invasion very few people have the presence of mind to grab a spare mag or extra rounds and if they shoot indiscriminately they are soon out of ammo and out of luck. High capacity mags take care of that problem. And if you live in or near an urban environment do you have what is needed to keep the mob away in the event of a riot or looting? Do you truly trust the police to be able to protect you? There aren’t enough cops to do that and you’re going to be on your own. After Hurricane Sandy I had 8 cops sitting in front of my house to deter looters. A deer was hit by a car, walked through my yard and died on my front porch in front of my door. These 8 Cops were less than 30′ away and they didnt even see it. If they cant protect me from a wounded deer what makes you think they could do anything in a riot or other disaster when their main goal will be to protect the mayor and the city infrastructure. And in case youe wondering no my wife wouldnt let me dress out the deer:-)

    Lots of things need regulating in this country far more than our 2nd amendment rights. How about regulating how long a person can be in office.

  51. To Frank.

    Believe what you will. Socialistic rhetoric? There is NO debate about my or your freedom of speech! Call it whatever you want but we are BOTH entitled to our opinion!

    There IS however, a debate about the Second Amendment and how it applies to all of us today. I seriously doubt that 20% of the “patriots” on this blog have ever served their country, in any capacity. What exactingly is your description of a “patriot”?

    The dictionary says: “A patriot is someone who feels a strong support for his or her country.”

  52. Hi KenF,
    That competitive shooter is probably new or in a very soft environment , after the Rodney King Riots there were Korean Businesses right in the path of the mobs , would have been ransacked and worse would have happened to the women, except they had men with semi-auto rifles on the rooftops firing warning shots, select streets were barricaded and men armed with semi-auto pistols were shooting over the heads of rioters to warn them off, This was modern day America and not difficult to imagine happening again, paranoid is only a word that is correct till the event happens then everyone will say “Dude!Well, you should have known better and been prepared, dummy”.
    Oh!The LEO’s…. did show up much later!

  53. There is another issue that may have been covered previously in other posts but, here it goes.

    If the information I read is correct the British Battle Rifles were smooth bores of a large caliber. Also, the British had our soldiers out numbered on the battle field.

    The colonists had Rifled Muskets in various calibers. The advantage was that a rifled barrel could accurately engage the opposition at longer ranges thereby negating some of the advantage to increased numbers. The other thing in this mix was our use of tactics adopted from Native Americans, instead of the European gentleman’s way of lining up and lobbing lead at each other followed by charges and hand to hand combat.

    So the colonists were armed with a new technology, but they were not as close to a mass produced item with semi interchangeable parts.

    Dave (in the Midwest)

  54. I will try to keep this short.
    I do not agree with everything that the NRA has to say, however for those of you that do not think that the current administration has something else in mind I hope I can find the video footage from the end of an interview or debate from his first campaign.
    When he was asked his opinion of how the second amendment applied to a persons right to keep and bear arms his reply was, That it had not been tested in court. So he believes in the second amendment, just not that it applies to a person’s right to keep and bear arms. I have been searching for the footage but it apparently was cleared out off the internet.

    Dave (in Midwest)

  55. The right to keep and bear arms is a provision of the U.S. Constitution. In its entirety it says “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.”

    For many years there was a debate on whether the right conferred by this portion of the Bill of Rights referred only to state militias, which conceivably could challenge an abuse of federal authority. Given the wording of the amendment and the strong preference of many delegates to construct a loose federation of strong independent states, such an interpretation certainly was within reason. The Supreme Court recently settled that debate, however, by declaring that the right evolved to the individual citizen.

    SCOTUS did not, however, preclude the enactment of controls over firearms. There is no evidence, for example, that the federal or state governments could not prohibit the sale or possession of certain weapons. In fact, such limits already exist. You will not find rocket propelled grenades or anti-aircraft missiles for sale at your local gun store. The second amendment, even as recently interpreted, does not preclude denying public access to such weapons.

    We have access to AR15s through the acquiescence of our fellow citizens and our elected officials. Banning their sale or possession would be no more of an infringement of the second amendment than banning deadly chemicals or high explosives. Constantly asserting that we have Constitutional protection that extends to any and all weapons, or that we will refuse to comply with federal and state laws, or that we will kill police officers who attempt do their jobs by enforcing a legally adopted ban on such weapons does not make us revolutionary heroes. It makes us criminals.

  56. Modern Sporting Rifles, even though they look like an assault rifle, are of course completely different. And if the purpose of the 2nd amendment were just to provide home defense or hunting rifles then that distinction would make a difference but since it was to provide weapons to enable the citizens with the wherewithall to resist a despotic government then not just MSRs but Assault rifles and all the other weapons controlled by the 1934 GCA as well as those pulled out of the gun market or regulated so that the government knows where they are should be available. I know this is a red meat idea that will drive the left wing crazy but we have to remember that this was written in the years following Americans revolting against British rule. The declaration of independence set forth clearly that this was a right for any people who are oppressed by their government.

    I don’t think we are there but if we wait until despots take away all these rights it will be too late. Government in the US has long ago ceased to represent the people. Both parties have their own interests that they represent instead of the people who elected them. The democrats look for any excuse to try and take away our rights. It is up to us to be able to fight back against them and to insist that our rights not be infringed upon by the government whether its the feds, the state or local government. Hopefully my generation will pass without the need for us to ever rise up. I hope the same applies for my son and hopefully when he has kids they will live without this. It is less likely to happen if the citizens stand up for their rights.

  57. Hi Robin,
    The issue IS, why anyone would need a 30 or 100 round “magazine” (Sorry Dave 🙂 If your hunting anything, why would you need that much firepower? If you can’t bring a deer, or whatever your hunting, down with a couple of shots, you either need to sight your scope in or bury your rifle in the back yard and give up hunting.

    Hi Steven,
    My friend has a couple of “Assault” (sorry again Dave 🙂 MSR’s that he uses in competition.
    As for the NRA, it’s spokesman, Wayne LaPierre comes off to me, as a person slightly more sane than Alex Jones. I think the NRA could do a lot better than Wayne LaPierre as its spokesperson. And, no, I am not a member.
    England had a gun related death toll of 35 last year while ours here was almost 12,000. You do the math.

    Hi Dave,
    Thanks for the rational comment.
    The general public does not care if the MSR’s used in Colorado or Connecticut have multiple modes of fire, all they know is it is very deadly, however it is used, and they do not see the need for having all that firepower for a “sporting” rifle.
    Honestly Dave, you seem very knowledgeable, how many of your friends go hunting with their MSR, AR15? You cut loose with an AR15 in my neighborhood, you might hit the intruder and 5 other people, up to 100 yards away.
    If some armed moron breaks into my house, the first thing he will see is a little red dot on his chest, followed by the impact (Please don’t tell me about battery life :). If 5 of them break in, wearing body armor, I will quietly lay down my gun and put my hands up. Whether I get 1 or 2 of then is irrelevant.. what are the odds of that happening?

  58. TO DB COOPER — You become very uncomfortable and aggressive when confronted with opinions different from your own. You also are very territorial, insisting that those who are not like you not share your space. You have unrealistic expectations, and a grandiose, unwarranted opinion of your own knowledge and abilities. You are confrontational and belligerent, and it is unclear how much more threatening you might be in person.

    Of all the people I have interacted with over many years, you are the one I am least comfortable with having access to guns. I can only hope that your ranting online is more of an act than a fact.

  59. Politicians will say or do anything to stay in DC. They are among the least intelectually endowded humans. They should be putting safety measures in place at schools aimed at stopping terrorist attacks. The Arabs knew how to hurt the Israeli’s – kill their children, so the Israeli response was to teach their educators how to effectively use weapons, and then they armed them. Arabs came, got shot to pieces and were dead, shortly – end of problem. Why didn’t that nut case in Conn. go to shoot up a police station instead?? He knew that “GUN FREE SCHOOL ZONE” was posted outside the building and that he could get in to kill as many as he wanted, even if he had a single action old west Colt 45. What a completely absurd action – advertising outside of a building that there is nothing anyone in there can do to stop you if you have a gun. Why not just say “Come on in and kill us all!” Does Sens. Schumer, Feinstein, et al. have “Gun Free House” signs posted on their front lawns, NO, because what’s good enough for them is NOT good enough for us, and they want to TAKE EVERY gun from us. Look at the UK – now they are considering a ban on butcher knives? What’s next? – baseball bats? There is NO REPUTABLE RESEARCH that proves reducing guns, magazines, flash supressors, or bayonet lugs reduces crime – NONE! All the Brady “Facts” are smoke and mirrors. Gang-bangers considered as ‘children’?? More nonsense from them. The “Assault Weapons Ban” of 1994 expired in 2004 because it did NOTHING to reduce crime, per FBI stats. If the Mexicans can dig train sized tunnels under the US border to smuggle drugs and people (and maybe some of those ‘Fast and Furious’ guns), crash planes in the desert and unload the contraban, do those morons in DC think any gun law will stop them from smuggling guns from the old Soviet Satelite States?

    An armed society is a polite society, and God created man and woman, but Colt made them equal.

    I believe that I saw a news clip of a police officer taking that Bushmaster AR-15 out of the trunk of the car AFTER the shooting in Conn. Does anyone have any real, valid statistics on how many guns were there (3 or 4?), which guns fired the most rounds? How many empty shell casings of each caliber were recovered, as well as bullets? How many people were killed with each weapon? Don’t you think we should have this information before we go on a Bushmaster witch hunt?

  60. To Ken F. We need them to protect ourselves against gangs (1.4 million members and growing), organized crime and our own government. Every time I hear some idiot who is supposed to be “competition shooter” say something ridiculous like “it’s an ego thing” I cringe. Only 20% of the population fought in the Revolutionary War. Now some 200 years later the people who resemble the 80% that were too chickenshit to pick up a gun are now objecting to all the freedoms the original 20% fought and died for. I am tired of all the liberal trolls trying to inject their socialist rhetoric in a blog that is made up of patriots. I don’t believe your story, Ken. I think it is pure fantasy.

  61. Here is a copy of a letter I recently sent to my Congressional Delegation. It should answer your questions and clear up some misconceptions

    A duly constituted body of Government Agents, under orders from the legitimate government moved to seize weapons and explosives from a self declared Militia. The Militia insurgents took position to block the Law Enforcement Agents access to the cache of military grade weapons and other materials. Suddenly, a shot rang out. The Date? April 19, 1775. The place? Concord, Massachusetts. So started the American Revolution. Now, two-hundred thirty-eight years later, the rights those Militiamen stood and fought for are under attack, all in the interest of making us “safe”.

    Make no mistake. Despite what is written in the history books about “no taxation without representation”, to the average colonist, it was not really an issue. Most bought little, if anything that was taxed. It took a certain income level to be one of those who purchased the items taxed, and the vast majority fell below it. The war started with gun control. Within six hours of word of the impending raid going out, it’s estimated that thirteen thousand men had assembled to resist the government. That’s without any modern electronic communications devices, remember. Thirteen thousand to stop a gun control raid.

    Senator Feinstein’s latest legislation ignores the wording of the Constitution when it says “shall not be infringed”. Remember, the Supreme Court has already ruled that “The right of the people to keep and bear arms” means just that The right of the people as individuals. Remember, also, that in Miller, the Supreme Court ruled that short barreled shotguns were not covered by the second amendment because, in essence, they were not military weapons. Senator Feinstein’s proposed legislation is, in fact an attempt to subvert the rights of the people, essentially an attempt to subvert the United States. As such, it come perilously close to an Act of War on the United States.

