I sounds so cliche, but facts are facts. It doesn't get any more common sense than than.

Well then... let's take it literally.

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.

First, we'll forgo discussion of punctuation differences between the US Senate/House approved version and the version sent to the States for approval. However, if we take the 2nd Amendment literally, No One could ever be denied firearms of any type for any reason. Your psychotic neighbor that just quit taking his meds can legally have one. Your daughter's drug-selling coworker could carry his at all times, and his competition could also, when they come to visit with him at your daughter's place of work.

That murderer that was found guilty of a minor felony but was acquitted on murder charges because of a technicality can still legally purchase, and carry concealed, any firearm he chooses. That convicted rapist that your wife testified against can legally carry a gun into your church and sit next to her.

John Hinckley could go buy a .50 caliber rifle and sit out Dumbya or Dicky Boy's homes with a 1.5 mile line of site, or more appropriately Wayne LaPierre's.

There are Many good reasons for gun control. Being a responsible gun owner and shooter, I understand both sides of the issue. But people have got to stop trying to make mountains out of molehills and quit saying that any regulation will just lead to total bans.

Don't try to take away my handguns, shotguns, or rifles. But if I want to shoot a .50 caliber again, I'll go to a nearby range that will let me shoot one. Likewise for an M4 or MP5. I have no legitimate reason to own one, or any of the many "assault-type" weapons. And I don't want others owning them either.

I disagree with Chicago in banning all handguns, but I understand the principle behind it. Just don't go to either extreme. Either total bans or no limits, either one, would be wrong.

Yes Afghanistan is proving your point.

Chicago is a perfect example of gun control failure. Currently, only the Police and criminals carry guns. The law abiding citizens are unable to protect themselves against armed criminals and there aren't enough police to do that either. Has there really been a reduction in gun violence compared to large cities that allow gun ownership? I doubt it.

Someone tell Mr. Feldman that you can't pick and choose how you want to interpret the Constitution just because your view of one is bad. " Guns are different, they kill people." Number one, that is a stupid statement, people kill people. You could argue that so does freedom of the press or speech; surely, both have gotten our soldiers or spies killed, because of the press blabbing about something they shouldn't have or spreading names of our agents in the field. Mr. Feldman sounds like the typical liberal in this case.

Let's just make the rules as we go, that's their stance.

The Constitution is clear....every citizen has the right to bear arms for self preservation and protection. Government control would once again be breaking the laws of the Constitution that this administration swore an oath to uphold. Oh, but like he told McCain....it's no longer a campaign. So, the oath doesn't really mean anything.....This amendment was meant to protect the average joe against government tyrany......such as this.

Rita, you hit the nail on the head. The second amendment doesn't say anything about protecting oneself against criminals. It is to guarantee freedom.

The Constitution also gives the right to free speech (FIRST amendment) and a free press, but there are still laws related to libel and slander. And you still can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater if there is no emergency. The Second Amendment can and should similarly be regulated with laws.

You're right icstars-1,

because we all know criminals are model and law-abiding citizens who would follow the laws.

Guns don't kill people. I own several, they haven't went out and killed anyone either. I keep checking to make sure they aren't floating around my house randomly shooting around also.

Knives kill people too. We better ban those also. Maybe only certified restaurants are able to carry steak knives?

While we are at it, that first amendment is crazy...................Words can kill people too. Maybe the states should make it illegal to be able to say anything mean or negative to anyone too (people have committed suicide because of this).

Maybe the states should do something about that Freedom of Religion too................. Maybe Islam should be outlawed in Chicago, as you all know, terrorists follow Islam. We don't want terrorists in Chicago either!

Sarcasm off. (in case you all thought I was serious)

icstar is absolutely right though. Certain regulations should be enforced. Not about the types of firearms that can be possessed but the type of person who can possess them. There is nothing wrong with saying folks of a certain age or with certain felony convictions or certain mental illnesses cannot own or possess firearms. An AK-47 in the hands of a stable, law-abiding adult will cause no harm but, a single action .22 pistol can kill a family in the hands of a madman.

Oh, I agree with that Lee..........................convicted felons, people with mental health issues, etc..................should not be allowed to purchase weapons.

I am also for a restriction on the number of weapons someone can purchase, purchasing 1 gun a month is MORE than enough (gun dealers do not apply), etc.....................

In Chicago, they only want the gangbangers to be armed. If, as they assert, the states should have the right to place additional restrictions on the 2^nd amendment, why stop with that amendment? Why not place restrictions on the 1^st amendment, or for that matter, why not change the 4^th amendment or any other ammendment to their liking.

Ed, are you even reading the posts? Above, I pointed out that there already ARE restrictions on the first amendment. So you can retract your ridiculous statement about what chicago wants now.

Icstars-1

Try the NFA of 1932 up until that time you could own any type of firearm and what is now known as destructive devices without any restrictions.

I was off by two years NFA of 1934

The Supreme Court has proven over and over again that they are in the pocket of special interests................so I don't care how they rule............it is all without merit even if it can be made into law.

Justice with an agenda is not justice.

The Supreme Court has too much power and should not be a lifetime appointment............what the US Supreme Court has done in the last 10 years borders on treason.

An armed society shoots up colleges and grade schools, shoots the person who made you mad on the highway, leaves their guns for children to find, doesn't secure their guns so they are taken in robberies, has arsenals for offensive use, kills their spouses...and so many of these are so-called 'responsible owners' who bought their guns legally. The Second Amendment can be tweaked, just like the rest of the Constitution. This includes the limits to free speech, voter rights, etc. For some, the only Amendment they are concerned about protecting is the 2nd. It was written at a time when we had no standing army for protection (militia), no formal police departments, most citizens lived in isolated areas and people hunted for their food. Things have changed. There is no need for a citizen militia (other than the National Guard), we have police depts. and most people buy their food. Limiting who can buy a weapon (no mentally ill or anyone with a violent past, including misdemeanors..), limiting the types of weapons - how many offensive weapons does any one person need?, closing the loopholes and enforcing exsisting laws, allowing for the rights of others who are not comfortable with a drunk in a bar carrying a weapon, for example. Those of us who recognize that why people buy guns isn't logical, we feel that Our rights have been usurped in favor of NRA monies buying votes in Congress through membership pressure and financial donations. The madness has to stop. Letting arms into public parks, insanity.

Cynthia-1233995 you have it so wrong.

• Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.
  George Washington
• Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
  James Madison
• Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.
  Thomas Jefferson
• No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
  Thomas Jefferson

All quotes from http://www.brainyquote.com/

Um, I own several guns and in the almost 30 years i have had them, I have never

shoots up colleges and grade schools, shoots the person who made you mad on the highway, leaves their guns for children to find, doesn't secure their guns so they are taken in robberies, has arsenals for offensive use, kills their spouses

Cynthia, do you seriously think Criminals will be lining up to turn in there handguns too?

Cynthia-1233995

The U.S. Marines have been around as an organized military force from 1775 to now. So you're wrong. That is before the constitution was ratified. A disarmed society is prey to all sorts of criminal behavior.

Some folks just don't get it...whats more effective when some dirt-bag breaks into your home? A gun thats 10 feet away, or police that are ten miles away? provided you even had time to call 911 and sucessfully get them on their way.

Enough said

Debbie

As soon as you get to be queen you can disband the supreme court. But I would like to point out that people seeking absolute power is EXACTLY why the second amendment exists. Thank you for making the point.

Those in power have taken our jobs away, made our citizenship meaningless by allowing another country to seen us their uneducated peasants, taking away our homes, manufactured food and fuel shortages and now they will attempt to take away our right to defend ourselves with weapons...

THEY are afraid of us, as an armed society, if we decide to get our s**t together we can take back what they've stripped from us. The Patriot Act was the first part of the deconstruction of America and The American middle class...Step two, take away our rights to bear arms...isn't anyone worried about what comes next?

If you outlaw guns then only outlaws have guns.

Probably true. I'd also say the same of drugs and polygamy.

I don't personally think that civilized people own guns, unless they're the sorts who hunt their own food. But I'm also not, by nature, a prohibitionist, and don't begrudge anyone the right to spend his money in whatever stupid way he sees fit. :)

Switzerland is full of avid gun owners and are proficient in their use. Even teens are encouraged to learn to shoot. Are they not civilized? Canadians can own guns, are they not civilized?

As has been often said, it's not called the bill of needs, it's called the bill of rights. I don't need a reason to own a gun, it is my right to own one.

If states can attack the second amendment, they can also attack the rest. That is a dangerous proposition. It was mentioned above that the first amendment has restrictions but unless I'm mistaken, those are federal restrictions, not state. This case involves states rights to restrict the constitution. I would be amazed if the court didn't overturn the ban to the same degree they did in DC.

The right to bears arms is EXACTLY aimed at a government, ANY government that would attempt to take away our right to bear arms, including bearing arms against the government of the United States of America, should they stupidly attempt such a thing.

And we as a people would then, in that case, most assuredly bear arms without hesitation, in unison, without warning and without a doubt. Lets hope our ELECTED officials fully understand this: "From my dead cold fingers" is not just a movie line.

ScubaGolfJim

Don't try to take away my handguns, shotguns, or rifles. But if I want to shoot a .50 caliber again, I'll go to a nearby range that will let me shoot one. Likewise for an M4 or MP5. [1] I have no legitimate reason to own one, or any of the many "assault-type" weapons. And [2] I don't want others owning them either.

Two things:

[1] No one is going to try to make you own one but on the other hand, you not having a legitimate reason for owning one isn't a valid basis for denying others that right

[2] Some own them anyway in spite of you not wanting them to and in violation of tons of laws that say they can't, because they're criminals.

