Commentary: Shooting holes in the Second Amendment

The 2nd and 3rd Amendments are out dated and used out of context for this argument. If you are going to be true to the spirit of the Constitution, then you have the right to bear arms…as a member of a Well Regulated Militia, which would now be called “the US Armed Services”. You want to play with guns, join the Army.

well, first thing, the second amendment is not about self defense. it is about a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. well regulated would infer some sort of training and chain of command. not stock piling weapons. it is also not to enable the citizenry to take on the government, think back to the whiskey rebellion.

now, as far as defending yourself. most deaths from firearms in this country are suicides. so who are you really going to defend yourself against. in fact less than one percent of all firearm deaths fall under lawful use. that of course includes incidents where law enforcement are involved. the need or ability of the average gun owner to respond in a high stress situation is minimal. but like most things people typically over estimate their own prowess.

Paul, Now I am really concerned bad enough we have to have these types of weapons in our society you have now exposed the crazies that own them. To think after 9/11 we all worried about a terrorist getting a weapon of mass distraction and went to war about it. Forget the foreign terrorist I am now more concerned about my neighbors in Morris county after reading the replies to your letter. Personally I think they should all be shown a picture of what one of these weapons can do to a five year olds body. Thank you for your letter.

I take it that law school does not teach very much world political history, does it? That would explain your ignorance of why the Bill of Rights is composed and constructed as it is. Perhaps The Federalist Papers were not part of the required reading in your school as well. Those old white guys hundreds of years ago knew exactly what they were doing. To them, the most important right was speech. You know, the one that you use on a daily basis to make a living. The same one that you are using to attack and slander other parts of the Bill of Rights. The second most important right is right to arms. Since you failed to read the Federalist Papers, you don’t quite understand what the 2nd is about. It was never about duck hunting. It’s about keeping the citizenry on equal footing with the federal government and preventing the federal government from keeping a large standing army. Again, look to the Federalist Papers for correction in your logic.

The last time I looked, the Bill of Rights was not the “bill of needs” or the “bill of privileges” Rights cannot be taken away or marginalized.

World political history shows quite well what happens when a government is no longer for the people. The words “Arbeit Macht Frei” hang over the barbed wire gate that enters into Dachau. The ovens still have a sickly smell of chicken feathers after all these years. You should visit there sometime, it’s a sobering reminder of what happens when a government becomes oppressive. Or perhaps should talk with an old Ukrainian friend of mine who had three quarters of his family decimated by the communists. The communists forcefully took their guns, food and their lives if they fought back or objected. 20+ million Ukrainians died a slow lingering death of starvation.

I don’t suppose you support this and would be party to something like this, would you? From what your column says and what you composed- you support both wholeheartedly and without remorse. I mean, writing a simple editorial such as yours couldn’t create the two situations that I’ve mentioned, would it? Dr. Goebbels would be proud of your work and you might’ve gotten an honorable mention from Joseph Stalin as well.

Situations do repeat themselves. Americans would not be buying guns and ammunition by the truckload if they thought otherwise. I suppose “Arbeit Macht Frei” and forced government sponsored resource redistribution still replay in the back of those minds of Americans as they plunk down the cash to keep what I mentioned from happening.

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the
people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,
to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers
are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more
insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can
admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several
kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will
bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is
not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off
their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of
local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national
will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia,
by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia,
it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every
tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions
which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America
with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights
of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects
of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.
Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that
they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment,
by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious
measures which must precede and produce it.
The argument under the present head may be put into a very concise
form, which appears altogether conclusive. Either the mode in which the
federal government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent
on the people, or it will not. On the first supposition, it will be
restrained by that dependence from forming schemes obnoxious to their
constituents. On the other supposition, it will not possess the confidence
of the people, and its schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by
the State governments, who will be supported by the people.”