    Many conservative writers when covering the subject, and also many lawyers and judges who really should know better, speak of “Second Amendment Rights”. The right to keep and bear arms, are, in fact, not dependent upon the Second Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right, and is necessary to be able to enjoy the right to self defense. Like the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, they are fundamental rights. They, like the the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence are among the “self evident” rights. Are the rights to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” no longer in existence because they are not enumerated in the Constitution? All the rights enumerated still exist,even without the Bill of Rights. The US Constitution exists, not to grant rights, but to limit Government power. Strictly speaking, the term “Constitutional Rights” is a misnomer.

    Note also, when the Founding Fathers spoke of self defense, they didn’t mean just defense from common criminals. They also included self defense against the Government, and in their writings they show that they felt that the public, the people had the right to any weapons the military had, so as to be in a position to resist them. To think that they were not thinking in such terms is to ignore, not only their writings, but also the history of the preceding two decades.

    The whole Bill of Rights was considered superfluous by many of the Founding Fathers. It was insisted on by men who had the mindset of what, in this day and age, we would call a safety engineer. Belt and suspender types. Thank heaven for them. Writing under the name “A Pennsylvanian”, Tench Coxe, delegate from Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress was one of those men insisting upon that bill of rights. He wrote “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… [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” Notice that the “power of the sword” the right to keep and bear arms is not under the authority of the Federal OR State Governments, it resides with the people

    Our natural rights, fundamental rights, god given rights, call them what you will, have been under assault almost before the ink of the signatures on the Constitution was dry. Every branch of Government, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial, has attempted to limit the rights of the people, while enhancing their own power. They are, as a whole enemies of the people, and of individual liberty.

    It is time to remember your Oath of Office- “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”

  62. There are many reasons to own a Modern Sporting Rifle, MSR, AR-15. First, let’s get a couple terms straight none of the aforementioned rifles are assault weapons. By definition, an assault weapon is capable of multiple modes of fire including semi-automatic and fully-automatic fire. The MSR by any name does not meet the definition; it is a creation of the anti-gun lobby and media to brand the MSR as something it is not — to make it sound worse than it is in reality.

    Second, I imagine you mean a magazine not a clip. The two are radically different and do not serve the same function — although the media likes to interchange the terms. I am sure if you carry a semi-automatic, it uses a magazine and not a clip. While this may seem petty or splitting hairs, it is exactly why MSRs are demonized as “assault weapons.”

    For the most part I agree with you with your premise that people do not need more than a 10-round magazine. However, there are many things in this world we do not need. Every modern car I know of will go faster than any speed limit in the United States… We do not legislate by what we “need” or do not “need.” But that really digresses from the point you are inquiring about.

    While I do not believe there is one perfect weapon for home defense, I believe each brings certain advantages. A handgun is easiest to wield in tight spaces. The shotgun gives the most margin of error in aim and the MSR offers the highest capacity, rate of fire and is most likely to defeat an intruder wearing body armor.

    Often in a hostile situation everything will be settled in a couple of shots. What if the next situation you or your family was threatened was not typical? I do not want to have to stop to reload just because under the pressure of an intruder breaking in during the middle of the night caused my first few shots to go astray.

    Let’s say the first shots hit. What if the threat, or worse multiple threats, were not neutralized in the first five or even 10 shots?

    In the end it boils down to this single fact. If I am not intending to commit a felonious act, it does not matter how many rounds I choose to carry for self-defense or sporting purposes. If I am lawful, there is no reason to limit capacity or commonly accepted calibers of guns. If however, an individual intends on some sort of mayhem, laws and bans will not deter them. There are already plenty of weapons and magazines already in public hands — Over 20,000 laws regulating guns.

    The last Crime Bill (1994-2004) did nothing to curb the murder or violent crime rates. I live and bleed the Second Amendment. If I truly believed passing a law would protect people, I would give up certain rights, but the fact of the matter is this is nothing but a distraction. It puts another lock on the front door while leaving all of the widows of the home wide open. It blames an amoral object for the actions of immoral people by punishing law abiding gun owners. For if criminals obeyed the laws they would not be criminals in the first place! ~ Dave Dolbee

  63. Your ‘friend’ feels that since they are not going after his type of weapon, then there’s no problem. Taking away any type of firearm is really just small steps to removing all firearms. The NRA is right on this one, and recent history shows that this is exactly what happens. Do you think we’re different than these countries?
    England, Scotland, Australia, South Africa….

  64. The original intent of the Second Amendment is to protect yourself from a tyrantical government. Hunting had nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms. Those in power should be afraid of citizens, not the other way around.

    The issue is not why you need a 30 round magazine, but why would the government be afraid that you have one. 10, 20, 30, or even 100 round magazines since they do not change the way the firearm works.

    The modern sporting rifle is just that. The are efficient and reliable tools. Easy to use, accurate, and require very little training to use effectively. That’s what you want in a firearm.

    They are extremely versatile. Need a .22lr for introducing a new shooter, then use a conversion kit. Want to shoot indoors, but your range won’t allow centerfire rifles? Replace your upper with a 9mm setup. Bigger game? 50 Beowolf or .458 Socom. One receiver, multiple uses.

  65. It’s sad that some of the comments here, sound like they are tight out of Alex Jones’ mouth.

    I asked a friend of mine, who is a competition shooter, why anyone, other than those who shoot competition, would want or need to own an “Assault” weapon. His answer was “it’s an ego thing.”

    Can any rational person, without screaming or cursing, calmly explain why anyone would want or need one? I have already heard all the NRA rhetoric so please don’t repeat “they are trying to take all our guns away.”

    There are .223 rifles that will do a fine job when shooting Ground Hogs and have only a 10 round clip. As a gun owner, with a CWP, who carries all the time, I’m curious what those of you who can speak rationally on the subject, have to say.

  66. Mike, I’m not sure if one was used or not. There were so many conflicting reports. One said the cops found the AR in his car so that would mean he used the 2 pistals.

    In CO the guy shot everyone with a 12 gauge but the news media said he shot them with an AR and Obama claimed on TV he used an AK-47!

  67. Not sure if this is the right forum but can someone in the know inform me as to whether or not an assault rifle/weapon was actually used in the Newtown, Conn shooting? Seems I can’t get a straight answer.

  68. KM you are lying about owning a rifle. You whine about owning it but you say you still do own it. So if you really did own it you would have already sold it. Using your screwed up logic then we need to get ride of cars (as I said before)as they butcher 40,000 americans annually! Go troll somewhere else ad if you actually own your imaginary rifle then for gods sake sell it and shut up.

  69. By the way, writing a short book is not what this is supposed to be about. The whole section is named “comments” not “short stories”. I get frustrated just trying to pick out gems from all the verbage. Please keep it short and to the point. Thanks.

  70. dear KMHines,

    OK ,then we have to agree to disagree,

    As you say the events are shocking/horrible, those are by the way some of the code words from the Brady bunch, you see all death in the end is shocking/horrible, that’s the psychological concept of ‘ the fallacy of misleading vividness ” if your aim is to reduce deaths then the numbers don’t add up (more drownings by far= ban on swimming, even more LIGHTNING related deaths= ban on lightning,He He!)
    And as described you would have to then consider that since Cho at VTech killed more people (by far) with 2 hand guns….. with limited capacity magazines, guess what they will come for next? Also the Washington Post editorial comment after the original AWB is chilling enough of a reminder that that’s exactly what they want as close to no guns as possible, i.e maybe a revolver with low velocity cartridges …or swords … or forks(LOL). I am certain THAT IN THE END THEY WANT TO BAN ALL GUNS
    But if you’ve read the article then I must understand, you don’t believe that and you have bought the other sides arguments on good guns and your mind must be solidly made up, hence agree to disagree

    Good-luck to you sir, but know I have to fight you all the way on this ..amiably, ….of course only as far as that course can be taken

  71. TO DB COOPER wherever he may be. If this is a duplicate, I apologize to the readers. If you will go to the Armalite home page, I am sure you will be able to find the very semiautomatic M15A4. An interesting story (as I have heard it) is that Armalite sold the name AR15 and can no longer use it. Therefore, even though Eugene Stoner invented the M16 for Armalite and that AR prefix originates with them, they must designate their guns as M15 rather than the more familiar AR15.

    I really hope that we can discuss this issue without you repeatedly calling me names. I am not stupid, I have owned the firearms I mentioned, I am a customer of Cheaper Than Dirt, and I have as much right to express my opinions here as do you.

  72. TO RSUN — Thank you for the article. There is little with which I would disagree, but I have come to a different conclusion for several reasons. First, while it is true that center fire, semiautomatic rifles and carbines using removable magazines are involved in only a tiny fraction of murders, it often is involved in the most horrible of them. They cause well-justified public outrage and bring gun ownership and use into question. Even decades ago the St. Valentine’s Day massacre led to severe restrictions on machine guns and concealable shotguns and rifles. Furthermore, they are happening so frequently now that the public has little time to recover from one tragedy before they are faced with another. Finally, the very argument against their control — the rarity of their use — makes them almost impossible to keep out of the hands of killers. We can be 99% certain that we are providing such a weapon to a responsible owner, but the 1% of the time we are wrong could lead to hundreds of very well publicized deaths.

    I have said that I have no reason for owning an M15A4 that justifies making it available to mass murderers. I do not need it for self defense (all of my neighbors within a quarter mile I a sure would agree, it is no better than my other guns for target practice or hunting, and it is insane to think that I will someday hold the U.S. armed forces at bay with it. It is a liability for gun ownership, and we should consider recognizing that.

  73. TO DB COOPER wherever he may be found. If you will go on the Armalite web site I am sure you can find an M15A4. There is an interesting history here. As you probably know Eugene Stoner invented the M16 for Armalite. The civilian designations for the semiautomatic version is popularly the AR15. Armalite (the source of the AR) cannot use that designation because it sold it. Therefore when Armalite sells what otherwise is designated as an AR15, it must designate it as an M15. The M15A4 is, indeed, the designation they use. I am sure if you don’t check it out other interested readers will. Who do you think they will discover is right?

    I, Mr. DB Cooper (why do you use the name of a thief, by the way), am not stupid. I am not even ignorant. In fact, I am rather well versed regarding a wide variety of topics. I would rather discuss these important issues with you and other gun users than exchange derisive names. Could we agree on that?

  74. A little Gun History,

    Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of Gun control:56 million. That concern me!

    A few in 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953 about 20 million descendants, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    Germany established Gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political descendants unable to defend themselves,were rounded up & exterminated.

    Turkey: 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians

    Guatemala:1964 to 1981,100.000 Mayan Indians

    Cambodia:1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves

    Uganda:1971 to 1979,300.000 Christians

    Take note my Fellow Americans, before it’s too late! The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

  75. History;
    Let remember back in April 19 1775 an English attempt to confiscate guns from Americans triggered a successful Revolution,just hoping it does’t come to that again….

  76. Mr KM Hines,
    An old radio talk show host would have called you a fake, a phony and a fraud which is a good description none the less. But I’ll add in your stupid too. There is no such thing as an M15-A4. If you actually owned a gun you would know that. You are referring to am M16A4 which is a fully automatic rifle and not legal to own unless to have the ATF license to do so. Which means you are either fibbing or you are the kind of common criminal that is not supposed to have a weapon in the first place. Go troll somewhere else. You’re obviously too stupid to be allowed near firearms.