It would be great if there was a mechanism that allowed those citizens who want to relinquish the protections afforded them by the U.S. Constitution to give up their rights, but only their rights, leaving everyone else's untouched. Then our resources could be utilized in a more efficient manner to ensure that those protections remain intact.

Mariyam

And just where do these guns the criminals possess come from? They are purchased legally (or not) at gun shows. They are stolen from citizens that purchased them legally. They come from the shops that make the guns for "legal" sale in the US.

Now if .50 calibers, M4s, MP5s and the like were made expressly for the military and law enforcement groups, how many would be on the street today? A small, even minute, fraction of the current number. Are some stolen from the military and from law enforcement? Yes... some. But the criminals wouldn't be anywhere near as well armed if every joe-blow couldn't go buy an assault weapon.

Don't get me wrong here. I enjoy firing M4s and MP5s. There is a big rush when I make a "kill shot" from 300 meters with a .50 cal.... but again, there is NO legitimate reason for me, or any other civilian (now,) to own one. I can go shoot one when I wish, but I also leave it at the shop. If they weren't putting out 175 of these a week, how many would make their way into criminal hands? None?

AK-47s you say? The overwhelming majority of those are imported legally into the US. And most anyone can take one from semi- to full-automatic in a matter of minutes, with no training. And they're legal to buy and sell to the general public... and out the back door of a gun show also. M4s and MP5s aren't too hard either.

Need a weapon to defend yourself? Historically, that's the mentality that supplied the criminals in the first place.

And yes... not having a legitimate right to own or do something is exactly what laws are for. People have no legitimate right to walk up to you and take your money... and there's a law about that. And if they know what they're doing, your "protection" will simply get you killed, even if you think you know what you're doing. Ask any law enforcement officer or military person. They know.

As I have (hopefully clearly) stated.... Chicago is wrong in this case. A total ban on handguns is not the answer. But I do not agree with those claiming that the slightest gun control is against the Constitution. If you want to take the 2nd literally, you're crazy. Read my original statement again and see why I say this. I'm sure that if our Founding Fathers knew about the Gatling Gun and all of its descendants, they would have put some limitations in there about who could own them.

The people who want anyone to be able to own and carry any kind of gun into any where without permits or background checks (who are few) are short sighted. But a city with a high gun crime rate banning the lawful ownership of a pistol in a law-abiding, non felon, sane person's home home is a gross violation of liberty. Do we need certain restrictions on who can and what types of weapons people can legally own? Certainly. But a pistol is not a machine gun or assault rifle. And those who meet certain quals should be able to keep one in their home if they so choose without being in violation of the law. I hope the Supreme Court does the right thing.

Here is an interesting footnote to the "anti-gun" ranters.. The state of Vermont has the lowest rate of homicides in the nation.. Vermont law permits a resident to carry a concealed weapon without requiring a permit.. This is based on the number of homicides per 100,000 residents.. The fact that Vermont is a rural community has no bearing.. But then too in rural areas there seems to be a lot more personal responsibility - consideration for others - and respect for others then found in metropolitan areas.. It is not the weapon - it is the mindset..

Another item you might want to give serious consideration to.. When Thomas Jefferson proposed the 2nd Amendment the reasoning was this.. If the government of this country ever became as oppressive as the British government was in 1776 that the American people would have the ability to have a revolution similiar to the first one.. Now personally I firmly believe it is time for another revolution but is must take place in the voting booths across the nation..

One could reach the conclusion that the reason local - state and federal government bodies want to control the number and type of firearms we own is because they are afraid.. They are afraid that the voting taxpayers very well could decide that the types of governing we are seeing these days on all levels - the corruption in politics and the back room dealings that cost us billions have gone on for too long and it is time to change things to make them the way our founding fathers intended them to be..

Next official act is to see if any of my weapons have escaped from the safe and shot or stabbed anyone behind my back..

Guns kill people - - - erasers make people misspell words - - spoons make Rosy O'Donnel fat..

Switzerland is full of avid gun owners and are proficient in their use. Even teens are encouraged to learn to shoot. Are they not civilized? Canadians can own guns, are they not civilized?

I don't consider the ownership of non-hunting firearms a particularly civilized choice, no. Were I to evaluate any one person's level of civilization (to the degree that I have any reason for or interest in doing such, which isn't very high), I'd have to weigh that against all other factors.

That said, I have some good friends who are really, really into guns. I think the death penalty is uncivilized, too, but many in my family believe in it.

As has been often said, it's not called the bill of needs, it's called the bill of rights. I don't need a reason to own a gun, it is my right to own one.

Absolutely. Where did I say otherwise? Just because I don't believe in gun ownership doesn't mean I believe in gun control. Gun control, to me, means not owning guns, myself, by choice. I don't believe that the government should interfere with a private citizen's right to own firearms, any more than I think the government should interfere with my right to smoke a joint in my own house or some schmoe's right to pay a hooker for a hand job come Saturday night.

"Still, James Feldman, a Washington-based lawyer representing the city of Chicago, urged the court to reject the challenges to the gun laws in that city and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill. Handguns have been banned in those two places for nearly 30 years, although they appear to be the last two remaining jurisdictions with outright bans, according to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence."

***************************************************************************

Leave it to a communist laywyer to use that kind of reasoning....Notice how the word laywer sounds eerily close to the word liar??...So, even though the law in Chicago is unconstitutional, it should stay in place because its been like that for 30 years??? What kind of B.S. reasoning is that??? If an unconstitutional law gets passed it can somehow become unrevokable because it managed to stand for a while??

This is yet another example of the typical liberal communist way of thinking, aint that right comrades???

ScubaGolfJim,

The restrictions came in via the NFA act of 1934. Up until that time anyone who wanted could buy all sorts of machine guns, suppressors, sub-machine guns, and what is now known as other destructive devices. So you're wrong. By the way I have not heard of any gang-banger using any of Ronnie Barrett's products have you?

I am continually shocked at people who think that disarming law abiding citizens will reduce crime. All you have to look at is England and Australia, and there is your proof. It doesn't work, the bad guys will have theirs', plus if someone bigger and stronger than me I need help.

bruce dekalb,il

In my post I am referring to how ridiculous it is for those that are against any type of gun restrictions. They like to invoke the 2nd Amendment and like to point out the "shall not be infringed" wording, up until the issues I mention are brought out. So am I really wrong here, or is that just your opinion?

And as for Mr. Barrett's products, I do not know of any "gang-bangers" using them. But doesn't mean they don't have some. Tell me of any "gang-banger" shootings where a .50 cal would have been more useful than a Mac-10.

And I'm not that worried about the "gang-bangers" having .50 cals because they wouldn't fit their "needs" and would cause more problems than they would want. You know, carrying it concealed on the streets and such. I'm much more worried about the warped-ass militias having them. The skin-heads and neo-nazis. Those that have compounds in the middle-of-nowhere and practice long kill shots.

So do you really think that "gang-bangers" are the only criminals out there? Do you really think that they are the only ones to worry about having .50 cals, or are you sporting a shaved head and a swastika arm-band also? I don't think you are, but open up that mind a little more on the possibilities and don't just put your attention on one segment of the society.

I'm grateful for the NFA of 1934, and I'm also for more (and still reasonable) restrictions.

When California decided to ban .50 BMGs, the state could not point to one single instance where one had been used in the commission of a crime. This is not too surprising when you consider that a BMG is over 4' long and weighs over 23 lbs.

The only people who shoot these monsters are (wealthy) marksmen who like to hit quarters at 1000 yards or more. Not only do the guns cost thousands of dollars, the rounds run around $5 per. Expensive hobby.

Anyone that think that a gun ban is a good thing needs to come live in my world with me for just two weeks...where police sometimes never show up to a call..there is not any existing 9-1-1 to dial in an emergency, and the police are often times the criminals themselves...and kidnap for ransom, murder over cell phones and other things is normal...where the criminals don´t carry hand guns..they carry uzis and ak47s and wear police uniforms..even the fake ones..where narco terrorist is a normal sighting..sorry but guns aren´t just smart they are an incredible need and not a luxury to me.

So....you didn't actually READ the article, did ya? Because if you had, you'd have noticed that this has absolutely nothing to do with Obama or any part of his administration. In fact, it has nothing to do with either the entire Executive OR Legislative branch of our government. This is solely the work of the Judicial branch, and they don't answer to anyone. As for your brilliant revelation exposing the link between our POTUS and the city of Chicago, well, those laws were enacted before Obama so I'm not sure how you think he had anything to do with that, either.

But, I can't blame you for posting something completely erroneous like this. I'm sure it's a lot of hard work coming up with new and original play-on-names for the President. Obumbler, HA, what a hoot!!

Excellent post, as the game.

Game, You sound like a trusting individual like most sheep are. But hey, no reason to get yer panties in a wad. Didn't mean to insult your boy, merely mentioned some coinkidinks. And boom, there you go over the deep end defending him with your copious knowlege of how the gov is supposed work. What a blinding flash of the obvious!!!!! Trouble is, it aint been workin like that for a long time. WTFU, snap out of it, come to, open thy eyes, sheeesh I dont know what else to tell ya. But I'm gonna hate to be an I told ya so, but........!!!!!!

@2.1 I think the dialogue on this thread has been great. One thing, though. The Supreme Court answers to the people, and there are a few ways the people can overturn them. First, if there is a faulty ruling, and it is possible, the people of the United States (collective) can pay the judgement in protest. That may sound stupid to some, but some principles have to be tried to be understood and believed. If the people don't care enough to take the part of someone who has been treated unjustly, then we don't deserve a free democratic republic, and we will get the tyrant we deserve.