Federalist No.46

This is but one of many clear explanations of the reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment.
There is no mystery as to it’s meaning or interpretation. The “debate” itself is an invention of liberal-progressive thought, for what purpose I am not entirely clear. The concept of firearms being kept for “sporting purposes” is also a concept invented by liberal-progressives out of whole cloth.
Let’s be perfectly blunt and truthful.
Does Mr. Bangiola believe that the musket was invented with the primary purpose of killing wildlife for food? If so, his grasp of the 2nd Amendment is astonishingly inadequate for one who practices law – unless of course he fancies himself a greater authority on its meaning than Alexander Hamilton.
The invention of the musket was driven by the need to do one thing more efficiently – kill human beings.
By applying the ill-informed and flawed logic of Mr. Bangiola, he effectively argues that the Founding Fathers and citizens of the Thirteen Colonies had no right to own muskets. Were that the case, Mr. Bangiola would likely be wearing the ridiculous looking court dress and wig that remains tradtion in the UK today, for there would be no Constitution, nor would there exist the United States.
Like the musket and other arms that preceded it, the AR-15 is indeed designed for killing people. This is not a wild-eyed declaration of revolution or insurrection, nor is it a dark insinuated threat – it is simply a fact. It is a harsh and cold fact that many can’t seem to face or accept. It wasn’t designed for shooting at paper or tin cans. The now retired MX missile was occasionally used for “target practice”, but only for the purpose of ensuring it was a reliable tool for the annihilation of the Soviet Union. The reason the US needed this weapon was to maintain parity with the Soviets Mr. Bangiola.
The reason why the PEOPLE were to be armed with muskets so many years ago, as explained so eloquently by Alexander Hamilton, was so the PEOPLE would retain parity with any armed government force.
The reason why the PEOPLE today choose weapons like the AR is so that they may maintain that parity with armed agents of the government – whether that be soldiers or “law enforcement”.
Many liberal-progressives like to point out that the very idea of a populace armed with mere rifles would be no match for the power of the US military. In the literal sense this is absolutely correct. The flaw with this argument is the assumption that the US military would, en masse, obey orders to kill their own countrymen. How many soldiers in today’s military do you reckon would obey orders to kill their own countrymen Mr. Bangiola? Fifty percent perhaps? Twenty-five percent?
Mrs. Feinstein may propose, and the Senate may pass any legislation they wish to “ban assault weapons”. Even if passed, it would be nothing more than a worthless and unenforceable edict.
There were those in 1776 who thought and believed as you do Mr. Bangiola. That we live in an “enlightened age” where concepts such as tryanny and patriotism were novel and outdated, entertained only by the unwashed and uneducated masses. These were people who sat on the sidelines while the Revolutionary War was being won by those who understood what gaining freedom and keeping it meant. By your defintion Mr. Bangiola, our Founding Fathers were not really Founding Fathers at all, but merely traitors, guilty of treason against the Crown.
Your demonstrated and verifiable ignorance of the 2nd Amendment renders you an embarrassment to your profession. None-the-less, one of the great things about our Constitution is that it guarantees even the most foolish among us can offer opinion on any subject, ill-informed or not.
The PEOPLE are well armed and will continue be so Mr. Bangiola – get used to it.

I see Paul has a penchant for not answering against all those facts he can’t.

Based on irrefutable history, anti gun extremists have never offered concessions or compromise. They by their actions and statements only wish to take based on their unsubstantiated and illogical fears of their mythical boogeyman, the law abiding gun owner in their promotion that gun control reduces violence, when it never does.



See were the antis really serious about coming to table and meeting the pro gun side halfway, they must be willing to give something up in return, see that is how compromise occurs.

So what should be the suggestion, ah, I have it along with some very viable solutions.

The antis at various times have tried to shame the gun owners into submission by posting who has permits and licenses, claiming if they have nothing to hide why should they worry.

So using that logic, we will propose the anti gun side do likewise since they have nothing to hide, and essentially wish to opt out of exercising their 2A right as well as opt out of defending themselves or their loved ones.

We suggest the anti gun people be willing to wear a symbol to identify their gun free status, uh like the STAR OF DAVID. Such an appropriate mark for disarmed victims.

We pro gun people will wear the Stars & Stripes representing our belief and support of the US Constitution and our BOR.

Then the antis will be be required to post this STAR OF DAVID (SOD) on their front door, their lawn, their vehicle to show their masters that they are gun free, afterall, they have nothing to hide.