  77. What ever happened to YOU ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY? Why do we have to pay for the crimes of others? When I was young Dads showed their kids how to hunt and how to respect guns and how to safely handle them. There was not all the nuts running around the streets. The GOV had places for them where they where treated and looked after. What is GOV for if not to help people out that can not help them self. Let them know that if they vote for this win or lose we will vote them out.

  78. “And by the way, was’t President Lincoln killed by a gun? How about the beloved JFK? No gun bans then.”
    Comment by David — January 5, 2013 @ 2:31 am

    “I don’t know where you were after the JFK assassination but there was a major gun law that came as a result, the 1968 Gun Control Act which, among other things, banned mail order sales of guns since that was how Oswald got his lovely Italian carbine.”
    Comment by Paul — January 7, 2013 @ 1:32 am

    I wasn’t born yet….lol, but my point is still they were not banned. The President of the United States murdered and no GUN BAN. Now I understand they may have banned mail order sales, but we have that again now…through the internet. I just don’t understand how you can even try to ban something that has been around, for what seems forever. Something that helped the founders of our nation, establish this great nation, and they try to ban an object on looks alone. That should just be laughable. That would be like me saying they can’t be a senator or congressman because they look to old and outdated. Just frustrated I guess>

  79. North Hollywood shootout was in 1997…. fully three years after the the original AWB in FEINSTEINS own state, Larry Phillips and Emil Matasearanu used FULLY-AUTOMATIC AKMs and an AR-15 that day, to believe that they got those legally is insanity and disowns the theory that when legal gunowners run out of weapons so will the bad guys, cuz then they will simply come across the border from the south, you see them who want will keep doing it!

    KM Hines did you go to the article i referenced? Here it is again;

  80. Sorry if some of this is redundant. “..the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That is a paraphrase of the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution, the Law of the Land. WHY are we even HAVING this conversation? We are, in part, because the Supreme Court of this Country has forgotten what their JOB is. For too long, the Supreme Court has been ENACTING laws and SETTING POLICY via their rulings and NOT merely determining if this law, or that, COMPLIES with our Constitutional provisions. The term keep and bear arms is NOT a limited definition (nor is it a SUGGESTION, you Supreme Highness-es). Up until the 1950’s almost NO FIREARM was denied to the Public for ownership. Since the beginning of ownership restrictions, violence has only escalated. You see, violence is “ugly” and people of America (forgive us, oh forefathers, for what you gave us, in blood, and what we have become) don’t want to THINK about “ugly”. Asking a head-in-the-sand liberal to be “responsible for themselves” is tough, because it means looking at what is ugly (violence, drugs, rape, pedophilia, prostitution) and taking steps to defend YOURSELF against it. If they were to walk alertly, watch for certain behaviors, carry mace or pepper spray, they are acknowledging that America the Beautiful can be a very “ugly” place. How they cannot understand that being prepared to effectively defend themselves is the BEST way to keep America Beautiful. Violence comes to the prepared far less often than to those who are not. We need, as Americans, and People who enjoy freedom, to openly exercise your right to keep and bear arms. Doing so responsibly (demonstrating safe gun handling at HOME, work, in public, everywhere) we can change the image non gun-owners have of us. Next, we must INVITE non-gun owners to join in non-threatening, family involved, shooting events (sorry, hunting might not be a good “introduction” to “shooting sports” as it involves killing…). By far and away, our single, biggest opponent is IGNORANCE. Those who fear guns, and gun owners, do so because they do not KNOW guns, they do not KNOW US!! Their neighbors, their police officers, their soldiers at war and retired. It has been demonstrated over and over again that EDUCATION, that is, exposing the ignorant/fearful to guns, and teaching them about what they are ignorant (fearful) of (guns) will reduce their ignorance (fear). Ladies who are shooters/gun owners among us, can make a HUGE impact upon our sport (let alone our Constitutional Right!) by getting together with the Ladies in you neighborhood (and away from stinky, scary MEN with GUNS) and take them to a range to go shooting. It would be the foolish range-owner who would not HAPPILY set aside a portion of their range for “Ladies Night” where women can come and, being less uneasy due of the absence of men, learn about what they fear and become less fearful, even a new-found and zealous supporter. Strive always in all dialog with others that, keeping the 2nd Amendment intact does not mean “we” gun owners have any desire to force gun ownership upon THEM: only that we strive to prevent them from taking ours. It will do NO GOOD to point out FACTS, such as lightening strikes more often, or automobiles kill more, or any such thing, because none of those things are “frightening” to look at and, those who behave as we are seeing on Capitol Hill are either “fear-mongers” selling their soul to the Devil for a vote, or are the ignorant reactionary who let “fear of that which they do not understand” cause them to react out of the mindless, hysterical fear. Ask you best-friend-among-the-gun-haters if they ever saw a CHILD who was “afraid” of a firearm. They will HAVE to tell you they did not. FEAR of firearms is a learned response. Unfortunately for “us” the majority of Americans today get their “firearms training” via TV and Movies; the singularly WORST place to do so. If we want to keep our RIGHTS, we MUST fight for them, but we must not fight in the manner most common associated with fighting. No, we must FIGHT IGNORANCE. We must FIGHT the Mass Media and Political Power Ogres (ready to eat or destroy anything to get their way) with KNOWLEDGE. Sponsor firearms safety seminars (free, or just enough to cover cost of space rental), invite Boy Scout/Girl Scout Troops to a closed range day and SHOW THEM where the fear should be. By showing them where the fear comes from, you not only show them how betrayed they have been by the hateful, and greedy mass-media has been, you will also teach them to THINK FOR THEMSELVES. If they are afraid: STUDY it, learn of it (spiders, snakes, heights, whatever) and knowledge will bring a calmness to the fear, if never a love for these things. Finally, each and every one of us “gun owners” must always remember that WE REPRESENT E V E R Y gun owner while we are armed, enjoying our shooting sports: anything, and everything, we do while armed reflects DIRECTLY upon the rest of “us”. Be polite, encouraging, NON-CONFRONTATIONAL and peaceable when discussing firearms and always, and I mean ALLLLLWAYS, be mindful of your audience. If you and your buddies are out and celebrating a 10-point buck, be sure that their isn’t a “Bambi lover” within earshot. Do I need to explain? Use terms like “harvested”, “herd health”, conservation and wildlife management. Pleeezzz refrain form such things and “jumping up and down while shouting “I KILLED IT, I KILLED IT!!” Again, do I really have to explain? I grant you that if you HAVE just “killed” a buck, odds are that any audience likely to be hearing you will be jumping up and down, too. Just keep that type of enthusiasm for “like-minded folks” and not the general public. We are at war for our Constitutional Rights (HOW DID THAT HAPPEN??), no doubt about it, but we will not win the battle, much less the war, by posturing and brandishing. We can only win by getting the enemy to DEFECT, willingly, to our side and we can only do that with respect, education and responsible behavior always (but especially while in the pubic eye). My Constitutional RIGHTS: THIS I will defend!

  81. Must every tragic mass shooting bring out the shrill ignorance of gun control advocates?The key fallacy of so-called gun laws is that such laws do in fact control guns.They simply disarm law-abiding citizens,While people bent on violence find firearms readily available.If gun control zealots had any respect for facts,they would have discovered this long ago,because there have been many factual studies over the years to leave any serious doubt about gun control laws being not merely futile but counterproductive.Places and time with the strongest gun control laws have often been places and time with high murder rates.Washington, a classic example,but just one among many

  82. Mr. Cooper — How clever of you to come out of hiding on a web page sponsored by an outfit called Cheaper Than Dirt. Who would have thought to look for you here! Back to your point, though, I am considering what to do with my M15A4. I really no longer can support its presence among us. Turning it over to the “government” (that seems to be a monolithic term for some of you) is a possibility. For now I will wait to see what Biden’s group comes up with.

  83. I think if I read one more letter from an American spewing nonsense While proudly trying to impress his likewise dull peer,I will scream.I see plenty of evidence that people don’t understand the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.I read where people think the Second Amendment is about muskets,hunting or fighting Indians attacking your cabin.They don’t understand that everybody is expected to be citizen soldier with soldier type weapons to defend against enemies who would take our freedom,be they foreign or our own government grown too full of itself The founders were very concerned about that very thing.We have dangerous people Who would gladly like President Obama to declare himself a dictator and forgo the people’s Constitutional protections altogether. One writers for New York Times.We have some here.Remember that history’s worst dictators had willing dupes and followers who helped disarm the people.Then the masses were murdered.Avoid the knee-jerk reaction Educate before it’s too late….

  84. While anger may keep you alive in some cases anger is mot a good long term solution to ones longevity.
    Politics is cold calculating cunningness, not for the altruistic to engage in humaitarianism,those cold calculations iuse altruistic thought mamipulation to justify military interventions world wide but 90+% of those military will never fire a weapon in anger or otherwise, but the 10% who do are manly the ones who think guns are the final solution.
    They on average are not the brightest bulbs on earth ( the10%) and luckily they have not had to fight against a well trained and equipped military force.since end of WwIii
    While the public no longer needs a well armed and trained civil force they still need the 10% military grunts and the growing ned not for educated larger grouping but well trained and easily trained technical grouping;Only the top 15% need both military training plus a liberal education.
    Liberal as in expansive reality based not the stuff they feed the rest of nation with.
    The US is and has to remain a growing military power or else become a non entity or at most just a typical third world entity, no way out of it.
    To be such a power its. Civilian population has to be remolded to conform to those needs.
    Guns by type is in reality a non issue outside of the areas the cold calculatorstool bags, and no one needs you or your guns in order to find their niche in this empire.
    Heck so ignorant are some that theywant schools to have police protectors within but the real original issue was how could teachers Right to Bear Arms of been restricted.

    Military budget over 50%; in reality; ofGDP, and that GDP comes out to be 80% from offshore means.
    Go on denying the reality of what US has become and claiming self defence but those worthy of being defended will be defended no matter what.
    Get back to work, if you can find it, and all those who know how to get the most productiin out of its workers know that anger and uncertainty are very effective tools. TOOLSto use humans as tools for the few truly educated ones.

  85. I am just curious. How many of these Anti-gun legislators have armed Secret Service bodyguards or other tax paid protection?

  86. Floyd, Your post was was both thoughtfull and well written. AND you are man enough to be honest you are anti-gun. Thankfully, we live in a country were we as individuals can decide wheather or not to own guns. We have the option.

  87. KM if you do own all of those weapons then you are a gun hoarder and will be targeted by the gov’t. I question why you have all of those guns. As you state you dont need them. And just because you dont think we need 30 rd mags doesnt mean jack to me. Why do you own a car? A bike or a Horse would do just as well and you dont have a constitional right own one of those like we do fire arms.

    Liberals who are against gun ownership remind me of a guy I had to take care of at a mental hospital I worked at while in college. The devil lived in the tip of his right index finger. The finger was telling him to kill people so he took a hachet and cut off the tip (to the first knuckle) because he didnt want to hurt people. We had him for about 6 months because we didnt want him cutting off anything else if the devil remanifested himself in another body part. First the libs cut out the high capacity mags and then the small capacity because you can load an AR one round at a time. Then you take the ammo then the gun itself. Always waiting to lop off the next part.

    KM if you believe what you say turn it all in to the gov’t.