Another way is to pass an amendment, which wouldn't help in this particular case. I am very curious if others have a diplomatic way to hold the Supreme Court Justices accountable. They are able to be impeached, and the constitution does not name specific reasons. Samuel Jones was impeached in 1805

One thing that I learned from dealing with my two year old. When they willfully refuse to take a right choice and put themselves or others in danger, proper discipline right at the beginning helps them learn a better choice before they really do hurt themselves. Discipline isn't fun, Tbut it is best in certain circumstances and should not be ruled out. It is up to every citizen in the US to discipline the government.

oops, the justice that was impeached was named Samuel Chase. Didn't beat the timer.

Get a clue Jed. The case was filed before Obama was elected, concerning a Chicago ordinance that was enacted before Obama was a politician. The Federal Government did not even file an amicus brief in the case, and the only defendant was the City of Chicago. Last but not least, there is a conservative majority on the Court as it is currently constituted.

One thing you got right--it WAS a test case, but it was a test case filed by supporters of Second Amendment rights.

Man, ya got me cold,what with yer inside info an such vastly superior insight on how things work an such. I bet none of them tricky ol politicians'd ever git somethin over on you, no sireebob. It'd be dang near impossible for a politico or some bureaucat they appointed to vote exactly opposite of the platform that got em elected. That'd never happen with you around, huh?! And the way you keep yer eye on them sly gov lawyers. Why they'd never git away with diggin up some old ordinance an gettin a rucus started about it. Nope, never happen with you watchin. And them dumb ol 2d supporters would never be smart enough to see it commin an take the bull by the horns an git in the fray. Man you shore got things figgered, yep shore do. I knoe I'll sleep better t'nite, Thanks, cuss.

Way to dialogue, Jed. You make a lot of assumptions in your ignorant rant. It just so happens I am a strong supporter of gun rights, and believe me, I know at least as well as you do how much citizens need them today, so try answering the post instead of being offended by your own ass-sumptions.

;

Just to be clear, the satirical part of that was the "way to" sentence. The rest is for real.

Pen, whatcha got yer hair up fer? I never said I thought ya was one o them antis, matter of fact I kind of liked yer post! Alot. I was mearly pointin out to mdnorcuss up there that his own balls might be gettin scratched by someone other than himself or a loved one in spite of his obviously well educated grasp of the way things work. Methinks he's a bit to trustin of his own intelect when he deciphers published facts. Thats all. Govs never done a turn around on us befor, huh?!

K. I apologize. I have always talked like a teacher, and don't want to sound like I think I know it all. Sorry.

I know I talk about the way things SHOULD be, and I know it's hard to always make things work that way, but sometimes a person must believe the plan will work before they can take a step to make the government happen the way it should.

I'll keep my gun, thank you. After all, criminals risk getting shot trying to rob me as it stands now.

Chris Rock said it best.

Don't go to parties with metal detectors
Sure it feels safe inside; but what about
all those n***** waitin outside with guns?
They know you ain't got one..

Check the stats on how well your gun protects you in a robbery, etc.

Better to have a gun and never need it, than to need it and not have one.

There are no stats for Chicago on this, as they are illegal. Law abiding citizens follow the law, criminals do not. I know, this is shocking to you.

Ref#3.2

Cynthia,

The NRA publishes accounts of gun owners defending themselves with firearms, 7-10 a month, every month. The name of the paper and the date are included. Their website has them archived back to 1958. These are just the ones that they select and made a paper. How do you want them, randomly across the country from most recent back? If you like I can just give you the ones from your state. Check your stats.

I guess Cindy ran away.

Stats have always proved that gun ownership, and particularly conceal carry reduces violent crime. If memory serves, Florida had a first year reduction of 22% after it passed conceal carry. Most states haven't been that good but in general all have seen at least single digit reductions.

That's why 46 states allow conceal carry and 38 are "shall issue". Even Harry Reid signed on to conceal carry in national parks.

It's also why I am adamantly opposed to the gun free school zone laws that do nothing but virtually guarantee a target rich environment of unprotected children. Every school shooter has walked by those stupid signs while teachers, etc. are banned from being a protective force.

Perhaps we should be more like Switzerland where they encourage teens to learn to shoot. Removing the taboo nature could reduce the morbid fascination guns now have.

I think this court has been very good about expanding individual rights and limiting restrictions so my guess is we are safe.

I think as long as the person is not a criminal, mentaly unstable etc, then why can't we own as many as we want? The only ones restricted by these bans are the good citizens. If I am responsible w/ my gun, then nobody has any business in how many or what kind. Just because you may think a certain # of guns is excessive, doesn't make it your job to impose it on me. Some of us a re collectors and want to pass them on to our family. I encourage my husband to buy guns, nice good quality ones of course. When MT agreed to become a state, part of the agreement was that we would not be deprived of our rights of gun ownership or we would seceed our state. Our Gov Brian Schweitzer, has restated this even quite recently. History is interesting, we could learn from it.

They do hold their value.

No catch 22. The Court will merely decide what the second amendment requires as MINIMUM guarantees. In other words, at a minimum citizens will be allowed to have guns in their homes and cannot be prohibited from doing so. If a state wants to grant more freedom, as do Montana and Arizona, it is free to do so.

Yes Afghanistan is proving your point right now.

as you had said above but What is your Point anyways? Nav-399861...

What Does Afghanistan have to do with our 2nd Amendment?

Please Clarify

Guns are everywhere and there is no law.

no laws in Afghanistan? what do you really think that the Taliban is going to follow laws and rules? and What does that have to do with this? let alone what is your point ?

That is Afghanistan, this is America. Two totally different Country's, Two Totally Different Laws/

Sorry but your Point has No Value as it stands. Not trying to be mean or anything just trying to figure out what was your point in the first place.

Nav, that's about stupid. I carry because I am a responsible citizen with the right to defend myself and my family, and people like you, who aren't responsible enough nor have the balls to.

Nav, your point makes no sense. Afghanistan is a war zone. Normal rules don't apply.

Skiddy, what an unpleasant post. Your guns do little to protect you, statistically proven. That I choose not to own a gun makes me irresponsible? What an arrogant and completely ignorant comment. YOUR gun can be stolen, your gun can be found by a child, your gun can be used against you, your gun can be used in a moment of anger, your gun can be used in error, your gun has very little chance of being used in your defense. Unless you live in the middle of a crime/war zone, you won't have much need to use it. I choose not to own a weapon because police stats show its more likely to be used against me, I don't want it to become a negative statistic, I know the chances of me being able to reach, focus and use a weapon in an emotional moment are low, just as your's are, I am exorcising my right not to bear arms, I leave that to the Guard and police. To call someone irresponsible for not owning a means of causing death is just insane, and just goes to show the many gun owners are too much in love with the weapons and have no common sense or rational thought.

Cynthia,

So you have no knives in your house either?

YOUR knife can be stolen, your knife can be found by a child, your knife can be used against you, your knife can be used in a moment of anger, your knife can be used in error, your knife has very little chance of being used in your defense.

You don't like guns, great, don't buy one. Don't push your values onto anyone else though.

Your guns do little to protect you, statistically proven

Please give us the source of these BS statistics.

I watch commercials on TV about home security systems and fearful mothers clutching their children while security calls police. I would like to see the other commercial. The one where the guy breaking in is trying to outrun two barrels of double ought buck and mom says to the caller, "Never mind".

You see cynthia, it ruduces your chance of being attacked in that manner because the guy doesn't know whether he is breaking into your house or mine. I think in insurance terms it's called "risk management"

Actually, Cindy, it's just the opposite, statistics show that gun ownership does prevent crime. Rarely is the gun ever fired, just the appearance is usually enough to deter.

At our neighborhood watch meeting the the California highway patrol officers told us to buy shotguns and keep them handy if we weren't proficient with handguns.

They told us they are usually 20 minutes away then they proceeded to run through all the various crimes and the times it took for each. Virtually every one of them was less than 20 minutes and many were under 10. That pretty much drove home the need for a firearm.

When police tell you to arm yourselves, that pretty much says it all.

A peace officers job is to keep the peace, not take care of you.

No one should expect a police officer to protect them. They are the clean up crew, mostly, but everyone should expect a police officer to enforce the law. That is a little different than simply keeping the peace. It is only by enforcing the law that they are able to manage crime in our society. They don't have any other tool at their disposal to accomplish keeping the peace.

Sorry to double post here - but I thought of another tool police officers could use. They could lock up the people who get in the way of criminals in order to keep peace.

;

Can you post any of these alleged facts? The only attempt I've seen to justify this mixed up national and state statistics to try to make it look like this were true.

As gun ownership has exploded, violent crimes have dropped. This has gone on for decades. Most of the gun deaths are inner city drug turf wars combined with more restrictive laws, (Chicago, New York, etc.). Outside inner cities, gang wars, etc., gun deaths are rather rare.

Statistically you are more likely to be accidentally shot by a cop than by a fellow citizen. If I find the study I'll post.

These stats aren't even argued anymore. That's why states are continually expanding gun rights. The latest trend is castle laws which give citizens ultimate defensive rights. These laws are increasingly moving through more and more states and are the wave of the future.

ScubaGolfJim,

The conversation of a semi-auto to a fully automatic weapon is a violation of the NFA act of 1934. This conversation is not simply dropping in a trigger group either. Engaging in these types of things gets the feds really interested in what you are doing too. Also how would you deal with black powder rifles of fifty caliber as they are very long ranged weapons( look up Sandy Hook Tests). Only highly trained people can hit anything ( other than the ground) at long range say over 600 yards. Long range shooting takes lots of practice at long ranges with proper coaching to become proficient.

Obama has done nothing either way. The pro gun lobby whipped everyone up into a buying frenzy over what they thought the Pres. was going to do. All he has done is sign the credit card bill.

I am NRA.

Beebobby

Sorry my last statement was meant to be a a joke and a small slam on Obama and his people. I guess It didn't turn out as funny as I had hoped.