We will post the Stars & Stripes on the same places!

This way the police and the criminals will know whom they must protect/attack, whats the difference, even though by law they (the police have been ruled dozens of times not to be legally liable) to do so.


Those who choose to rely on the police, who only solve an average of 8.06% of all violent crimes committed each year, should themselves alone pay any increases in costs for the police to do so and those with the SOD symbol on their person, clothing and home will allow the police to maximize and be efficient in their valiant, but hopeless efforts. 


Then as a further measure to protect those who are so fearful of the law abiding gun owner, will need to be sheltered in gated communities, appropriately named SOD-OM & Gomohra.

Since you wish to move all the crazies out of the house where sane gun owners live, we suggest they are moved into SOD-OM & Gomohra.

Since there are 350 million firearms in the US and it appears you want to confiscate all those firearms not “qualified”, we suggest a buy back program like Australia did, only we wont accept half value for our property like they did, something to do with the 4th amendment ya know!

Roughly 90%of all those weapons are semi-auto and just using the $475 amount the Australian govt, paid for each weapon in 1996. That would be somewhere around $250-$500 billion dollars you need to come up with and oh one more thing, no gun owner will be taxed to cover that cost, only those wearing an SOD symbol will be taxed, after all, it is you that want this to occur! At 62 million who voted for Obama that equals an additional $4,800 to $8,200 tax on you antis to pay for that!

But that will actually be about 1/2 the cost as we will insist you buy back all the accessories to go with it, so add another $4,800 to $8,200 tax for a total tax bill to you antis of $9,600 to $16,400. Besides, that is indeed being fiscally responsible as the maximum % of people wanting this would be in that 62 mil who voted for Obama!

We will then insist that firearms safety training be mandated in elemtary, middle and high school curriculum, at minimum like a hunter safety class, just like Health class used to have a time devoted to home and safety training when I was a student. This will decrease the likelyhood of accidents, even though accidental deaths of children 0-18 is the lowest it has been in decades at 100 in 2009 per CDC.

Real quick question, since felons and bad guys arent held to obey such laws, and they are responsible for over 92% of deaths by illegal use of a firearm, just how do you plan on getting those criminals and such in to get the bio safety installed, get them trained, and repeat that each year?

As to licenses, if you wish them to occur every year, they will only cost gun owners $5, which will cover handling and processing fee’s in perpetuity.

No other fee’s taxes, township or otherwise will be levied against a firearm other than standard manufacturing and sales taxes the state applies to all goods sold!

Then of course any company, organization, govt. entity, school that wishes to disarm patrons etc, must then put in place protective measures to defend the innocents they disarm, making it illegal on the federal level to increase their costs to pass on to their customer or patrons, taking such costs directly from their own profits.



A law will be made that the BATF must prosecute every felon or person rejected by the background check instead of the less than 1% (over 1 mil since 1994, and 830,000 others rejected) today or face federal funding cutbacks.



This law will also force the BATF to allow civilian access without extra licensing or control to use the NICS background check for private sales.


Next the state govt. will be held financially and criminally responsible for failure to fund and resource the NICS mental health reporting function.

Today the NICS database shows only 1.7 mil records of those who by due process have lost their rights. All while mental health experts identify that 50% of current 2.7 mil prisoners have severe mental health illness, and 7% of adults (21.8 mil) also have severe mental illness in the US.

Next, all laws that don’t apply to felons, will be judged unconstitutional and removed from the roles, simplifying gun control laws for the law abiding gun owners.

No registration will ever be accepted, so you need to dump that or any other tracking device as it just isn’t happening.

See Haynes vs. US 390, 85, 1968 for the guidelines of what 85% of the existing gun control laws do not apply to felons due to the 5th amendment right of no self incrimination which by law means no registration, permits, training etc, etc, etc…

Next, legalize illicit drugs and destroy the cartels and gangs influence fueled by massive drug revenues. This will save $50 bil minimum in DEA budget, then taxes can be generated by using those agents to tax and control the former illicit drugs, not to mention drastically reduce the amount of violent crime associated with the illicit drug trade.