  88. To KMHines, thoughtful comment, but make no mistake they intened not to stop till ALL your guns are taken, the AR is merely a stepping stone to that. Dont believe me look back at the Wash. Post,

    “No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.”
    – Washington Post editorial, September 15, 1994

    To those who need some positive arguments to make then see this guys article,i vote right always, but he is my favourite lefty….for now

    Things like this if the general public knew a little better will help. Get it in your local paper, the MSM will never print it, so start local

    call AND email your 2 senators and one representative today

    There is only one country I know that has the 2nd amendment,the whole world is arrayed against it it seems, yet due to our constitution we each of us need only make our 2 senators and representative vote the right way and we can stop them all, allover again

  89. “And by the way, was’t President Lincoln killed by a gun? How about the beloved JFK? No gun bans then.”
    Comment by David — January 5, 2013 @ 2:31 am

    I don’t know where you were after the JFK assassination but there was a major gun law that came as a result, the 1968 Gun Control Act which, among other things, banned mail order sales of guns since that was how Oswald got his lovely Italian carbine.

  90. It’s a fact that criminals mainly fear guns, is it any surprise that many liberal politicians have been after them for a while, to the point you must wonder if there isn’t a connection between them and the rash of our version of a suicide bomber. The US is the only obstacle in world freedom, and no wonder why certain groups want us disarmed.

    The killings caused by legal guns are minuscule as comparison to those caused by many simple things in life especially when you compare them to how many are owed legally.

    If history has taught us anything is gun laws will only creat a blk market a make both organized and non organized flourish much like prohibition made the mob very powerful.

    Scary thing is nothing they say or do makes sense while feverishly being protected by the media

  91. Where do you start on a subject that should never be considered. It is sufficient to say there is no answer to violence but violence. We as gun owners are and have always been the reason for defense at the basic level of society. As far back as history is recorded it has always been noted that the ones that are prepared for trouble are the ones that abort trouble. Look at the bible an enemy always operates from a position of strength. It is subdued from a position of strength and preparedness. Read David and Goliath and later read that Goliath had a brother. Who was also vanquished. Ironically by an associate of David. This shows clearly fear is multiplied when one is not prepared for trouble.

    More recently 911 proved that the airline industry began perhaps a little too late to prepare for trouble. Have you flown lately. Surely you know that there were high jackings before 911! Surely anyone can see that we as a nation have purposefully excluded common sense when it comes to the protection of our children in school. As far as I can see a child should be protected from the moment they leave for school until they are safely back home.

    We have overlooked this factor as far back as I can remember. Violence is condoned in most if not all high schools in this nation. Football alone
    Is responsible for most of the injuries in school. That has nothing to do with fist fights.

    Look we name our schools the Fighting Irish, lions ,tigers and bears oh my! All pointing at aggression. Why not redirect these misplaced resources into teaching students. But that would be too drastic I suppose.

    Columbine high school should have been the last school that did not have real security in place. This is serious business. Or are you telling me that security is only afforded to businesses that bring in a known profit. Secure the institutions of learning. Let it be known that this is not condoned, and prepare for the worst. I hate to say it but we look pretty bad whining about anything when we don’t take a proactive approach to a problem, and blame it on the legal and prepared people in this country.

    Really I am anti gun however this society nor it’s government have set or afforded me the opportunity to exercise this behavior!

    Sounds tough but at least it appears to be sound thinking.

  92. If you want to cut down on gun violence in general, instead of banning guns up the penalty for use of weapons – any weapons – in the commission of a crime. One example is that before the first round of the war on drugs during the Nixon administration there were almost never guns involved in drug dealing because the use of a gun in a crime carried a heavier penalty than the drug charges did. Then we put in tougher drug laws and suddenly it was worthwhile for drug dealers to be armed so that they could avoid arrest by shooting police or folks perceived as having assisted in their arrest. Turn that around and the situation could reverse as well.

    Mental health is a different problem with a different set of solutions. I worked in inpatient mental health facilities all my adult working career. The one thing every one of those facilities has in common is that they have all been closed and not replaced by new facilities. Instead the seriously mentally ill have been turned out on the streets and if their families are not willing to take them in, a really difficult task. County mental health centers here in Georgia really are set up mainly for those with depression, anxiety disorders and drug/alcohol addiction with no capability to house or treat the seriously mentally ill and even when they do hospitalize it is rarely for more than 14 days. As a result, there aren’t good records of mentally ill persons who would need to be kept from passing background checks.

    Unlike many, I do not oppose doing background checks on all persons buying guns, even individual to individual. I usually sell mainly through an online billboard operated by the local IPSC league. Unless the gun is going through a gun shop, such as when I sell them through, I require the buyer to present both a Georgia Drivers license and Georgia carry permit. This way I feel better about having done what I can to prevent guns reaching the wrong hands.

    Diane Feinstein is just another two faced politician. As my dad loved to say, how you can tell if a politician is lying just look to see if his/her lips are moving.

  93. To the political elitists and the leftist media, gun control is nothing more than people control. Once everyone accepts that reality, then maybe we can free ourselves from those that wish to enslave us…

  94. IN RESPONSE TO R WILSON: I do own those and other weapons, and your resorting to semantics rather than addressing the issue speaks loudly to the weakness of your argument. My first gun was a 22 caliber single shot Remington rifle when I was a teenager. Since then I have owned a Nylon 66, Ruger, Baretta, and Walther 22 pistols, a Dan Wesson 357 magnum, a Ruger 45 Auto, a Kimber 45 Auto Stainless Target, a Marlin 30-30, a Savage 308, a Savage 223, two Thompson Center Contenders in several calibers, several black powder arms, and an Armalite M15A4. I am a former member of the NRA, and I have fired tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition.

    My argument remains the same — there is no reason for me to own a center fire semiautomatic rifle using a detachable MAGAZINE that justifies making that gun available to those who would use it to kill innocent people. There is no way to determine in advance if I am such a person, or if I would make my weapons available to such a person. Perhaps it is you who are unaware how devastating that much firepower is when directed toward a crowd of people.

    I know it is shocking to you that there are gun owners who do not buy into the “any weapon any where any time” mantra. One of your co-contributors even believes that he should be allowed to have hand grenades and rpgs. The second amendment assures us a right to be armed, but it certainly does not imply that we may be armed with any weapon of our choosing or everywhere we may go.

    You and others like you are in serious danger of over-arguing your position, to the detriment of all of us who enjoy shooting. People who already feel endangered are not going to be persuaded that your intentions are good when you spend your efforts defending the indefensible. Take a deep breath, listen to opposing viewpoints, and try to separate the important from the unimportant. Or bury your guns and ammo somewhere in the woods and watch your GI Joe fantasy movies.

  95. In the middle ages there was a significant invention that changed the social dynamics in the interaction between lords and serfs (think gov’t and populace) , it was called the Crossbow.
    People found that they could build a crossbow small enough to hide in their rags (clothes) but powerful enough to send a steel dart at close range through the chain mail shirt of a lord or his men of arms. Previous to this invention when these Lords rode through a village if you or your children didn’t get out of the way fast enough, the lords would ride right over you, After the invention of the mini crossbow this soon resulted in a lot of the peasants “betters” getting killed. Dynamics changed quickly. A Gov’t afraid of its populace is a Democracy, A Government Feared by the populace is a tyranny

  96. Good story, unfortunately irrelevant. The fact is that you should purchase your “assault weapon” and “high capacity magazines” now. All the logic, rational thinking and pleas to utilize one’s cognitive powers are futile. There will be a ban in the near future–and do you know why? It is the the same reason our country has gotten as politically schizophrenic at it is now–the facts are that there are over 8 milion more female voters in the USA then males. And the majority of women do not like guns. End of conversation. Furthermore, when we consider that there are now a majority of the male population that have been thoroughly effeminized via metrosexulization, it is merely a matter of time before the inevitable falls upon us. The reality is that this discussion is not about crime or even murder–but more about how a society “should be.” More Anti gunners are being bred by pro gun advocates every day. They do so by sending their children–from conservative backgrounds–to liberal schools that indocrinate them in warm and fuzzy feelings by people on the public paycheck. Consequently they grow up believing that which is fed to them. So in the greatest irony, it is actually the pro gun conservatives that are actually insuring their own demise. You cannot have it both ways–you cannot support schools in which the majority of teachers and employees are women (statistically 94%) who almost all believe in a liberal orthodoxy–and then be stupid enough to wonder why your gun rights are going away. To put it another way: insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. The problem in the USA really has nothing to do with guns, shootings or even liberal policy. The problem is conservatives consistently support liberal policy and policy makers and then wonder why things are not going their way. You can educate and indocrinate a child, but you can’t change stupid. That is why conservatives and gun advocates are really the problem.

  97. It’s almost TOO convenient for the leftwing gun banners in power. Makes one wonder if some clandestine effort to disarm the public and cement their power over avery aspect of our lives. Once we are disarmed it’ll be easy to rule over us and tell us how to live “for the good of the republic”. Goodbye amendment rights,constitution,and any of the freedoms we grew up with! We are witnessing the birth of the “U.S.S.A.” Hope the entitlement bunch can handle “I told you so”! OH! But wait! We won’t have free speech anymore any dissenting voice will be labeled “Hate speech”. I fear for my children in the coming years,in a world where the U.S. is no longer a force for the true good of mankind through the weakening or modification of our constitution. Check out the movie ‘idiocracy’ for a ‘dark comedy’ peek into the future.

  98. Without a gun how could this woman have defended herself and her children?
    Ga. mom shoots intruder 5 times, hides children

    Posted on: 12:06 am, January 6, 2013, by Web Staff, updated on: 11:31am, January 6, 2013

    LOGANVILLE, Ga. — A Georgia mother hid her two 9-year-old twins and shot an intruder, Paul Ali Slater, several times during a home invasion on Friday, according to multiple media reports.

    The Loganville mother said she didn’t initially answer when someone knocked on her door around 1 p.m. Friday. When the visitor began repeatedly ringing the doorbell, she called her husband at work, according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

    He then dialed 911 and his 37-year-old wife gathered their 9-year-old twins and hid them in a crawlspace inside the home.

    According to the report, the intruder then forced his way into the home and started “rummaging” through the family’s belongings.

    When the suspect went into the closet where the family was hiding ,the woman fired six bullets at the suspect, five of which hit alleged suspect Paul Ali Slater in the face and neck area.

    “He opens the closet door and finds himself staring down the barrel of a .38 revolver,” Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

    The woman fled to a neighbor’s home with her children. The woman and her two children were not injured.

    The injured intruder stumbled out of the home and attempted to flee in his car. However, he crashed into a wooded area and collapsed in a neighbor’s driveway, according to WSB-TV.

    The suspect was arrested at the scene. He was taken to a nearby hospital and is expected to survive.

    The victim’s husband said he’s proud of his wife.

    “My wife is a hero. She protected her kids. She did what she was supposed to do as responsible, prepared gun owner,” Donnie Herman told WSB-TV.