I too am NRA

he has his hands full right now,but if he gets a 2nd term might be some trouble

After what happened the last time they tried to mess with the second amendment, they wouldn't even touch the assault weapons ban again, let alone further restrictions. As mentioned earlier, even Harry Reid signed on to the conceal carry in national parks bill.

With the ever increasing gun ownership and conceal carry laws there is no way a rational politician will touch a gun control bill.

I am an NRA endowment member myself.

Do not underestimate a politician out of the Chicago school of politics. I live close to Chicago and those people cost me money every day. Look what happened to Meigs Field in the dead of night!!!

Yes indeed, Daley sure does take after his dad! That Meigs' Field thing was proof of power politics in the old Daley way.

An opinion is not a fact. Einstein was quite compelling in his statement E=MC2 but it was still a theory. Was this a survey conducted in Texas after ther guy shot the two robbers? At bare minimum it reduced repeat offenders. Right?

This has nothing to do about guns, but Calvin is equivocating between two meanings of the word theory.

A theory in science is entirely different from a theory in everyday life. It's not a hunch, a gut-feeling, or even a good guess. It's a rigorously tested set of falsifiable explanations that explain known facts. It sure wasn't just a theory (colloquially used) when Einstein's E=MC2 ushered in the nuclear age.

Creationists try to equivocate between the two meanings of theory when they misrepresent evolution.

I try to stop it whenever I see it.

If I recall correctly, Einsteins theory wasn't proven with the atomic age, it was proven by accurate observation of the sun bending star light during an eclipse due to gravity, (warping of space-time). It was actually a big deal and a lot of obervers raced to see who would be the first to prove it.

The theory of evolution remains just that because there are still holes. It is not that it isn't valid, but it can not be scientifically proven. That's not to say that creationism is valid at all, though even some atheists have theorized that perhaps alien entities seeded the universe with DNA which, when carried to earth, could have started the whole ball rolling, (basically atheist creationism).

Valhalla:

My point about the atomic age had to do with E=MC2's application. The atomic age wouldn't have been ushered in on a mere hunch (i.e., the colloquial use of theory). Rather, it has been ushered in on a sound scientific theory, rigorously researched and tested. If anything, your point about the light bending proves my point about its rigorous testing. The theory was established well enough to be applied to the atomic age.

Yes: evolution is a theory. However, again read: theory has a different meaning in science. Look at the preponderance of evidence--the fossil record, DNA and genetics, artificial selection (breeding dogs, fancy pigeons), vestigal organs and cases of atavism, etc. Sure, there are holes, but those holes merely represent what has yet to be understood, which is a plus for brilliant graduate students. All scientific theories have holes. Gravity theory has holes, but that doesn't mean gravity does not exist. Natural selection, or the theory of evolution, has holes, but that does not mean life does not evolve.

Allow me to quote Einstein: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." Where has positive evidence been provided that contradicts evolution that has not been duly addressed by biologists?

Creationism isn't science, so I am not even going to argue with that silliness.

Who are these atheists who have posited this, ahem, opinion that aliens have seeded the universe with DNA? This sounds more like the intelligent design nonsense often used by creationists who want to maintain that life came from something "intelligent" without blowing their cover by calling that intelligent something "god."

Did you read the article ?

Breathing new life into the "privileges or immunities" clause might allow for new arguments to shore up other rights, including abortion and property rights, liberal and conservative legal scholars have said.

Maybe you want to review the Bill of Rights... You don't have the right to restrict choice or misconstruct & abuse government powers to enforce a religious view on abortion

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

If that happens the, I am all for gun rights. Then gays have the right to marry, abortion will be legal forever.

Guns are not protected by the constitution, arms are. So define arms.

Nav-399861

See the reply's to your post above.

Abortion is a right in the sense that the government has no legal right to interfere in the rights of one portion of the population or the right to tell any citizen what to do with their own body. Simplistic explanation, but the point needs to be made to simple minds.

Not to be too off topic but abortion arguments center around what is defined as a human being. If what is growing inside a womb is declared human then that citizen's right to life trumps the woman's right to kill. Abortion exists because a fetus is only declared human after birth.

I think Reagan had the most brilliant analysis of the situation. Paraphrasing: Because no one can prove that a fetus is a sentient human, it must remain legal. Because no one can prove that a fetus is NOT a sentient human, it must remain immoral.

Rather brilliant deduction, if you ask me.

Take it out. If it can live, it's a viable human life. If it can't it ain't.

Rather brilliant I believe. More so than trading guns and drugs with our enemies, eh?

Now let's stick to the gun-control issue here.

Arms................Synonym weapons, GUNS, armaments, etc. Also used as an abreviation for firearms.

You can look up the word in almost any dictionary and it will give you that definition. Have you ever heard the term "firearm" or the phrase comrade in arms?

If you were trying to make an argument, it is one of the weakest ones I've ever heard but you do have one small point. Arms in and of itself is not just firearms it is also knives, swords grenades, and other stuff you would like less.

Nav is a troll...typical liberal mentality that believes that because he doesn't like something, nobody should. I cannot stand the hypocrisy...tolerance for only what they're tolerant of.

The logic is insane. For instance, if a conservative doesn't like (insert anything here, I will use something ridiculous to maintain the logic's stupidity) chocolate, he doesn't eat chocolate. Period. If a liberal doesn't like chocolate, we must all understand why none of us should like it, have access to it, let alone partake in the eating of it. They will protest the chocolate! They will start groups against the chocolate! They will indoctrinate children on the evils of chocolate! All because they "know" better than all of us that chocolate is bad, bad stuff...and since they "know" it to be true, it becomes fact.

Sounds like Clinton,, Define sex???

Sounds like Clinton,, Define sex???

Depends on what ur definition of is is....

Dame Quixote

Good one, LMAO!

Nuclear missiles are a type of arms, too. If you get guns, I should be able to have a personal stockpile of nukes.

JatsuSama

You are correct, nukes are a type of arm but then they also fall into the broad category of weapons of mass destruction and are therefor illegal. Sorry you will just have to settle for personal firearms for your protection. That is if you can pass the background check. Do you have any history of mental illness? Hint: you cant answer just a little!

The law banning WMDs is unconstitutional. It violates the second amendment.

And no, I have no recorded history of mental illness. I can also easily pass a psych exam since I know what answers they're looking for.

There is no fundamental right to own a gun, the 2nd Amendment says you have the right to bear arms. So define arms.

Nuclear missiles are a type of arms, too. If you get guns, I should be able to have a personal stockpile of nukes.

The Supreme Court already addressed the issue of what is meant by "arms" in D.C. v. Heller. Justice Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion, said this:

Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson's dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham's important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).

The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.

Based upon that, I really don't think we need to worry about individuals with nuclear weapons...

The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.

Based upon that, I really don't think we need to worry about individuals with nuclear weapons...

Wait, but if nukes are outlawed, then only outlaws will have nukes!

Oh well. But it looks like we don't need to worry about guns, either, since they've been employed in a military capacity for centuries.

JatsuSama

I can also easily pass a psych exam since I know what answers they're looking for.

Is that because so many people have asked you to take them? Also does that mean you are cheating on them?

Is that because so many people have asked you to take them? Also does that mean you are cheating on them?

Nope, haven't taken any. But I'm very aware of societal norms. And if I did cheat on one? All that would mean is that I'd qualify for a gun.

I see why your scared now. Just the thought of someone like you a passing a psych exam and owning a gun is starting to make me reconsider my view point.

On the other hand I like my choice to fight fire with fire!

Killer, you realize that by adding fire to my fire, you're just making my fire bigger, right? It makes much more sense to try putting the fire out. Not that I'm complaining...I do like fire, after all.

Fire fighters do put out fire's with fire, that is were the term came from. I suppose there are times it makes it bigger but not when its done right. I just like the choice and chance to do it my self if need be.

Technically, that only stops it from spreading. And they do so by by burning things in its path, not the area currently on fire. The fire then dies out on its own since it can't get out. It's a lot like killing the hostages so the criminal holding them can't use them to escape, then the criminal kills himself.

For of all there should be no restriction of the second amendment on the right to bear arms. If I want to own a flame thrower and strut around town with it then I should.

Or maybe I should pack some grenades on me.

But it looks like we don't need to worry about guns, either, since they've been employed in a military capacity for centuries.

Please re-read the Court's definition. The Court said specifically designed for military use. This is quite different than "employed in a military capacity." The distinction between the two phrases makes a world of difference.

If I want to own a flame thrower....

Actually, there are currently no restrictions on the ownership of flamethrowers. No, I'm not joking. Haven't seen many drive by flamings, have you?

Grenades, on the other hand, are covered under the 1930's legislation that regulates fully automatic weaponry and what hoops you have to jump through to get one in the United States legally.

Please re-read the Court's definition. The Court said specifically designed for military use. This is quite different than "employed in a military capacity." The distinction between the two phrases makes a world of difference.

The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.

See that "and" in the middle? That means both conditions need to be met. Basic logic.

If you really want to figure out what types of weapons are covered under the 2nd Amendment (according to the Supreme Court, not me), you have to read the entire case opinion from D.C. v. Heller. If you take the time to read the entire opinion, you will see that, despite the arguably poor wording used to define "arms," the Court makes it clear that guns (such as handguns, shotguns, and rifles) are protected by the 2nd Amdendment. You have access to Google, so if you're really interested in the reasoning behind the decision, you can read it yourself. You stated:

Oh well. But it looks like we don't need to worry about guns, either, since they've been employed in a military capacity for centuries

Here are a few key lines from the D.C. v. Heller decision:

the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes

Take the 2 instances of "not" out of that sentence and you get, "The Second amendment protects those weapons typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes." Additionally, if you truly believe that "we don't need to worry about guns, either, since they've been employed in a military capacity for centuries," please read the following statement from the Heller case opinion:

the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” would fail constitutional muster.