This will open prison space where 30-40% are incarcerated for drug offenses to put the 99% of felons the BATF formerly refused to prosecute for attempting to buy firearms.

Speaking of waiting, per FBI NCIC there are over 1.043 mil open felony warrants in the US, many of them violent. So are you going to do anyhting about that as per mental health experts, 50% of current prisoners are severely mentally ill, think these 1.043 mil are any different, LOL!

Waiting periods have never proven to have any value, hence irrelevant.

No limits on personal ownership including ammunition as many buy in bulk to enjoy the shooting sports.

All states are required to honor the same exact amount of training, concealed carry, ownership, transport, storage laws, etc, etc, and such standardized rules will not be modeled on CA, NY, NJ, MD, IL, HI or any other violent gun ban paradise, by the way this is not negotiable!

The age to own a pistol is pretty much 21 wherever in the US already and in deference to the 43.5 million hunters in the US, your suggestion for no one under 21 to own a shotgun, 30-30, .22 rifle and such is a deal breaker. Threaten that and all who support gun control will be voted out in the next election cycle as many devoted hunters don’t care about self defense, they do care about hunting, and 43.5 million pissed off hunters and hunting organizations will vote the democrats out of power just like in 1994!

Since these compromises will only affect the 92% of all deaths by illegal use of a firearm are indeed committed by career criminals, gang members, and suiciders, this will indeed be an appropriate start and is indeed concessions the antis have to available to offer.

These are indeed common sense solutions as they actually address the criminals and not the law abiding gun owners.

Or you could just focus on the bad guys, you choose which windmill you wish to tilt at!

One of the biggest problems is that most of this is being approached from the point of view that the government is supreme. That is incorrect. It answers to the people. Well, by it’s original design anyways. Hence the problems we now have.

When you approach things from that correct perspective it is much easier to understand why we look at this government, not as sore losers but as citizens dissatisfied with the overall direction our government has chosen to go. A government that is no longer responsive to We the People and most important a government that no longer has respect for the Founding Documents.

All we want is for the government to revert back to what it was intended by the Founders to be. Small, limited in powers, and Constitutional. Instead we have a bloated, out of control leviathan. Tyrannical? If not, then very close.

All this is just a misunderstanding.

It’s a misunderstanding that the government comes first and the people next. It’s the other way around.

It’s a misunderstanding that because you win or lose an election, you gain or lose things. There are things that can never be taken away by the government, at least not without consequences, those things are our Creator given, natural rights that are reaffirmed in the Founding Documents. The government does not give or grant rights, we have them merely because of our birth and it is the government that is to protect those.

It’s a misunderstanding that we are powerless. Actually it is We the People that have all the power. It is given to us by the Founding Documents and cannot be taken from us. If it can be then we are already slaves and no longer free men.

It’s a misunderstanding that we have no right to take our government back. Actually the Founders were very clear that it was their intent that we do just that when the time came that our government was no longer what they had created. They cautioned repeatedly about the dangers of government growing too large and overbearing. That it would sap our freedoms and liberties and that at that point it was our duty to reclaim it by whatever mean necessary up to and including using arms. On this subject they were very clear.

So, see, it’s easy, just do away with all your misunderstanding and it will then all be clear to you.

As to the 2nd Amendment, if you don’t like it Amendment it. That is the only Constitutional recourse you have and that was foreseen and also provided for by the very wise Founders. Anything short of that is unconstitutional regardless of what someone in a black robe says. They can act unconstitutionally too.

Finally, it is a misunderstanding that we want violence. Actually we want peace more that most. That is why we have been quiet and allowed things we knew were wrong to be shoved down our throats and wrongfully so.

We’re peaceful and slow to anger. We would prefer just to live our lives and be left alone by our government to live those lives as we see fit. You know that life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness stuff. We believe in that and take it seriously.

What we have no misunderstanding of, is that once the 2nd Amendment is gone, none of the other rights mean anything, they have no teeth, we have no recourse. This is the line in the sand. We can go no further. History shows that we are correct in our caution. History shows that once a people is disarmed they become literal slaves to be used and/or disposed of as the government desires.