  99. I’ve been hearing a lot about this subject. I was impressed & happy to see the story about the man that can shoot 12 rounds in 3 seconds from a revolver. I had a discussion with a co- worker that believes you can do more damage with an AR-15 that. With a hand gun. I of course argued the point & stated that you CA. Shoot a pistol just as fast due to the point that not just any civilian own fully auto rifles. My point with that is, most people in our society believe this. Simply because there is a 30, 60, or maybe a 100 round drum on the rifle. These people are ignorant & closed minded.
    I am a man, however, that comes from a background of family therapy & mental health. My older brother is bi-polar. My parents recognised there was a behavioral problem when he was young & seeked help. During thst time my father removed all firearms from the house for the safety of the family because he was sure if my brother would try to use them. I state that because I want to share a different side of the ideas with gun laws. I have heard so much about the guns & how they’re “so bad”. If any of these idiot political jackoffs would take a loaded gun, set it on the floor & watch it for 24 hours, they’d see the gun doesn’t shoot by itself, duh!
    I’m a firm believer in the right to bear arms, I do feel every citizen should have the right to purchase an AR, or AK, or whatever it maybe. Citizens that become military take an oath to “defend this country from any terrorist action, foreign OR DOMESTIC”. If we are banned from these rifles, I’m betting the next step is semi auto handguns & eventually all firearms.
    Anyway, here is what I feel should happen if there would be any law put in place.
    If citizens want to own an “assault rifle” there should be a personal test/check besides just the standard background check. I’m in WI, so rifles only require a background check. No registering or waiting period. I feel, if the people purchasing the weapon has nothing to hide, then people should be subject to a psychological & personality evaluation to ensure that the person is mentally capable of safely owning & handling a firearm. For that matter, it could be done for all guns. I told this idea to someone & he said to throw in an IQ test too. That’s stupid. An IQ test just shows what your IQ score is. IQ has nothing to do with it. Just because a person has a high IQ doesn’t mean they will do the right thing. Most people with a very high IQ are very stupid in common sense. The guy in Colorado at the theater, he was in honors classes in chemistry if I remember correctly. Can’t tell me his IQ was low, & that shooting still happened.
    Now my idea is just a basis. Nothing is foolproof but I think it would help keep the guns in the hands of the people that should have a right to own them.
    Now, please people, anyone reading this, think about this. We are in an era of very realistic video games, there’s war games, zombie games, etc. I have 5 boys, & I have witnessed the decline in the thought of reality. These video games get so realistic some of these children become teenagers & adults & have a hard time distinguishing between fantasy & reality. Even in hunter safety. My ex-wife & I took her 16yr old twins hunting, when we returned to the vehicle & were unloading the rounds out of the chamber, I looked over & one kid had the shotgun pointed right at my upper thigh, almost at crotch level & the other had his pointed at his brothers head as they’re unloading. I simply told them “I can’t believe you guys passed hunter safety”. They were oblivious. Kids don’t pay attention to things anymore. More & more are growing up this way & we are wondering why there are so many problems in this country today. This all goes way beyond the gun issue, but its all included.
    Remember, for every action there is an equal & opposite reaction. That statement is not only referring to physical things that we can see, this also goes for the things we do in everyday life.

  100. Well, this morning on Fox some of Joe Bidens newest work leaked from his committee. A “database” for gun owners ie registration, and I’ll bet all the “database” since NICS started is available somewhere, is in the works. Didn’t they database AKs in California before they confiscated them?

  101. It is a double edge sword. If the majority of the people wants an assault weapon band or a total gun band. Do you think a mentally disturbed person would follow this law, having his or her mind set in killing innocent unexpecting victims anywhere he or she may decide. I have had my bad experience with a mentally disturbed person possessing a pistol and brandishing it in buffet place. It was not pleasant result after wards.
    Unfortunately, that time I was unarmed coz I listen to my wife to leave my pistol at home and go out for a family dinner, that was a mistake. Told this to the guys at work and the range. An advice came from a retiring police sargeant, you will never go off duty again. Nobody knows when and where a crime might happen, please don’t let the would be criminals have the upper hand. Protect you selves.

  102. And further more they don’t have any rite to take anyone’s American freedoms away because of the constitution but it does say that if the sitisons don’t like what’s going on we have the rite to over throw said government and start anew hell i believe that time is long over due our government is way too corrupt and abuseing there power . There killing the economy killing the country and they don’t care but i do. There picking on the wrong people. If i was president i would pass a law saying that no one is to bother the moonshiners ever again they aren’t hurting anyone in the woods or with the spirits that they are createing for everyone to enjoy. These people have been messed with for to long. I mean crist George Washington was a moonshiner. So we need to take back control of our country the tax payers own this country not the government and all the military goods and hardware such as fighter jets or tanks we the tax payers own all this stuff not the government . The government is starting wars with other countries for what reason.

  103. I have guns and i am an avid shooter and nra member and what i have to say is. If those jackasses in washington think there going to come to my house or any one elses house they are going to have a major fight on there hands if they want to take my weapons away from me there gonna have to rip them from my cold dead lifeless fingers and I’m pretty sure that there is a lot of people who feel the same way. Those dip shits in washington are going to end up starting a revaluation or civilwar there will be a lot of very angry or pissed off Americans with guns in there hands who are too fight for there freedoms as it says in the constitution the second amendment right to keep and bear arms and every other rites that are written in the constitution our founding fathers didn’t fight as long as they did to have it all thrown away because of some stupid turds that don’t follow the rules or laws

  104. Some words had been lost in the text.
    The approximate 5:1 ratio is prescription drug related versus firearms.
    They ignored certain groups dying from prescription drugs while including virtually everything on the firearms related numbers. And it still came out about 5:1.

  105. For further discussion, 2009 statistics from the Bureau of Vital Statistics showed that there was about a 5:1 ratio of accidental deaths due to prescription drugs (primarily opiate pain killers and intentional overdose, suicide or recreational use were ignored) when compared to all deaths including suicides, etc. This does not match with the agendas of certain groups and is not as sensational of news stories as deaths due to idiots or evil people using firearms. So the other methods of death do not get the press. I found the data over two years ago, and I am not a statistical analyst, so why did our Government only acknowledge this problem in the last few months?
    So are we going to post a map showing the people who have prescription drugs that might end up in our kids’ bodies, the same way they published maps with persons with gun permits on the East Coast. They statistically pose more of a threat to our kids than all firearms.
    On availability of military style guns:
    Going back to Bonnie and Clyde and revived in the 1970’s there were rashes of criminals breaking into armories of State or US National Guard or Reserve facilities.
    One of the headquarters of a radical group in Illinois had selective fire rifles and even hand grenades in their headquarters. This was after Illinois had enacted the Firearms Owners Identification program preventing you from buying firearms, ammunition, or reloading supplies without being registered. At that time AR/AK/SKS/AKM were not readily available to the average citizen in the Midwest so how did these people acquire them? Most people with common sense know that criminals did and still can obtain unregistered weapons from out of state or out of country and do so to prevent them from being traced. Also, I do not know of many common sense firearms owners that would want someone who is “unstable” or just “evil” to have access firearms.

  106. Senator Feinstein needs to keep her business in California, the land of fruit & nuts! California has its own gang banger and immigration problems, as well as a HUGE state deficit. And yet, she is poking her nose in to areas of the Country which do not concern her, such as Texas, Arizona and New Mexico where God, guns and guts built this part of our nation. People such as the esteemed Senator from California are sensationalizing these horrific tragendies in order to further their own personal and political agenda. I let my own state representatives know they need to protect our 2A rights or the whole experience we call “America” may just drop in the toilet.

  107. In response to KM Hines comment….
    Trol somewhere else Mr. Hines! Your comments reveal that you are NOT a gun owner. You state “none of my reasons for owning a semiautomatic rifle, carbine, or machine pistol using a removable clip are sufficient for allowing them to continue to be so freely available to people who will use them to kill others.”
    Well my friend, none of us can purchase or own “machine pistols” which are legally identified by the BATF a Submachine Guns (sub-caliber full auto guns), without complying with the NFA Title II act. Further, there are no machine pistols available for sale in the United States unless they are already in the NFA Registry of automatic weapons. Liar, liar, pants on fire!
    In addition, you went on to say “removable clip” which are not used with the weapons you claim to own… the term is magazines not clips. The M1 Garand uses a clip, the AR15 uses a nmagazine. By the way, a machine pistol uses a magazine as well.
    Go peddle your disinformation and weak claims somewhere else. We will NOT be giving up our weapons to Left Wingers like you.

  108. The right for citizens to bear arms is crucial to the checks-and-balances of our political system. All other American rights rely upon the Constitution’s 2nd amendment. The ability to protect our individual freedoms is what makes us unique among nations. It must be protected. Please write your congressional representatives with this message. I did.

  109. I have 1 question that has not been asked in responce to the liberal demms.How many children were killed by murders with guns as opposed to children killed by mothers aborting this year. This is submited BY A DUMB OKIE .

  110. IMPORTANT MESSAGE: Check out the short video “Choose Your Own Crime Stats” on YouTube and let’s all do our parts to make sure that it goes viral. It is a fantastic video that completely debunks the absurd position that the “right to bear arms” is a significant problem. It roundly rejects the specious (agenda-driven) arguments that spill from the mouths of Diane Feinstein, Piers Morgan, and others.

  111. And yet NO ONE has got into trouble over this. Mass murder, illegal gun running and the gov. Isn’t held accountable? You think the pres. didn’t know about this? Impeachment? The president needs to clean up his own house before he comes to ours.

  112. Don’t forget obama and crew deliberately let thousands of weapons go to the Mexican drug gangs and then was using the violence to try to institute new con control laws. It was only after the 2 feds in mexico got wacked and someone spilled the beans on fast and furious did we find out it was our on gov’t doing it!

  113. We are going to have a real fight on our hands over the next 4 years. Take a look at this blog site for current issue quips of freedom based logic that can help arm you with insights for persuasion. When we speak we must make sense and be clear and concise. Hopefully this can help. You are free to share the blogs as a repost as you need.

  114. Mental illness has always been a problem in this country and it is a shame that the politicians would rather ignore this issue because it doesn’t draw as much attetion than gun control.

  115. the point is the liberals always try to demonize the item used. They scapegoat it until it’s banned or severely restricted. It never works and it never helps solve the problems.
    The fact is this scumbag had 10 minutes to slaughter kids in a classroom. It was 10 minutes before police arrived. I could’ve killed a room full of 5-6 tear olds with a single shot .22 in 10 minutes(Not a slam on the cops.)

    Getting states to put those adjudicated mentally ill on the list of prohibited possessors on the NICS background check would help along with putting armed security in the schools.

  116. The Conn. shooting is a watershed event for Feinstein, Bloomberg, Pelosi, and POTUS; to claim political capital to exert further control, regardless of its lack of impact on actual crime statistics [fewer than 3% of all homicides occur with any type of rifle] to take “weapons of war off our streets.” Of all the 500+ homicides in Chicago and 400+ in Detroit this past year, no one is stating how many occurred through use of anything that might meet their definition of an “assault rifle” most likely because none of the mostly drug and gang related killings involved one. And now we are told that we shouldn’t call it “gun control.” Classic feel good, preconceived agenda and tail wagging the dog politics. I have re-upped my NRA membership and written my legislators [and POTUS for all the good it will do]; I will do anything I can to prevent this ill conceived and elitist agenda from coming to fruition.

  117. what happened was very bad but you have to stop and think he was a little off the mother new it and why were the guns not locked up.
    I honestly think all these killings are the work of the government to make it easier for gun control. before nobody really cared now everyone and there brother cares. just think about it. has anyone worked for the government, or military did they tell you the truth. on the anthax shot did you have a choice it was not fda approved yet yes I am a military man 13 years

  118. We have to start publishing information about people who publicize gun owners’ names, along with the names and addresses of politiians who support our second amendment rights. We should publish their names, addresses, any schedules we know of, how many women are in the house and when they may be alone. Lets let the criminals know when they may be out of town and how much money they make or have. We should do ten times to them that they do to us.