OK, so there no right to firearms, so as soon as the government gets ALL ILLEGAL firearms off the street and ALL criminals are disarmed, I will turn in my handguns, shotguns and rifles, and start open carry of my 6 ft Claymore.

The Second amendment protects those weapons typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.

Well, now we can go the other way. Enriched uranium is typically posessed by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes, ie electricity generation. I'd say that grants me the right to nuclear arms.

The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.

banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” would fail constitutional muster.

Is Alito really suggesting that more than 50% of the population owns a handgun? I'd love to see some facts to back that up.

Enriched uranium ISN'T a nuclear weapon... your analogy is horribly flawed.

A gun isn't a weapon until you load it with bullets. Enriched uranium becomes a weapon once it's fitted with a detonator, which is typically pretty easy to make.

You're confusing "ammunition" for the "means of deployment"... keep trying though.

How so? The bullets and uranium are the ammunition. The gun and detonator are the means of deployment. Ammunition + means of deployment = weapon.

The right to keep and bear arms is limited in scope to the the arms themselves... not the ammunition that they contain. The "arms" are what we're discussing here...

(I could be wrong without some research, but) to the best of my knowledge, private individuals cannot legally own incendiary, explosive, toxic ammunition...

You keep making assertions based upon your legal "right" to own enriched uranium (spurious, at best) somehow translating to your "right" to keep and bear nuclear weapons. All of which is moot anyway considering the definitions of "arms" as handed down through the NFA and SCOTUS opinion.

And I'm curious about your support for the claim that enriched uranium is "typically" owned by citizens... source to support that claim?

Well, now we can go the other way. Enriched uranium is typically posessed by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes, ie electricity generation. I'd say that grants me the right to nuclear arms.

Uranium is an element that can be enriched and used in nuclear weapons. It also has certain non-weapon purposes such as energy production.

Your argument is flawed. Uranium itself is not a weapon; it is simply a component of a weapon. By your line of reasoning, steel itself would be a weapon simply because it can be used in the manufacture of guns; lead would also be a weapon simply because it can be used to make ammunition. Further, by your line of reasoning, because law-abiding people typically possess steel for lawful purposes, then you should be able to possess your very own aircraft carrier because those are made of steel as well. That's just a ridiculous argument, and I would highly suggest actually reading the case opinion so you can understand more fully what the Supreme Court has actually said on the issue.

A gun isn't a weapon until you load it with bullets. Enriched uranium becomes a weapon once it's fitted with a detonator, which is typically pretty easy to make.

A gun without bullets is an unloaded gun. It is still specifically designed to be a gun, and has no other purpose for which it was intended. Hence, still a weapon; it just lacks the necessary means by which someone could actually put it to use at that moment.

Is Alito really suggesting that more than 50% of the population owns a handgun? I'd love to see some facts to back that up.

No, it was Scalia that wrote the opinion, and he is not suggesting the more than 50% of the population owns a handgun. He is suggesting that handguns are the preferred weapon among those who choose to keep a weapon for the purpose defending their homes and families. He is not talking about the entire population of the U.S. in general.

The right to keep and bear arms is limited in scope to the the arms themselves... not the ammunition that they contain. The "arms" are what we're discussing here...

Ah, so we can own guns then....just no bullets?

(I could be wrong without some research, but) to the best of my knowledge, private individuals cannot legally own incendiary, explosive, toxic ammunition...

Dynamite is explosive. It's legal.

You keep making assertions based upon your legal "right" to own enriched uranium (spurious, at best) somehow translating to your "right" to keep and bear nuclear weapons. All of which is moot anyway considering the definitions of "arms" as handed down through the NFA and SCOTUS opinion.

SCOTUS opinion is that "the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes."

And I'm curious about your support for the claim that enriched uranium is "typically" owned by citizens... source to support that claim?

Atomic Energy Act of 1954

This Act is the fundamental U.S. law on both the civilian and the military uses of nuclear materials. On the civilian side, it provides for both the development and the regulation of the uses of nuclear materials and facilities in the United States, declaring the policy that "the development, use, and control of atomic energy shall be directed so as to promote world peace, improve the general welfare, increase the standard of living, and strengthen free competition in private enterprise."

Dynamite is explosive. It's legal.

And it's not ammunition... you're being purposefully obtuse.

SCOTUS opinion is that...

Yeah, I know what their opinion is... that's my point. Has nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction.

This Act is the fundamental U.S. law...

And nowhere in that does it state anything about fissile nuclear material being "typically" owned by private citizens...

you should be able to possess your very own aircraft carrier because those are made of steel as well.

With enough money, I can posess my own aircraft carrier.

And it's not ammunition... you're being purposefully obtuse.

am·mu·ni·tion

–noun
1. the material fired, scattered, dropped, or detonated from any weapon, as bombs or rockets, and esp. shot, shrapnel, bullets, or shells fired by guns.
2. the means of igniting or exploding such material, as primers, fuzes, and gunpowder.

Yeah, I know what their opinion is... that's my point. Has nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction.

Exactly. Has nothing to do with them. There is no exclusion.

And nowhere in that does it state anything about fissile nuclear material being "typically" owned by private citizens.

typ·i·cal

–adjective
1. of the nature of or serving as a type or representative specimen.

There is no exclusion.

*sigh* This is getting tedious... the SC supported NFA... remember? The NFA limits and excludes a humongous list of items...

Post all the definitions of "typical" that you want... you still have yet to support your claim that a "representative specimen" owns fissile material...

*sigh* This is getting tedious... the SC supported NFA... remember? The NFA limits and excludes a humongous list of items...

Then surely you can cite the explicit nuclear weapon ban.

Post all the definitions of "typical" that you want... you still have yet to support your claim that a "representative specimen" owns fissile material...

Here you go.

So, to provide an example of a representative specimen of the average citizen, you provide a link to an energy company? Really?

Do I really need to go into detail about how an energy company ISN'T representative of any of the 300+ million American citizens?

Then surely you can cite the explicit nuclear weapon ban.

Nope... although start with US Code: 18;842 and work your way around to US v. Heller ("It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.")... I'm bored with this, and don't care to look any of your @!$%# up for you. Nevermind the fact that SCOTUS opinions repeatedly use the terminology "weapons commonly used by the militia." I don't know of any nuclear-armed militias...

Besides which, you've derailed (partly due to my own complicity) from your original premise completely:

Enriched uranium is typically posessed by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes

As SC decisions clearly state... "arms ... and of the kind in common use at the time." Enriched uranium is an element... and cannot be considered as "arms" at all, let alone ever having had "common use."

So, to provide an example of a representative specimen of the average citizen, you provide a link to an energy company? Really?

Do I really need to go into detail about how an energy company ISN'T representative of any of the 300+ million American citizens?

Corporations are people, too.

Nope... although start with US Code: 18;842 and work your way around to US v. Heller ("It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.")... I'm bored with this, and don't care to look any of your @!$%# up for you.

You expect me to find your evidence for you? That's pretty intellectually lazy...you made the claim, you're supposed to back it up.

Nevermind the fact that SCOTUS opinions repeatedly use the terminology "weapons commonly used by the militia." I don't know of any nuclear-armed militias...

That doesn't change the fact that "The Second amendment protects those weapons typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes."

As SC decisions clearly state... "arms ... and of the kind in common use at the time." Enriched uranium is an element... and cannot be considered as "arms" at all, let alone ever having had "common use."

No, uranium is an element. Enriched uranium is artificially created from naturally occuring uranium to increase the concentration of U-235, expressly for the purpose of nuclear fission.

No, uranium is an element. Enriched uranium is...

Still an element... as in:

A substance that cannot be broken down by chemical means. Elements are defined by the number of protons they possess.

Still an element, and not a weapon or any type of "arms." Get over it...

Jatsu -

You do know Uranium is highly radioactive, correct?

You do know what high doses of radiation do, correct?

You do know Uranium is highly radioactive, correct?

You do know what high doses of radiation do, correct?

Correct. And you do know that bullets are deadly, too, correct? Even a small dose of bullet can be fatal depending on where it's administered.

Do this:

Set a bullet on your desk or on your coffee table. Have your kids stand next to it. How many people die or get sick?

Now, put enough Enriched Uranium to make a weapon on your desk. Have your kids stand next to it. Watch them get radiation burns, sickness, and die a painful death.

I have bullets in my house, my neighbors do also........................ No injuries or deaths so far.

Set a bullet on your desk or on your coffee table. Have your kids stand next to it. How many people die or get sick?

Now, put enough Enriched Uranium to make a weapon on your desk. Have your kids stand next to it. Watch them get radiation burns, sickness, and die a painful death.

I have bullets in my house, my neighbors do also........................ No injuries or deaths so far.

Leave your loaded gun out in the open, next to your kids. The chance of death just increased significantly.

Lock the uranium in a lead case. Now how many people die or get sick?

You never answered my question.

You also keep changing your story and analogy around.

Keep a nuclear bomb with a "detonate" button on the same table as a loaded handgun with your kids, see what kills more.

Your new analogy makes no sense. Uranium in a lead case is akin to keeping your bullets and guns in a locked up cabinet.

Just stop trolling for responses, if you are that lonely and want to talk to someone there are chat rooms for that.

Have a nice day, putting you on ignore.

Uranium in a lead case is akin to keeping your bullets and guns in a locked up cabinet.

That was the point I was trying to make...uranium is dangerous. Guns are dangerous. Yes, they can be locked up. That doesn't make them less dangerous.

John-638398

You do know Uranium is highly radioactive, correct?

You do know what high doses of radiation do, correct?