We see and know what you and the government’s goal is. We will not be fooled by emotions and emotional reactions.

Utopia does not and never will exist and we know it. Humans are the same now as they have always been. Human nature does not change. That is why history continually repeats itself.

We’re not willing to allow history to repeat itself with our Country if we can stop it.

Tyranny? We could discuss the definition as I imagine it could be somewhat different to each of us. However, I think that I can safely say that for the majority of the ones that are paying attention to events right now, any additional infringement on the 2nd Amendment will suffice for the definition for us.

On this, I see no room for compromise. As I said, convene a Constitutional Convention if you want to change it. Follow the rule of law.

Mr. Bangiola:

I recently posted the following two posts on http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com in response to your (very selective, narrow, limited in scope, cherry-picked, ideologically isolated, condescending, I could keep going…) rebuttal to Mr. Bruce Kraft’s criticism of this article. Needless to say, you should put more thought into your choice of neck ties and less on how best to infringe on the rights of others.

Response 1 (in response to comment by TTAG reader Brian S):

Brian S:
“…many of whom I know and who are disgusted by people who own stupid guns like Bushmasters…”

this reminds me of people who say “my best friend is black” when trying to convince someone they aren’t racist

Hal:

Bangiola is thinking in a vacuum. The “many” gun owners he knows are likely one or two fellow Jersey residents with hunting rifles. As it’s practically impossible to own a service rifle there, he is completely insulated from a true sampling of gun owners. Additionally, if he WERE in a place with true gun owners, he likely wouldn’t be capable objectively engaging them to get a differing opinion (without being antagonistic).

Like most Statists, he is completely unaware of his own hypocrisy. He criticizes Mr. Craft for wanting “an audience limited to those who agree with him.” Yet, his feeble defense is that he knows some NJ gunowners, who hail from one of the most pro-citizen disarmament states, and therefore he’s not anti-gun. Ha.

Response 2:

“Rage. For many of us, it is derived from smug fools who are attempting to dictate what rights others can and cannot have. I would never dream of telling you what you can and cannot write, or say, or do so long as those words and actions do not infringe upon the rights of others. Nor would I suggest that it is the government’s place to say who can and cannot marry. That’s the rub when it comes to caring about liberty, Sir; you either do or you don’t. You don’t have to like others’ choices. You might even hate them. But when you begin to advocate for the State to have the power to take liberties from others, then you have forfeited whatever civility or politeness that you may THINK you are entitled to. You cherry-pick only those rights you feel comfortable allowing others to have. That is NOT the attitude of a man who actually gives a damn about liberty.

As such, you can imagine how irritating it is when I am told that I must justify what arms I can possess. No right requires prior justification before it is exercised. I am free to exercise it as I see fit.

How many people have been killed by privately held arms throughout history, Sir? How many have been killed by Nations? If you can accurately and honestly answer those questions, then you will understand why an armed citizenry is a good idea. And please spare me the usual “it could never happen here” nonsense. Furthermore, feel free to label me as “crazy” and “paranoid” all you like. I would counter that you are naive, vapid and shortsighted.

Also, I wrote this reply hastily on a mobile device. If it is riddled with spelling or grammatical errors I apologize.

“Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.” Pp. 54–56”

this quote you posted from that judicial decision would seem to argue that weapons in common use at the time are not dangerous and unusual and should be allowed. I submit to you that the AR15 is one of the most commonly used rilfes in the USA, so would that not mean that is cannot be banned/restricted?

Also, in another post you say that the AR15 is not used in hunting. That could not be further from the truth. because of its modularity it is an excellent rifle for taking out small game/varmints and some models are even specified as “varminters”.

Last, I think that many people on its surface agree with having all gun sales go through a check with a FFL (seems a odd double standard to many to have JUST gun store sales, new or used get a check). Where people start getting nervous is that even if “they” say (and is illegal b/c of the Firearm Owners Protection Act) they wont keep a registry of who owns what guns, if any records are kept for any reasonable amt of time, it becomes a defacto registry. Now the “tin foil” hat people will say they can then use that as a list for confiscation, but more worrisome (and likely) is that list getting released/leaked and causing problems like the NY newspaper that published pistol permit holder addresses.