  119. There are over 100 million adult (read voters) firearms owners in the U.S., who possess around 300 million firearms, almost all of them legally and safely. They are Democrats and Republicans, Conservatives and Liberals and we all, regardless of other social and political issues, believe in the First Amendment’s right to KEEP and BEAR arms. There are huge numbers of citizens who do not own guns, who feel just as strongly about the Second Amendment as we do. Any attempts by Congress to actually take a vote and pass legislation curtailing our Right, would result in the end of their career at the next election, regardless of Party. They will huff and puff, maybe pass something that encourages people to give up their guns willingly, but will not tackle the issue by trying to ban (non) “assault weapons,” or any other weapons. See what the Illinois Legislature did yesterday with an attempt to do so. That’s why the Second Amendment is called the Third Rail of Politics. They may however, be able to limit magazines to ten rounds max, but we all know that will have no effect whatever, in terms of limiting fire power. And finally, from a retired cop, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

  120. Such a waste of time. Comments on manufacturers should do this or that, or why politicians or the public don’t know the difference between different types of rifles or handguns. Wasting time trying to teach or point out the difference. THE PLAN IS SIMPLE, WAKE UP !!!! The American Government and the New World Order want you unarmed !!! If you give one inch they will take a mile, first it will be high capacity mags then certain rifles, handguns, then a total firearm ban. I could , repeat could, take three cap and ball, black powder revolvers and do some hideous crime, I would never do such a thing, but the point is, all politicians and the media would be wanting to ban them next. The law abiding American citizens who own guns need to draw a very clear line in the sand to all who would try and take, or wittle away at our second amendment rights. Call your local politicians and tell them this will not be tolerated, we the people will not obey, comply or recognize laws passed by those who swore an oath to the Constitution of the United States and don’t keep it. Fear the Goverment that fears you gun. Do not be distracted by minor points when we all know what the main point is. Democrat, Republican, Independent, Tea Party or whatever, if your a gun owner they want your guns.

  121. I am an engineer with a background in Consumer Communications (15 yrs.), aerospace/defense (9 yrs.), biotech (3 yrs.), and machinery design (2 yrs.)… the family automobile once cost 1/2 the average family’s yearly income (which was based on ONE working adult), it is now 1/3 the average family’s yearly income, based on TWO working adults… the reason… technology…

    Today, each car has more computer software, computational/processing capability, and electronics capability than most of their drivers could even imagine. The list is ridiculous: anti-lock brakes, traction control, electronic shift transmissions, airbags, collision avoidance, fuel systems.

    They keep telling me that they are safer and more reliable… but, they keep costing me more to operate. My 1970 Impala with the 350 engine got 15 mpg around town, 25 mpg on the highway, and was only in the shop for tune-ups… my 2006 Impala gets 15 mpg around town, 27 mpg on the highway, and can’t go near the shop without needing repairs… come a long way, eh?

    You can keep all those gadgets… Gun Control: The ability to keep your firearm attached to your belt, or hit what you aim at.

  122. Ok i’ll take a turn at it.All the above at this point i can concur with except one…sorry your just left wing a little of my view. i do think i should be able to have access to grenades and RPG’s and as a responsible adult i would use them with the utmost of care. Now should they be sold the same as a hand gun,No but with the right permit yes. now to my point, we all feel the same way for the most part we want our guns for what ever reason we hold because it is our right . Olecowboy64 said what we all need to be zeroing in on and that is to amalgamate,and how do we go about it. We have a voice a vote and if need be a march on washington lets put 2,3,4, million in D.C. and say No More, don’t forget we are the good guy! And the stats are on our side. So what it comes down to is control and we all know where that goes, like Taxes how long before we say no more. good luck hope you find a good hiding spot when the UN comes to get them. just saying

  123. Liberals have taken the human mask off and we can see them for the mosnsters they really are. The ban they are proposing is pure communism. We need to tell our Representatives and Senators that if they vote for bullshit like that – they can kiss their political careers goodbuy.

  124. I believe liberalism is more detrimental to the American way of life than any weapon may be. We need to get our country back before its to late if its not already.

  125. I think that a responsible gun owner will keep his weapons locked up in a safe where it will be hard for a thief to get them. I personally don’t feel that more restrictions are the key. The violence taught in our society is where the issue really lies. People will find a way to kill and all the gun control in the world will not stop them if they really want to. Until we start dealing with the drugs and gangs, social breakdown and lack of employment we will never solve the problem and even then some deranged individual or nut with an ideological agenda will still kill. Gun control is only effective against law abiding citizens that use and keep their weapons in a responsible manor, respecting the law and their fellow man.

  126. First I would like to share a thought with you …(.SCREAMING) ….We don’t need gun control !!!!!!!!!. What is needed is better Mental Health Awareness and treatment. Needless to say I can’t scream but if I could I would scream we need better mental help awareness and treatment. I ‘m sorry for the redundancy. How many times have we heard liberals cry gun control. I said before and other places a Chinese man went into an elementary school and with the knife stabbed several children (in China ,) and China has the most extreme gun laws. So now we ban knifes ? Lets face it crazy people do crazy things. Believe me I am deeply concerned for the mentally ill and mentally handicapped . We in this country must ,MUST stand for what is RIGHT. WE KNOW that Hitler tried gun control and we know what became of that. He also seen a “problem” with mental illness.But we as rational people need to assist in the FIGHT for proper mental heath treatment. Not waste time and resources on DIMINISHING THE RIGHTS OF LAW ABIDING HEALTHY CITIZENS.

  127. Unfortunately, the whole gun ban issue has nothing to do with protecting innocents; the anti-gunners are just smart enough to use tragedies such as Newtown to further their real goal which is more control of the general population (us) by restricting our ability to protect ourselves or resist illegal government action. Check out what’s happening in Great Britain – first hand guns, than fox hunting, then long guns and now the people of GB have no means of protecting themselves and gun crime is rampant. The Bobbies, who traditionally carried night sticks, are now carry sidearms because of the increased gun violence. At least one British citizen who shot a home intruder is currently in jail for manslaughter. If we don’t want that here we need to make sure our congressmen/senators know how we feel, so write!

  128. I have heard a lot of the arguments from both sides of the fence on gun control. I’m not angry at either side. The thing that really really ticks me off is the lack of gun control from the gun makers.
    We have the technlogy to fly into outer space, talk around the world in seconds and yet they still havent done anything that would provide better gun control for us.
    Let me explain what I mean about gun “control”.
    We have bio electronic gun safes. We have fingerprint technology that is used at many federal institutions. Retina scan, fingerprint scan, etc.
    So why haven’t the gun manufacturers put this same technology in weapons.
    If the rightful owner is not holding it then the weapon doesn’t fire. Scopes with retina scan for rifles are also a possibility. Palm grips on handguns that recognize palm prints.
    Why havent they implemented any of this technology to help keep people safe.
    One of the things I worry about is my wife and her handgun. She has a permit and the proper training on how to use it but what if her assailant gets it away from her. With the technology we have today all he would be able to do is hit her with it.
    Not the proper owner…….no safety release!
    Come on gun makers… us you REALLY care!!!!

  129. I am a gun owning,2nd amendment supporter and a Democrat voter, maybe not any more, but I keep seeing the same theme over and over by what looks like the conservative right. does anyone remember the patriot act which has provisions in to take away your gun rights along with most of your other rights? Why is it you don’t see all the republican politicians standing in support of the 2nd amendment and speaking out against Feinsteins proposal. This isn’t a party issue, right or left, this is a government control issue, an armed population is a free population and the government,right or left do not want this

  130. My largest issue with any proposed ban on firearms is that no lawmaker in the history of the world ever abided by them nor has any single criminal! So what part of this is constitutionally accepted? It is my responsibility to keep my family safe not any administrator or police official. So should it not be my discretion and responsibility to choose by what means I do so? Not one of these officials are willing to put their life on the line for mine or my family! So I hope they sleep well at night while more and more “law abiding citizen’s” loose their lives due to the actions of a few hypocrites!

  131. I have often wondered why in 1966 I was capable and trustworthy enough to be given a M-14 and asked to stand a post in Southeast Asia to defend my country and our way of life but now when I ask for the same considerations for my own family’s security and safety I
    am neither capable or trustworthy. Why is it that our government forgets that people have been killing people long before gunpowder was even discovered. One thing I learned in the jungles of Viet Nam is you don’t need a firearm to kill and maim and ruin lives.
    The other point I would make is that when law enforcement feels it is safe enough to give up their guns ,than I will feel safe enough to give up mine.

  132. You guys should read this and pass it on to any liberal friends of yours that are either sitting on the fence or are even within sight of it. It is the most intelligent discussion of guns I’ve ever read and I’m a zealot when it comes to them. And this guy is a self-professed liberal. We should all get behind guys like this, if anyone like him even exists, cause I’ve watched videos of him making people that take the opposite side of an argument look like retards. You may not agree with his thoughts on religion. As a matter of fact, I’m positive most of you will want to string him up for that, but he understands guns and violence very well.

  133. We should not just let the liberals vent on gun control as a previous poster states… Public opinion is slowly being influenced, as has been happening for years, by subtleties. The media can’t mention a semi-auto rifle without the negative connotation of “assault rifle”. This is the same way that capitalism is being assaulted as unfair, and the successful achievers of our country as cheaters and thieves who don’t pay their fair share. Wake up! The same folks that are pushing us down the road to communism are trying to limit our access to firearms. Try standing up to a tyrannical government with a shotgun and a deer rifle.

  134. I thought this article was right on the mark, but I would just like to add one more observation to it. Our politicians are using all these shootings and catastrophes to advance their personal agenda. The real issue here is to totally abolish the 2nd amendment at any cost, even stooping to use the grief of the nation to advance that agenda.


  136. How about this one…. There is by far more deaths caused by alcohol related incidents than guns, but we don’t see anything said or done about it. Hmm!

  137. Good article, too bad we won’t see it the New York Times or that rag in Westchester who took the FIA and published a map of legal permit holders, names and addresses included. How sad. Like many others I enjoy shooting, have a CCW in NYS, served my country, served my community as a volunteer EMT, paid my taxes, retired, 25 yrs Civil Service. Newtown should never have happened, the Mom broke the rules,lock up your guns and ammo. Remove them from your home if there is a person or crisis and said legal guns maybe used against innocents. Ladies and Gentleman, if your not a paid member of the N.R.A. may I suggest you join today. They will be our only voice of reason to fight against more useless gun laws. It’s hard for me to believe that so called “educated” politicians think people like Adam Lanza will actually obey them.
    As we say here in NY, the only people who can carry in NYC, are cops, and criminals !

  138. All the comments decrying “liberals” as incompetent, ignorant and gun-grabbing make me laugh and cry at the same time. Almost every single gun owner I know falsely thinks that no liberal/Democrat would ever consider owning a gun. That’s the laughing part. The crying part is that rather than joining with the MILLIONS of liberal gun owners to educate the public about gun ownership, history and sport, so-called “conservatives” continue on with their own brand of ignorance and arrogance as harped by the NRA and Fox News, just to name 2 “liberal” media propaganda machines. As long as the rhetoric from the right continues to reject any thoughts by the left whatsoever, we all lose. Every thing stated relating to the outright paranoia of gun bans/control was said many times in the past. The 90s saw the semi-auto ban, but look! Since that expired, more of those weapons and hi-cap mags are int e hands of consumers than EVER before. So, that logic fails. Also, the conspiranoids buying up all the guns and ammo at the moment actually CAUSE the very shortages they so fear! So, that logic fails as well.