U-235 decays to Thorium by emitting alpha particles highly energetic alphas to be sure (4.7MeV) but alpha particles get stopped in air or by your skin so not the end of the world. Its the Beta and Gamma particles further along in the decay chain that get you into more trouble. Unless of course you decide that eating/breathing Uranium is a good idea (why Radon, a bybroduct of uranium decay, is dangerous).

Splitting hairs perhaps but nuclear radiation as guns is oft misunderstood.

Why the attack on the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence ? Keep in mind what happens in Kennasaw, Ga. is not representative of the rest of what is going on in larger cities across America

Groups like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence have mostly targeted illegal sales and gun-show loopholes as the primary problem in America's gun culture. They say such loopholes and lax enforcement allow violent criminals to get their hands on used, stolen, and inexpensive guns. "The guns that cause the worst problems in this country are not selling for very high prices," Brady Campaign spokesman Peter Hamm has said.

Mac,,, I think you are stuck on the old nonsense of conservative campaigning... Neither liberals or federal government are taking away your guns

I did just that, Mac. Thanks for the reminder.

So did I Mac, Thanks

I believe in and support private gun ownership,(2nd Amendment), and this is a little off the subject, but, in the Health Care Ins. Reform debate, promoted by the Repubs, there is an argument that the government shouldn't force people to but a certain product( health ins.). And yet in Georgia people are required to buy at least one household gun. I think it's a good idea but it is still hypocritical on the Repubs part.

The GA law does have provision for exceptions for people who have religious or other reasons for not purchasing a firearm including being a convicted felon and poverty.

I agree, I have just as much problem with people being forced to own guns as I would with mandatory health insurance. Government has no right to force people that are opposed to either one into something they don't wish.

Jim-372206

How is the Brady Bill going to prevent crime by making me do a background check and waiting period every time I buy a gun. I have many guns and if i was of a mind to I could use one of the ones I already own to commit that crime. The biggest thing they are about is getting that 15+ dollars and harassing law abiding citizens. Many states it is legal to sell guns person to person without all that hassle but now if you get a gun at a gun shop or gun show you have to go through there crap and criminals will still get them regardless.

The great Constitution of the United States including its Bill of Rights are definitions of our FREEDOMS garunteed and preserved for all american citizens........

They are not mandates or legislation of actions or possessions. They demostrate our FREEDOMS. Wether you use them or not is up to each and every one of us.

Speak out freely...or be quite

Possess a firearm or dont.

Demand a Search Warrant or allow a consentual search.

Obtain a lawyer or not...

ITS ALL FREE CHOICE for citizens of a FREE SOCIETY.....which we are constantly trying to legislate away for pretend security. Freedom is Security.

GOD Bless America.

Azrancher,,,, You need to stop abusing the word "freedom" & we don't live in a right wing utopia... We are a nation of LAWS..

Your construct & cheap misuse of the word "Freedom" is a direct challenge to our nation's security

Jim-372206 You have it wrong too.

• Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
  Thomas Jefferson
• If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
  James Madison
• Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.
  George Washington

from http://www.brainyquote.com/

How so jimbo??? How is free choice and freedom in general a security threat to you or our country. ALL of our laws, penal codes, civil codes etc. are directly governed by the foundation layed out in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution does not state how the citizens will live or act, it controls how the government may act in concern towards citizens.

All other laws and rules enacted by state and federal governing bodies must meet the criteria laid out in the constitution. That document restricts and controls what the government may do to you. It protects you from having the military quartered in your house or on your property without your consent. It keeps law enforcement from searching you or your property without due cause. It keeps you from being arrested without a charge or held in prison indefinatley without seeing a magistrate to justify the hold.

It allows you to assemble with others freely and speak openly and yes even possess a firearm legaly. How does that threaten you jimbo?? Do you hate freedom?

The only other people I know who hate freedoms like this are the likes of Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hitler, Karl Marx. These people understood that as a political or military leader you can not control or supress a society if it has these freedoms.

Thats why they were important to our founding fathers and thats why they are even more important now and for our countries future.

So what is it about freedom that scares you jimbo??

It is just an ordinance in Kennesaw and there are ways to opt out.

Nope, what you see is them going into police impound & eventually dumped in the ocean

Jim...are you serious? Are you so drunk on the koolaid that you can't even see a very valid point? Oh, wait, your keyboard must have typed that all on its own...

Liberals always amaze me with their tactics...did you really try to throw in some sort of global pollution here as a diversion? Keep it up...we love how loony you people look when you actually get the spotlight. Buahahahahahahahahahahhaha!!!!

Colleen,,, My bad, I forgot to mention some of those impounded guns are melted down

Some are also taken home by police officers probably not as common now as in the past. In some jurisdictions they are also sold to the public thru gun dealers or at auctions. The auctions for this purpose I have attended have run background checks.

You are stuck on the old nonsense of conservative campaigning... Neither liberals or federal government are taking away your guns.

On that other issue of .50 caliber & M4 or MP5's, I have nothing against you owning them. I just want you to go through tighter security checks in order to buy them. And I certainly don't think they should be sold in gun shows where there are few restrictions. I would like to think you can keep them safely locked up when they are not in use & not hung on the wall over your fireplace

The top half of this comment was scuba golfjim's comment. not mine.

my comment followed.

JIMB,, Thanks for clarifying that.... I guess the SCUBA & Golf thing had me a bit concerned

I don't know about your gun shows in your area but, the ones that I attend, every gun dealer is licenced, and with every gun sale there is a background check and finger prints. Not to mention that the police roam the entire hall where the gun show is held.

Maybe Texas has tighter controls, I wouldn't know... I do know gun shows have been a problem & so has gun dealers. It's not just related to crime, it's a national security issue, an international problem & drug war issue as well.... These problems that originate here in the USA from lack of restrictions on licensing dealers need tighter controls

Jim from Dalles,,, I do know it is wrong & naive to assume that every individual dealer in Texas gun shows or in any other state will abide by the law when they see an opportunity for fast profit

I'm sorry Jim-372206, but do you really think that the majority of small businessmen, (gun dealers), would risk their licenses and businesses for 'fast profit' on the sale of a $500 gun?

Jim,,, Yes indeed, don't be naive. Many have been caught & others are currently under investigation

2008 USDOJ report... about 1% of crime guns were traced to gun show purchases.

And how many of those were stolen by some dirtball from the original buyer?

JIMB-595092

First of all... to reply to a comment from another, click on the REPLY at the bottom right corner of that same thread, not on an original thread 12 sections later.

Also, clicking on the " next to the B and I directly above the comment area, while the subject text is highlighted (selected) wil indent and "quote" the remark to which you are directly referring, like this...

A man just broke into your home while you were at work and killed your wife and raped your daughter. are you saying that if your neighbor saw this person and killed him with a 50 cal. gun, you would not be glad he owned it. OR WOULD TELL HIM NEVER USE THAT GUN AGAIN TOO HELP YOUR FAMILY OR YOU.THEN GO COMPLAIN TO THE SOMEONE THAT HE HAD TO BIG OF A GUN..

Just helps keep everything organized and easy to follow. Also, thanks for yelling the last two sentences there. And that's "too" big of a gun, not "to" big.

Second, If you had bothered to actually try to comprehend my statement, my neighbor could have easily killed your hypothetical intruder with a 9mm handgun, a .45 cal, a .22 (with a good head shot), a shotgun, or even a "non-assault" type rifle. I have no objection to law abiding citizens owning those items. And why would he own a .50 cal without owning one or more of the others? That makes no sense. And if he did, why would he choose the .50 cal? You ever tried to carry a .50 in a fast-response fast-shoot scenario? You are obviously someone just wanting to yell your head off here without much knowledge about that which you speak.

What I would do, if your scenario happened, would be to ask him why the hell he didn't just capture the SOB, hide him from the Police, and leave him for me. People familiar with my posts know I'm against torture to retrieve information, because most of it would be false and it's against what we as Americans stand for. But many also know I'm all for the death penalty and if someone has tortured and killed someone, he should face an equal punishment. I might just shoot my neighbor for denying me my retribution. ;)

Gun Control is not a bad thing, but too much Gun Control is, and again, Chicago is wrong on this one.

ME 2

I have to disagree. I love my guns and want to make sure other people have the right to them as well. But it's a right, not a mandate. Rather than passing laws, one way or the other, people should be worried about education in the safe handling, storing, etc. of guns. Once more people realize that a gun is nothing but a basic machine, or instrument if you will, then people wouldn't be as afraid of others having them.

TOR,,,, That's one hell of a stretch on reality... You make a good argument on the need for mental examinations for some who wants to buy a gun

The Supreme Court has always supported the modern view of the 2nd Amendment, it has also supported past arguments on gun control

Jim,

How is your argument a valid one? Looks more like a reductio ad ridiculum fallacy to me.

You just conveniently ignore the "well regulated" part?

I think it is hysterical that someone would boldface only part of that quote--as if "shall not be infringed" means anything out of context.

It's unfair to call Nav a "troll" above because of his challenge to the "bear arms" language. That is a reasonable question to call, particularly against anyone claiming to support the "intent" or "literal meaning" of the founders. To them, "bear arms" consistently meant serve in a militia, and nothing like an AK-47, for example, existed at the time.

Now, I think people do have a right to own guns, but as we live in a society, we can also have reasonable rules restricting what is permissible for a private individual to own. We also can certainly regulate where they can be taken and used, since "keep" really means "own" not "carry."

Common sense, people.

From all I have read "well regulated" at the time the constitution and first 10 amendments was written ment the militia (citizens over 16 years old) was expected to show up with a firearm and ammunition ready to serve if called upon to do so.

Shall not be infringed, is a pretty clear statement that no law or statute shall impede this right of the people. Therefore, all gun control laws are unconstitutional.