You accuse those that disagree with you as being paranoid of their government, and seeking revolution. I have been a member of the NRA for over 35 years. I have never once thought of starting a revolution with the government. But when I hear the Governor of NY use words liek confiscation, when the mayor of NYC says he doesn’t give a damn about the 4th amendment, he will continue to instruct rhe police to “stop and frisk”, when a long time sitting senator like Ms. Feinstein says publically she would like to go from door to door and collect ALL the firearms in the country and ignorant people like you assert a total falsehood as fact stuff like belowt:

” But, the Bushmaster is designed to look like, be held like, and otherwise operate like a military, fully automatic, M16 assault rifle, and, I think , may therefore be properly described as an “assault weapon” because it is not well suited to other purposes.It is not used for hunting and , as a “long gun”, it is not the best weapon for home or self defense.”
Ask the Korean shop owners what their weapon of choice was to protect their businesses and lives during the Rodney King riots in LA! I’d call that self defence of the highest order when facing looting mobs onumbering in the dozens at any given moment. Go see what the wild boar hunters use as their preferred firearm when hunting. In both cases, it is the AR type modern rifle. Wild boars destroy millions of dollars of crops every year, they are a pestulance and most states allow unrestricted hunting. As they run in herds, the shooting needs to be fast AND accurate. The typical AR rifle is quite capable of excellent accuracy out to 500 yards. I’d call that hunting in the extreme, where the quarry is tough, fast, and smart. But according to YOU, this is apparently imaginary, doesn’t exist because you claim it doesn’t exist. I see it as denial on your part because these events don’t fit your program.
I can see that YOU are indeed one of the ones that will start the revolution. It will be you and those law enforcement officers acting as your agents that will begin the killing of Americans to enforce compliance to unconstitutional laws (remember Mayor Bloomberg publically doesn’t care about what the constitution says), and then and only then will I be forced to fight back to protect myself and my family.

By the way, Mr. Bangiola, if you want a more detailed reply that I will allow you to post (with attribution and links), leave me a message at my e-mail address. I hereby give the Morristown Green permission to pass that address to you.

Paul Bangiola,

Here’s a clue: A major portion of America sees you as the extremist, not Krafft. But do explain, how is a Bushmaster a stupid gun? Let’s see: It fires a round that is weaker than many standard deer rifles? It has a gas system that jams if not kept religiously clean? It’s ugly?

No, those aren’t what you named. You said that it holds thirty rounds of armor-piercing cop-killer bullets. Right. Are you aware that the rounds typically used in hunters’ rifles also will penetrate most ballistic vests? If your standard is that no private citizen should be allowed to own a firearm or ammunition that will defeat armor, you are calling for bans on just about every rifle in America. At least you could be honest.

But then you go on to discuss fighter jets and other such equipment. Are you aware that the term, arms, referred to personal weapons? Private citizens could own warships and receive a commission from the U.S. government, but that’s covered under the concept of a letter of marque. It’s not part of the Second Amendment. Your attempts to obfuscate is aimed at blinding people to the real goal of gun control freaks: total citizen disarmament.

Paul’s commentary was very well picked apart by Bruce. There is nothing I could add. 🙂

Paul M. Bangiola, writes:
One more thing: Language is important and I have been critical of the loose talk of Treason and Tyranny being spouted by those who claim to support the Constitution until they get out-voted. So, to be fair, I want to disavow the unnecessarily inflammatory headline placed on my Commentary, which was not my title for the piece, It was added by the blog editor, and is not a title I would have chosen. I understand and support the Second Amendment, as finally defined and interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States, and do not wish to “Shoot Holes” in it. The Commentary itself, however, is all mine and I stand behind it.

Paul M. Bangiola says:
In case you, dear reader, like Greg Camp above, think that it is unfair to call “Extremists” those who responded to my modest Commentary on gun control with scary, vicious invective and paranoid babble about “Tyranny”, consider what Bruce W. Kraft (above) posted on his own blog, (he did not have the courage to post it here himself) addressed to me, :

“Paul…What you and your collectivist buddies should be afraid of (although you probably don’t even realize it) is when the Leviathan goes that one step too far… all of a sudden you have a few hundred thousand seriously pissed off gun owners… Gun owners with the skills and equipment to drop a man deer at 600 yards…
That’s who you worry about Paul.”