    Remember, there are a helluva lot more liberals who own guns than most here could possibly imagine. Change yor tone and rhetoric and work with others to make the right changes, or stay in the conservative bubble that has trapped so many Americans for the past 40 years. Keep electing scientifically and historically illiterate Corporate prostitutes and whatever happens will be from the orders that come down from the Corporate Pimp Masters ( the one that have brought America to its knees over and over again). You have a choice. You always did. Let’s see how you proceed.

  139. The second amendment reads:
    Amendment 2 – Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.
    “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.”

    It is time to push this in the face of those who want to infringe upon our right as citizens of this nation. “Shall no be infringed.” means just that , not Congress nor the President can infringe upon this right of the people to keep and bear arms. Senator or not, she may not stop me from owning a firearm unless of course I am a felon who has used a firearm in the commission of my crime. I think that this whole exercise is and exercise in futility, look at D. C., Chicago and other places where guns have been outlawed, except of course for the elites in society.

    Take away the guns from law abiding citizens, then only the criminals and cops will have guns. That allows the cops to become brown shirts, and the criminals to rob at will. Meanwhile leaving dead bodies all over the landscape.

    BTW, I have already resolved to not register my guns, none of the are “assault weapons” anyway.

  140. For me, it is not about Red or Blue, because both sides of the political spectrum have been corrupted by the same thing, which is of course, money. My dear old departed dad used to say that “the answer to 99 out of 100 questions is money”, it’s not really that complicated. On most issues, I would probably be so Blue as to be laughed off of this forum. But not guns. The current boogie men being used to promote gun restrictions are the “Mentally Ill”. The evil, mindless zombie masses. Afraid yet? Both sides are guilty of pandering to their electorate, but both sides are also guilty of buying into the BS I’m posting below, which to me is the black heart of the current hysteria – these are not the people I want to have the power to say who can and who cannot express their free will, and their 2nd Amendment rights, not just here in America, but anywhere on the planet.

    Commercially corrupted medicine is the leading cause of death in the US—and it is bankrupting the US budget. The Washington Post is addressing both issues in a powerful hard hitting investigative series by Peter Whoriskey titled: Can Medical Research be Trusted?

    The focus of the series is on Pharma’s orchestrated corruption in collaboration with academic scientists and prestigious journals which provided the authority and veneer of legitimacy to fraudulent, often ghostwritten research reports that claimed that lethal drugs were safe and beneficial while concealing the most severe, lethal adverse effects of prescription drugs, which are a leading cause of death.

    “Unfortunately, the entire evidence base has been perverted,” said Joseph Ross, a professor at Yale Medical School who has studied the issue.

    “You could say these marketing tactics are merely concerning. But I think of them as satanic. What the data are telling us is that these drugs are ruining people’s lives,” said Phillip Prior, MD

    The series shines a light on industry manipulated data that was used to gain FDA approval and to “negotiate” the content of FDA- approved labels. And on medical practice guidelines—such as the recently revised, American Psychiatric Association (DSM5) diagnostic and treatment manual—have been crafted by scientists with copious financial ties to companies whose products they promote.

    The resounding verdict—much as our own five-part series, America’s Healthcare Crisis—is that medical research, medical journals, medical practice guidelines, FDA advisory panels, and doctors—all of who are bankrolled by the pharmaceutical industry—cannot be trusted!

  141. Your Second Amendment rights are not being eroded by Law Makers, they are being eroded by MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE WHO COMMIT HEINOUS ACTS AND CRIMES WITH GUNS. Whether we like it or not, the gun culture is changing in the US, and unless you want to get flattened by this freight train it’s time to put forth some real ideas about how to solve this problem.

    We need to focus on how to keep weapons away from sick people. All of these spree shooters have the common thread that there were PLENTY of signs that they were sick- and everyone around them ignored the signs.

    We need to stick to the issue at question, and keep some of the emotion out of this. For what it’s worth, believe it or not, Obama has publicly supported the Second Amendment, and even after the shooting in Colorado did nothing to pursue anything considered anti-gun. I live in Colorado- I was surprised by this and there was a lot of press about it and how nothing was being done at the time. It was not until the Sandy Hook massacre that he got enough political pressure to do something- anything.

    Frankly, I’m sick of these shooting sprees. While there is a certain logic about “arming every good guy” it just isn’t plausible on the scale of this nation. Really. For one thing, there is no good way to separate out the “good” and “bad” guys. Bad doesn’t just mean criminal- it also means mentally unstable or sick. The US health care system is no help here.

    This is a mental health issue on a very grand scale, and I think it very likely that some stupid gun laws will be enacted to try to band-aid a hemorrhage. We have an opportunity to influence how this goes, so we need to try to do so in a meaningful way.

    Complaining about Feinstein, Obama, abortion, the 18th amendment, etc… or any form of “over my dead body” is not meaningful.

    Come up with some REAL ideas that can be legislated, that are LOGICAL and to the point, that preserve our rights while trying to address the PROBLEM of SICK PEOPLE USING GUNS.

  142. If you want to see the future that we all face after we turn in our guns, go to youtube and watch the video named “Innocents Betrayed The history of gun control”. Ater you watch that, you’ll have no trouble deciding what you’ll when they come for your guns. This gun control debate is about whether our grandchildren will live free or as slaves to the government!

  143. Dave’s comments make sense. Perhaps too much sense for the knee-jerk populous who know little or nothing about firearms and want to see them all banned. We gun owners are labeled a bunch of fanatics, and any argument we make in favor of firearms goes in one ear and out the other. This post by Dave will never make the front page of a newspaper, or any main stream news outlet. No one asks how many guns are in the hands of responsible citizens that did NOT get used in the commission of a crime. How many firearms were used to thwart a crime last year?
    Want to talk about tragedy, how many children in this country died at the hands of their parents last year, either as a result of abuse, or as a result of a DUI traffic accident.
    Find the post by Joshua Boston a US Marine to Dianne Feinstein. Another fantastic response to our politicians, most of whom have forgotten who they work for!
    God Bless America

  144. Nothing new here, gun owners have always been under attack by the Liberal Left. This time they have another national atrocity to use as ammunition and they will press their attack with vigor. They are all hypocrites. I recall years ago when the president of a prominent anti-handgun organization was charged after shooting at a man trespassing in his pool with a handgun. It spelled the end of the organization.

    The Liberal mindset is that everyone must follow the rules they make, even if they don’t have to.

  145. Let’s keep it simple !! There are 2 kinds of people. Good & bad. Since the creation of the earth even God cannot keep them under control. If God can’t stop it, then neither can the politicians, even the REALLY smart ones that have never owned a gun, shot a gun, or served in the military or been involved in law enforcement. I don’t have an answer to the problem. But placing restrictions on the law-abiding citizens in the good-ol’ U.S.of A., is NOT the answer !!

  146. Every flood starts with “one rain drop”…I suggest that we all take one non-firearm owner to the range and introduce them to the fun of shooting. I have not yet met anyone that did not have fun shooting a firearm. Scared at first, but intrigued they may just convert themselves…

    If everyone did that we may begin to change the attitudes of the non-firearm owning public.

  147. How can you tell a Liberal in the zombie apocalypse? He or she is the ones that can walk among the zombie and not get hurt. Because they have no brains.

  148. I agree that we can no longer stand still and allow the horrible murder of innocent children in this country. However, that statement has nothing to do with guns, for even the liberal overly inflated statistics presented by Feinstein pale in comparison to other numbers. The REAL problem is that every DAY in this country, on average, over 3200 innocent children are brutally murdered in the name of “choice” and with no reason other than for convenience. The fact that liberal democrats ignore that number proves beyond a reasonable doubt that they are simply hypocrites.

    Clearly the thrust regarding gun control is more political than altruistic. Attempting to remove the Second Amendment is but the first official attack against the Constitution of our beloved country, which in fact both Feinstein and Obama took an OATH to “support and defend against all enemies foreign and domestic”. Have they never examined the consequences of the 18th Amendment. All it accomplished was to make the bad guys richer. Any attempt at prohibiting firearms will only make the bad guys stronger. Liberals are incredibly stupid if they think that outlaws will willingly give up their weapons. All you would do is to disarm honest citizens and violate their right to defend themselves and ultimately their country. Remember the words of George Mason, “To Disarm the People is the most Effectual way to Enslave them.” It appears that is the agenda facing us.

  149. Once again we have movement in the wire!
    this issue is not about guns! It is about our consitutional rights. Once again we fined our selves on defence. The NRA has done a terriffic job of proveing our case in court but we’re dealing with peoples emotions not their ability to reason.
    I am luck enought to live in a gun frindly state, we are rised with guns, we shot ,we hunt and we own guns. We have a lot of people who have served in the military and fought for this country and our consitution. Most of the anti-guns have no exspireace with weapons and precive them as a threat. We see them as a tool to defend ourselves.
    The new compain should be foucused on our 2nd amendment rights. No ands, ifs, or buts about it.

  150. Outstanding and insightful article. I agree with one poster who commented that the reference to General was Barbara Boxer. I do need to research/validate which ones of the CA senators hold permits and have licenses. As a Senator, she can carry concealed in D.C. (and we can’t) because under the Constitution, she cannot be detained going to and from Congress for the purpose of doing the people’s business (as I recall from one of my government classes back when the Earth was crusting over 🙂

  151. Def needs to become the age of personal responsibility. Don’t have unsecured guns in ur home if u have troubled kids. Moms and dads of gangbangers should feel responsibility to get illegal weapons out of their homes and into police hands. We need to promote gun safety nationally over prime tv commercials, to the like of Bacardi “drink responsibly, have a dd”, we have adds promoting gun safety and education, and keeping illegal guns out of homes of gangbangers/ criminals. Oh and hey get harsh on criminals. Mandatory life sentence for gun crimes. Mandatory death penalty for murders. Limit number of appeals a death row person can have so we can make it known you won’t be getting 3 hots, cot, cable tv rest of ur life. PERSONAL RESPONSIBLITY of gun owners, mothers, fathers, gun manufactures, law makers, lawyers

  152. Bottom line, there is a second amendment and no lesser legislation than a constitutional amendment can change that legally. The framers thought people were smarter than the Feinsteins of the nation, I still think they are. Do it right Ms. Feinstein or you become nothing more than a lawless civil liberties grabber.

  153. This ban is supported by people that are about as ignorant as they come. Just as bad are the losers that legislate laws like this. Neither one of these groups would be missed by real Americans. There was a letter sent to finkelstein by a Marine named Boston that everybody should read and send it on to every real American they know.{also to all the koolaide drunk useless idiots that have fallen for the huge load of crap that is being spewed by the flunky administration} Of course they will use the talking points and dis miss the facts which is typical of koolaide drunk liberals. For all those in law enforcement and military the time has come to make the decision to either continue to just do your job and ignore tho oath you swore to defend the Constitution, and go against your fellow Americans. Or you can join the team of real Americans and eliminate the threat to liberty and freedom that is being pushed by the real criminals. The lines are being drawn and the vast majority of gun owners will not turn in their firearms. Nor will we accept any compromise with the enemy in their deranged logic that a gun ban will stop the actions of people that are under the control of dangerous pharmaceuticals. History has proven time and again that registration laeds to confiscation resulting in extermination by tyrants and despots.