The Bill of Rights also says this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Yet another situation in which there appears to be an outright prohibition (Congress shall make no law...), yet there are legitimate restrictions on certain speech, for example, that have withstood legal challenges all the way up to the Supreme Court. The 2nd Amendment probably falls into the same category...the right is granted, but is subject to reasonable limitations.

icstars-1

At the time of the American Revolution breech loading firearms existed. Various kinds of multiple shot firearms existed. Within a few short decades the prodigy of modern firearms existed want to argue? By 1836 revolvers were common, by 1858 self contained cartridge firearms were common. By 1865 the first rapid fire guns using magazines were available. What we now know as semiautomatic firearms were invented in the last half of the nineteenth century. Machine guns as we know them today were a nineteenth century development. Modern powders (smokeless as opposed to black powder ) were invented in the nineteenth century. These events are not what one would consider modern developments.

Want to argue about what, Bruce? You comment doesn't contradict what I said.

Icstars-1

Look-up the NFA of 1932. That is when restrictions for firearms really got up and running.

I was off by two years NFA of 1934

Bruce, I'm not sure what you want to disagree with me about. Are you suggesting that there should be absolutely no restrictions on what kind of 'arms' individuals can keep? I'd be happy to disagree with that, but I don't see a need to belabor the point if that is your point.

I think it is hysterical that someone would boldface only part of that quote--as if "shall not be infringed" means anything out of context.

We also can certainly regulate where they can be taken and used, since "keep" really means "own" not "carry."

Its funny how you point out someone for doing something and you do the same thing in your post. You convieniently forgot the "and bear" portion of that line. Keep may mean own but doesn't bear mean carry?

icstars-1 said:

"It's unfair to call Nav a "troll" above because of his challenge to the "bear arms" language. That is a reasonable question to call, particularly against anyone claiming to support the "intent" or "literal meaning" of the founders. To them, "bear arms" consistently meant serve in a militia, and nothing like an AK-47, for example, existed at the time."

I have to call you on that one, at the time the 2nd ammendment was written, the citizens of this country had arms equal or superior to the arms carried by the British. Most of the British troops carried smoothbore flintlock muskets, while the American "militia", or armed citizens frequently carried rifled flintlocks, giving them improved accuracy over the arms carried by the British. An AK47 is an old design, nothing near what our troops currently carry. The purpose of the 2nd ammendment, as has been stated here several times, was intended to protect the citizens of this land against the government of this land.

icstars-1

The simple point is up until 1934 a person should they have chosen could own all sorts of machine guns sub-machine guns, suppressors and what are now known as destructive devices. These limits are of recent (relatively) manufacture. Rifles of the black powder era had extraordinary range ( Sandy Hook) and were very accurate even by standards of today.

These limits are of recent (relatively) manufacture.

Arguable... the NFA has existed for just over 1/3 of the time that's passed since the ratification of the Constitution (effectively marking the beginning of our government).

Not exactly a recent manufacture...

Free speech has limitations....do you think such laws against libel and slander are unconstitutional?

Libel and slander are violations of others rights. Therein lies the problem. As long as you don't interfere with others rights, it's all good. That should go for gay rights, etc.

Libel and slander are not laws per se, you can not call a policeman or grand jury and charge someone with libel or slander. That is an implied accusation which is not illegal in unto itself. You have to file a civil suit to alledge libel or slander then you also have to show a perponderance of evidence that the libel or slander cost you financial loss or the equivelent there of. The grievence is the loss, the action is the libel or slander.

That being stated you can still "legally" say what you want ie: Free Speech. You may also be held responsible if that wrongfully hurts or causes loss to another.

Thats called responsibility and is a horse of another color completely.

With freedom also comes responsibility, something we have neglected to teach over the years.

Could you folks define what you mean when you say "free speech"?

You said it a lot better that I did in an earlier post Thanks!

Beebobby,,, What credibility can you give to a "dealer's reasonable belief" that the buyer would pass a background check when quick profit is involved ??

That basic assumption has resulted in advanced assault weapons sales going to drug lords across the border

Hell Beebody,, That assumption even resulted in the sale to known criminals & people with severe mental problems

Jim-372206

Beebobby was referring to non dealer sales between two private parties. No FFLDealer involvement. Also hate to give you some facts but here they are: to legally get your hands on a fully automatic firearm you must pay a transfer tax, you must submit to a FBI background check, you must produce the weapon on demand for any and all policing authorities. Most people for these reasons want nothing to do with what is known as Class III or Title III weapons and not all FFL holders are Class III dealers. So Class III weapons are very hard to get and require a number of additional steps to be taken by prospective owners.

Jim.... most licensed gun dealers make a good living selling fire arms, and in doing so would not jeapordize losing their means to make money just to make a quick sale. You really need to quit being a troll.

Jim,

"That basic assumption has resulted in "advanced assault weapons" sales going to drug lords across the border"

Wrong. By advanced assault weapons you mean fully automatic battle rifles, no you can't buy them at dealers in the US without jumping through many hoops involving the ATF and tax stamps and a heavy outlay of cash. The fully automatic rifle must have been manufactured before 1984 and almost all of them are in the hands of collectors. If you mean your garden variety,semi-automatic AR15/service rifle, yes, you can buy them, but down south the price is much less to buy them from a South American arms dealer than a US dealer.

When that propaganda was being published, there were pictures of RPG's and Hand Grenades. Never have seen those in a US gunshop.

If anyone cares to check with ATF press releases and Freedom of Information Act reports you will see that the majority of the weapons siezed by Mexican Authorities in cartel related crimes are in fact military weapons and explosives which are entering mexico via cuba and its southern border with guatamala. These weapons are not legally sold in gun shops on this side of the border. But the media would have you believe that all of these guns were purchased and driven into mexico. Thats why they choose not to go into detail on the weapons or the serial number trail.

If so the weapon could be traced back to the last FFL holder or store which possessed it here in the U.S. for prosecution. But you never read about it because they dont trace back to here. If one did yuo can bet it would be headline news for the liberal media for days.

Obama has also showed he supports people's 2nd Amendment & the right to legally wear them in public

Obama also made the following statement after he was elected president. Now is not the time to push for more gun control laws for we do not have the votes to guarentee passage. Pelosi and Feinstein also made similar statements and went on to add new guntrol legislation will be introduced when we are ready.

Intelligent & necessary gun control legislation does not take away your 2nd Amendment right

Obama has NOTHING to do with the McDonald case, a case that addresses whether the City of Chicago can constitutionally ban the ownership of guns, as it has done for the last 30 years. The loudest supporter of the ban is de mayor, Daley jr., who thinks the ban reduces crime. The ordinance in Chicago is indistinguishable from the D.C. one held unconstitutional in Heller. But since D.C. is a federal enclave (andtherefore not binding on the states), the issue was whether the second amendment applies to states (and cities), a holding that seems nearly certain, given the reported comments of the court. The feds, if my recollection is correct, did not file an amicus brief in McDonald.

The issue that WILL NOT be decided by the Court in this case is whether the 2A is subject to reasonable restrictions, which is what nmost of the people commenting here are talking about. that issue probably won't be decided for years. My only comment on the subject is I believe that the Court will approve SOME restrictions on both the right to "keep" (i.e. own) and "bear" (i.e. carry) arms, but they will not permit any outright bans as to all citizens, which is what the Chicago law does, and is what Heller did. I predict that felons whose rights have been suspended as a result of their conviction (a common practice) will not be allowed to own any more than drug addicts, minors or mental patients are allowed to own guns under CURRENT federal law. But as to ownership, I think that is as far as it will go.

The real fight will be as to the scope of restrictions on the right to carry. In Chicago you can't carry at all unless you are a cop or do so illegally, and I don't think that will stand. Under this formulation, the common citizen has lost his right to "bear" arms. But there will be time, place and manner restrictions, subject to strict scrutiny, that will pass constitutional muster, like carrying guns into a courthouse, whcih is illegal for all federal courts as wellas all alifornia courts.

I don't doubt your word at all. That's why Obama is scared to death of bringing up gun control. It's a losing issue for Democrats. Al Gore would have been the 43rd President if he had kept his mouth shut on gun control.

Ben, I agree.

Fear ?? ROTFLOL

Obama showed he supports people's 2nd Amendment & the right to legally wear them in public & he wasn't afraid to come out fast & tell you that

It was not to many years ago that you could take democrats and republicans (middle class regular americans) and draw a line between both parties ideas and the majority would be bunched so close around the line itself it would be hard to tell dem from repub.

Now the democrat party has been hijacked and driven so far left it looks like the communist party, leaving many mainstream democrats angry and feeling abandoned. And there are many republicans who do not think RUSH and his beliefs are the party head.

These mainstream americans will be the ones who work together R and D to vote out many idiots in the upcoming elections and return america to its normal middle ground.

GOD Bless America.

I lived in the Netherlands for 2 years. They don't even allow baseball bats or knives with blades over 6 inches. An armored car was attacked by criminals with assault rifes and bulletproof vests. The police didn't even have guns to defend themselves, let alone anything to contend with the vests. Scores of policemen died as the slow plodding military found enough firearms to get to the fight. By then it was over.

Moral of the story: Criminals can always get firearms if they want them. Police and citizens who are deprived of them can never get them fast enough when they need them . . . until it's too late.

People who live in rural areas or the suburbs, need to have a way to protect themselves and not have to wait until the police arrive. I can understand completely the people down around our boarder with Mexico their need to have guns.

Jim,,, I can see that in remote areas where there are few police. But not in larger cities that do have law enforcement.... That is often misconstrued to drive political campaigns. There are many areas that aren't addressed in big cities that would go a long way to correcting the problems & the need for law enforcement & government growth as well as the need for funding also in many areas of those border regions

,,, I can see that in remote areas where there are few police. But not in larger cities that do have law enforcement....

As a woman, I would not feel safe walking around downtown LA at night with no protection and from what I hear, LA has one of the highest concentrations of law enforcement of US cities. A rape can happen in a matter of minutes. A murder in a matter of seconds.

If you don't like guns, don't carry them.

Dame,,, I hope you've got better sense than walking around the streets in LA alone at night... Your gun would stop a rape involving one individual, but not a pack of punks with no respect for human life, your gun would end up as their gun.

I really see a need to verify which 'Jim' we are talking to. I'm surprised at the popularity of the name. Anyway, Jim-372206, I can see that you are not against gun ownership but you see that sensible regulation is necessary...... I agree, but there are people out there that are just irrationally phobic about guns and their solution is make all guns illegal. This has no impact on criminals. I myself do not want to be at he mercy of armed criminals or a tyrannical political party in control of the government...... NO MATTER WHICH PARTY!!!

By the way, I do not believe Obama or the Democratic Party is that foolish. Right now we are being inadated by fear and hate from those who would manipulate us against our own best interests.

I'm a highly skilled shot... So I could potentially maim, not kill, several attackers before they even get within striking distance of me. Even so, I have no taste for being in LA, much less alone. But let someone whip out a gun in my local area and I will shoot all four limbs to disarm them.

:)

Jim, I live and work my family ranch now in southern Arizona, right on the border. Many a days I went out to the stable and was confronted by 20 to 30 illegals either crossing or hiding out. Thats one of the many reasons we all carry guns down here.

Before I obtained my law degree I worked LAPD and there are many places there were even officers would hesitate to go into without back up and additional units. When its the busy time and calls for service are up you may have a several hour wait for 911 resposne.

Even in large cities police response could be hours or even days away. Besides its not( and never has been ) the police job to protect you. The police enforce laws and maintain order within their jurisdiction to allow the citizens a place to travel, work and recreate with minimal expectancy of becoming a crime victim. Not to protect you from individual crime.

Individual protection is up to the individual.

The Truth,,,, Federal government isn't taking away the 2nd Amendment & government isn't controlling your life.

In fact the Federal Government in the 2008 Parker v. District of Columbia decision government struck down gun control restrictions,,, D.C. comes under Federal Jurisdiction,, Only in that case alone was it ruled unconstitutional... It does not apply to the states

The Chicago ruling, when it comes, will apply to all states.

???

Our Constitution keeps our government in check, not the 2nd Amendment. Tell your conservative nuts to stop trying to rewrite our Constitution which they continue to say, "Is just a GD piece of paper"

You might tell your Tea Party nuts & other uberconservative groups to actually read the Constitution they wave around

The Constitution keeps our government in check?

ROFLMAO!!

Of course it does... It's politicians, insurance giants, former groups like the John Birch Society & corporations who fund their campaigns & PAC's who abuse the Constitution that have created a government out of check

Jim -

Our government IS politicians and corporations. (Our illustrious Supreme Court just gave corporations the same status as individuals, remember?)

Yes I do remember that...

Do you remember that was a conservative who brought that challenge to the Supreme Court and that all conservatives supported it & it's been a conservative long term goal back to the Reagan days to eliminate piece by piece election & campaign finance reforms in order to reduce government & government influence to support their archaic idea of Free Market principles that resulted in the destruction of government regulation & oversight ??

Jim-372206, you're right, those are the groups that I'm referring to in my previous comment. Thanks.

I also recall that was the ruling by the conservative led Supreme Court to give that status to the corporations

Jim -

You are absolutely correct. That's why I don't feel any piece of paper, even the Constitution, can keep our government in check if it wants to bend or break the rules, or get around them completely.

Remember this comment?......"We do not torture prisoners here in America." (We do, but that's another story. This comment was made in reference to the people captured as terrorists.)

And no, we don't torture prisoners HERE in America, Mr. President. We instead have them tortured in other countries.

Do you think corporation status is only an issue for one party or the other? I don't think so. It's those really big corpses that are all over the world that get the really good statuses here in America, isn't it? Maybe I can be a part of a worldwide corp and get a good listen up there on Capital hill so I can get an amendment to make protection of corps a permanent part of the Constitution, including the right to bear arms.

@23.9 (sorry to double post). I meant to include my satire symbol in the above...

;

Our Constitution keeps our government in check

Oh yeah, that's why police officers that have executed no-knock warrants and murdered people in their homes are not only not in jail...they're still on the force. Maybe that's why the government can confiscate your electronics as you enter the country and not return them.....without justification. Maybe that's why you'll get arrested if you try to exercise your right to bear arms in DC.

So tell me again what power a constitution has if the government just ignores it?

that's why police officers that have executed no-knock warrants and murdered people in their homes are not only not in jail...they're still on the force.

Source?

All valid points. But even as the U.S. Constitution lays the groundwork foundation to protect and preserve our freedoms and establish a "line" which the government should not cross or impose on, governments always will. Which is why the document alone will not "enforce" these rights. That takes civil involvment. Meaning VOTE, and get involved.

If our federal reps continue to push for things that exceed constitutional limits, get involved and vote them out. If state officials try to impose laws or restrictions on you get involved and VOTE them out. If POLICE are serving improper warrants and conducting themselves in illegal manner, target their boss's and city officials and VOTE them out.

Involve yourself with your community and its operations. These idiots who run all level of government feel the freedom to walk across the law and the constitution because We The People have let them. They do not fear us anymore. They have learned that they can do what they want because we would rather watch american idol than travel to vote.

When voter turn out for most local elections are less than 40% of registered voters, that means 60% dont give a damn about what type of government they have.

You want your government to walk the line and act right, you want your state officials and city officials to be responsible.....MAKE THEM, use your power before they find a way to take it from you forever.

Source?

I watch the news occaisionally. Of those specific cases that I remember, there was the grandmother gunned down in her living room in Chicago. They busted into her house illegally (they didn't even have a warrant!) and killed her.....none of them ever went to jail. There was also the house they raided when they got an anonymous tip that the people living there were moving drugs through the house. The tip turned out to be unfounded.....of course they didn't discover that until they broke down the door without announcing themselves or displaying any warrant...not before the man inside put his daughter under the bed to keep her safe and shot the first man through the door. As they came in and he saw they were police, he surrendered. Now, they are still on the force, and he is in jail for protecting his daughter.

Source?

I watch the news occaisionally.

So... no source then... just say that.

So... no source then... just say that.

But that wouldn't be accurate. Sorry, here you go: NBC, FOX, CNN....all of which carried the stories.

Is this the story you're talking about ?:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/23/us/23atlanta.html?fta=y

Because that happened in Atlanta, not Chicago... and it wasn't a "warrantless" illegal entry, it was a "no knock" warrant, based upon drug-buys from UC police...

Otherwise, a cursory google returns no other stories to warrant your claim...

No, it is not. It happened in Chicago, and it was 'warrantless' since they had no warrant to enter the woman's property at all. My 'claim' is simply a factual statement of a story that appeared on most major news networks in this country.

My google search indicates that google does not determine the reality of past events.

My google search indicates that google does not determine the reality of past events.

Nope... didn't say it does. It does, however, weaken your claim that said events happened in the manner in which you describe.

As a 'viner, you know as well as I do that in this community that which cannot be verified goes out the window pretty quickly... I'm not saying you made this story up, but unless there's something else to support it, it's as plausible as your assertion of "fact" and "reality."

It doesn't really matter much to me. If someone doesn't believe in gravity, I still feel assured that I will remain firmly planted here on Earth. Someone's lack of knowledge about something doesn't make it cease to exist.

@23.13 Thanks for the very good dialogue. Just a question... Do you think that those who influence our government the most are VOTED in? I don't believe you were specific, but some people on Newsvine say the only responsibility of American citizens is to VOTE. If that's the case then why does my son have to register to be drafted?

Blackbelt Marine

I don't necessarily disagree with your post I just don't under stand how me having a million dollar liability policy will protect you from my actions. It will give your loved ones a recourse to recover some money after your death( if the layers prove negligence) but it will protect no one, You in this scenario would still be dead. You can already sue for wrongful death.

Also would you hold that same person (that carried a gun) responsible if he chose not protect your family when a crazy gunman was shooting person after person in Wendy's?

While it's true you can already sue for wrongful death, you'll get nothing if the person is judgment-proof. On the other hand, if carrying a gun in a public place is a right, it's hard to justify allowing only people with financial means (to buy insurance) the ability to exercise the right. If it is a priviledge, like driving a car, then there is precedent for such things (like car insurance).

So this is not the same as people having a right to own guns; the point marine brought up goes to the extent of rights versus priviledges. Private property (like a Wendy's or private hunting ground), public sidewalks, roadways and publicly-owned hunting grounds are different kinds of environments that can be considered thoughtfully.

I think that establishments/Citys that ban legal carry should be responsible for the safety of their customers/citizens. If a criminal hurts or kills someone, the establishment/City should be held responsible for up to ONE MILLION DOLLARS (in my best Austin Powers voice).

Are you going to make the criminals buy that policy too? LOL

I know a lot of people have seen this, but some might not have heard it

Shooting in a restaurant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnf70xZe5Ns&feature=related

I love her last words.

Roger,,, In no way does the 2nd Amendment protect you from government,,, The case in question is over the state & local governments jurisdiction in the issue

And the state & local government's jurisdiction should be supported by Reagan conservatives & libertarians

afterthought: "supposed to protect us" may be a little weak. Maybe "designed to provide recourse" would be better.

Roger,,, Try reading the Constitution. That is contained in the 1st Amendment & other articles give you the processes even for impeachment... Not the 2nd Amendment

If you believe in Reagan & Libertarians constructs these discussions should be kept under the domain & jurisdictions of the States

Idiots giving advise should be subject to prosecution. The recourse I'm talking about has nothing to with following "the law".