  154. This is just a reminder of why term limits are needed now more than ever! Two terms & done for life!!! 300,000,000+++ Americans & we still have to endure career politician? Scum-bag career politicians…

  155. It’s funny how liberals ignore the facts, and have taken up the fight to disarm law abiding Americans just on their emotional responses. Gun control hasn’t worked anywhere in this country, and has, in fact, made matters worse. (Chicago is an example.) The facts are out there, yet they choose to distort the facts to suit their agenda.

    Liberals see that the only option is confiscation.

    Our Constitution is inconvenient for our administration, so now they will attempt to severely restrict our Rights!

    I saw a liberal commentator on the news a few nights ago that stated two-thirds of the membership of the NRA supports clamping-down on gun rights, favor new and very strict gun control laws, and so on. (I’m paraphrasing this.) The host did NOT challenge her statements, and there was NO ONE there to argue her statements!

    For one moment, I do NOT believe any of that! I’m an NRA member, as well as a member of NAGR and RMGO, and will fight ANY new legislation to the very best of my ability! There must be a special place in Hell for the liberals of this Nation that only seek to destroy America, in favor of a socialism or communism. Constitutional Conservatives love America, and celebrate being free. Liberals hate America, and would prefer a communism.

    The Agenda to disarm America is underway. We must fight tooth-and-nail to stop it! When our 2A Rights go, then the 1st and 4th are only hanging by a thread.

  156. When will people look at the media as a big part in all this. The job of the media is to report the news, not make it so big that the nut’s think that they get a name for them self by killing more people then the last one. Don,t tell me the killers name just say lone gun man and take the fame out of it. Then they wont feel so important. Look at the poor man that was killed in NY when a man pushed him in front of a train. the next thing you know a women did it to. When the news glorify s some things the nuts are hearing that and will act. The news likes to go after the gun owners rights .Lets see how they like it when it put to them. They should hang there heads in shame.

  157. Gun control at the home needs to be the issue. It’s the only way to keep guns from thieves, children and etc. This would of helped in the Newtown shooting. I mean gun safes not just trigger locks.

  158. I think this will never pass the house of representatives. Many democrats won’t even touch it. I say let the liberals vent, they seem to feel better afterwords. Also, any new laws banning guns or magazines will be about as effective as they were last time, or about as effective as laws that ban drugs or alcohol. All it does is causes people to hoard these items. Just look at the prices and availability of all of these things. Feinstein and Obama: the world’s best firearms sales people. Back in ’94 with the previous ban, 30 round magazines for AR-15’s were selling for $100 apiece.

  159. How does dissarming Americans make us safer?
    I don’t know how to convince Americans that they should be more afraid of politicians/criminals than the guns that will defeat criminals. Groups like Handgun Control Inc. have sold Americans a bill of goods by saying that guns cause more harm than good. It simply is not true. The only thing that stops a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun.

  160. Any gun registration is an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. Once registration begins, confiscation will follow soon and then we are merely slaves not free men and women. This has been done over and over in history. We are obligated to not let it happen in America.

  161. Dave, while I totally support your view and definitely agree that people MUST refocus AND regroup to let the politicians know that we don’t buy into their BS, there is something that I disagree with. I am a gunsmith and in the 2 years of formal education it took to get me there I never once encountered the technical “assault weapon”. You know as well as I the nomenclature and types of firearms available. The legal term “assault weapon” is a mythical weapon from the demented imagination of gun ban industry’s of Josh Sugarmann, author of the 1988 book “Assault Weapons and Accessories in America”. As a legal term the definition is so vaguely defined as to allow any governing body to ban and then confiscate which is of course the ultimate goal of the progressive government that the lemmings have voted in.

  162. All of the above are correct. I just want to know HOW can Gun Owners get Amalgamated? Even if we belong to NRA and other groups with similar interest, there must be a way to organize so that we all know who will really FIGHT the commie bastards. If they get an Executive Order from the Illegal President, will you just hand over your weapons? What about our antiques?

    I am getting old and have been through this 3 times in my 70 odd years and it appears that Congress fears the NRA, we the people need to scare the hell out of them in some manner. I think we should ALL watch how our representatives vote and if one votes against us, mobilize heavily to vote them out. I used to have adequate finances. But since Obama was elected I have been spending my savings, because it doesn’t draw enough interest to piss on, and I depended on that interest. If I could I would send NRA a Million.

  163. The problem here is not one of logic. You have the Feinstein-type political power mongers, and all their lackies, who are mentally incapable of any form of reasoning ability running the show. What is needed, instead, is something that will get their attention, quickly and absolutely. As Joseph Farrah of WND so aptly put it “… maybe, what we need now is a little civil disobedience.” Rather than starting another Civil War or an armed uprising, which anyone with half a brain knows we can’t win, we need to respond in a civilized manner that would result in the entire populace questioning their running rough-shod over the Constitution and their buy now, pay later, free-spending antics.

    How about if every gun owner in the U.S. refused to file Federal and State Income Tax Returns until after these Constitutional issues are settled, and these mindless, totally out-of-control spenders are harnessed in, or booted out?

  164. Diane Feinstein will accomplish not a thing. When her state is drowning in debt she has her nose where it don’t belong. Rather she would prfer to waste tax payer dollar’s on something that would not benifeit the California resident’s. This lady is a burden to her State.

  165. I am very disappointed. I am a Democrat and I feel gun control is NOT the answer. Previous bans on assault rifles did nothing to curb gun violence. The shootings we have witnessed are no more about guns than they are about spoons and forks making people fat. It is about Psychotic breaks. These breaks happen to people under stress between the ages of 11 and 28. If a person who has a psychotic break and has narcissistic tendencies then these people need an audience, so they typically will do things like going on killing sprees where they know the media will fully cover their actions.

    There are signs to look for in a narcissistic personalities, and psychotic breaks. We should be educating the public on what signs to look for. Especially gun dealers. We should give gun dealers the right to refuse someone a sale after they fail 10 questions that would reveal these symptoms. Or train the general public and create a hotline to call in case someone should recognize some or most of the symptoms of a psychotic break.

    Altering the constitution is a slippery slope. I would rather we solve the problem and not create new ones.

  166. Check out the FBI’s web page for stats on deaths. Bats have killed more people than “rifles” year after year. How do these stats not get brought up again and again? And by the way, was’t President Lincoln killed by a gun? How about the beloved JFK? No gun bans then. It is going to take a miracle for the U.S. not to turn in to Nazi Germany or communist Russia. We are well on our way with this bunch in office.

  167. Compare bad apples to bad apples. 1990, single perpetrator crime against a mass group in USA. Happy Land arson, Bronx, New York. One man, with $1 dollar worth of gasoline, less than a gallon, started a fire that resulted in the death of 87 people. That beats the Virgina Tech gunman. The arsonist was caught and convicted, González was charged with 174 counts of murder—two for each victim—and was found guilty on 87 counts of arson and 87 counts of murder on August 19, 1991. For each count he received the sentence maximum of 25 years to life (a total of 4,350 years). It was the most substantial prison term ever imposed in the state of New York. He will be eligible for parole in March 2015 because New York law states that multiple murders occurring during one act will be served concurrently, rather than consecutively.
    where is the call to ban gasoline and containers greater than a quart?

  168. I have been a gun owner for fifty years. I own an M15A4, a 1911, bolt action, lever action, single action, single shot, and semi-automatic weapons. I shoot frequently, and have always enjoyed the sport. I believe that I could continue to own, use, and purchase any weapon currently legal in the U.S. without endangering my friends, neighbors, or relatives. I believe the vast majority of gun owners are just as responsible and just as concerned about safety as am I.

    Having said that, I must comment that none of my reasons for owning a center-fire semiautomatic rifle, carbine, or machine pistol using a removable clip are sufficient for allowing them to continue to be so freely available to people who will use them to kill others. We who own them know that they are devastating weapons, and that they can remove all avenues of escape for large groups of people for long periods of time while many of them are killed or wounded.

    I can think of no way to discern between me and a person who will become a mass murderer, and I can think of no weapon better to commit such a crime than the type I have described. As long as I have access to such weapons, so will they.

    We always have drawn a line. We would not tolerate free access to hand grenades, rpgs, or weaponized viruses. These weapons also should be beyond that line. Society will not and should not continue to tolerate one horrible slaughter after another. As gun owners we should cooperate in the construction of rational restrictions or we shall without doubt someday face an overwhelming revolt against all gun ownership.

    Perhaps in addition to the many who will be outraged by this comment there also will be some who have some sympathy for its recommendations. Perhaps not.

  169. Obama and his minions are cocky since the morons that voted for him put him back in a position to do more damage.

    There is no arguing with the gun haters. They would rather ban guns that fix our mental health system and family abuse issues.

    The people that think taking guns away from law abiding people are the same ones that will cry for help when crime goes through the roof, and that is a proven fact.

    Our Country is already doomed,but we must fight back to keep our “God given” rights.

  170. I noticed Diane Feinstein did not try to outlaw box cutters after 9-11. My SKS came from the factory with a grenade launcher. What would I do? Grenades that are anti-personell type are unavailable to the public and I wonder if Diane knows that? So, all semi-auto pistols will be outlawed because all of them require detachable magazines to function. Maybe we’ll all luck out and someone will take out Ms. Feinstein with a car, knife, revolver, pencil,or some other inoccuous artilce used for something other than hurting someone.

  171. The statements made by CTD are absolutely correct, especially those in the closing statements.

    I hate the word assault weapon. Anything used to inflict bodily injury to someone can be labeled as an assault weapon. Take a baseball bat, a hammer, a tire tool, a knife, a car and on and on…if it is used to harm or even kill someone it is an assault weapon. The reason because you used that to assault a person or persons.

    Banning firearms will not stop a crazed idiot with evil intent from doing harm to others.

    When will those gun grabbing idiots themselves realize this? Those states and cities with the strictest gun laws on the books can see for themselves has it decreased the violent crimes committed with guns…NO…and the reason is criminals don’t care what laws are on the books.

    It is time to deal with the individuals, not the tools that they used to commit the act.

  172. This is typical hypocracy in politics as well as the rank and file. Antigun people will never convince us to change our minds on the second amendment. We on the other hand will never not convince anyone our views are correct as long as we continue calling semi auto firearms “assault weapons”. I’ve heard and read this term being used time and time again. The only way to change the current political status is to vote. No one has the right to complain if they don’t get their lazy asses off the couch to vote AND to teach their children what it means to work to better themselves and not depend on the government. We also must teach our kids that our world has changed and they must always be alert, expect the worst and be prepared for it. We can say it’s a shame but as they say, it is what it is. Even with family, “trust but verify”.

  173. Well said. I can’t add anything except elections have consequences and now the moron voters are seeing why you need to check someone out beyond party affiliation before you vote for them.

    For the kool-aide drinkers there is no hope. I know a guy (known him 40 years) who told me he would vote for Hitler if he ran for president as a democrat. He’s also convinced that the weapons bans would not affect him cause he’s a democrat. The country is full of people like him.

  174. Bottom Line is that “we” (all gun owners in America) are in “the fight of our lives.” It is now up to us to unite together and join or re-up with the NRA, contact your respective politicians and more like there were no tomorrow. We can defeat the worst of the antis gun-regulation coming down the pike if we remain actively involved citizens exercising our First Amendment rights in order to protect and preserve our equally important Second Amendment rights (interesting how both the 1st and 2nd Amendments are so utterly intertwined). Our Founding Fathers were brilliantly gifted with the foresight to see that corrupt governments were absolutely possible thereby requiring that the People have the ability to defend and deter tyrannical despots–Happy New Year

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.