Well Bruce, you have convinced me that you are probably somebody to worry about. But, I still don’t think you represent most gun owners. many of whom I know and who are disgusted by people who own stupid guns like Bushmasters, the cynical politicization of gun violence for profit by the NRA, and those wannabe leaders-without-followers like you, who talk about armed rebellion when they are upset that their candidate didn’t get the most votes in a recent election, or maybe just because they are unhealthy social misfits, with unmet needs of one kind or another.

But, Bruce , you have not convinced me that we live under Tyranny that justifies using language that is dangerous, threatening and irresponsible. You have also failed to convince me that background checks to prevent those with psychological problems from getting their hands on guns is either unconstitutional or a bad idea. You haven’t convinced me either that anybody has a use for a Bushmaster that justifies the appeal they seem to have for the misfits and deranged among us.

So, sorry Greg- there are obviously real live extremists out there, like Bruce, who are not made of straw, and they need to lose the argument over gun control, and background checks. While we are at it we might try to figure out from whence springs their irrational paranoia, sense of inadequacy, and rage. We will all be a lot safer.

Shooting Holes in Shooting Holes in the Second Amendment

I love it when antis run these mock dialogues with “gun nuts”. Paul Bangiola follows the standard style of setting up and knocking down straw men with his logic and reason triumphing mightily over the feeble arguments of the ignorant/paranoid/conspiracist gun nut. Paul opens with an anecdote about a debate he went to in the early ‘80s between Abby Hoffman and another of the Chicago Seven. Paul says:

My takeaway from their debate was a good one-liner by Jerry to Abbie: “It’s OK to be against authority, unless it’s your authority.”

Bear with me, Paul believes it is relevant:

Now, this comes to mind when it comes to gun control. I hear many gun rights activists say they might need a gun for self-defense:

“What if somebody breaks into my house!”

No quarrel with me, buddy. You can just get yourself a handgun, a shotgun, a rifle, maybe a moat with alligators in it, and I hope the bad guy falls in!

Well that’s mighty big of you Paul “allowing” me to exercise the natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil and Constitutional right to defend myself and my loved ones as I see fit. I think, however, that you were engaging in a little hyperbole with the moat; probably trying to frame the perfectly reasonable and life-affirming choice of armed self-defense as a paranoid overreaction to the threat of crime.

You can read the rest (with all the frou-frou formatting) at https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/01/bruce-w-krafft/shooting-holes-in-shooting-holes-in-the-second-amendment/

Dear Paul,
I am a former town magistrate, elected as a Conservative Democrat, lifetime Democratic voter and sanctioned rifle target competitor. I hope you will take a brief moment of your time to hear me out. I am not a lawyer, I am a very concerned citizen. I don’t know if you will ever read this and doubt you would respond.
Paul, think back to the birth of our great nation. The days when fathers marched with sons side by side against tyranny. The days when we believed the actions of the English were just absurd. “How dare you tell us what to do? We all decided we wanted to be free”, we said. The English disagreed. So Fathers cried with sons dying in their arms. Our forefathers, in their brilliant effort to lead our budding society, had the vision to see that every man, every home, should be safe from anything that threatened their existence and right to freedom from intrusion in their sphere of domestic privacy and security. Their vision was not so shortsighted to limit this as only an intrusion from tyrannical government but simply to protect our existence as free and sovereign citizen peoples and members of society. Period. The roots lie in English Common-law, you studied it I’m sure. The spirit and intent of our Second Amendment gave every man the right to protect that private existence with firearms sufficient to lawfully defend himself , his family and his country effectively. No question about that. The argument of the well regulated militia, (small case m in the form presented by congress to the states versus capital M in the congressional form.) and the use of the word state (again small case) was not intended to mean a totally government regulated militia if you target your research back to the English origins, when the kings wanted to be able to disarm the citizenry without the approval of the legislative body. Hmm, sound familiar? What about the conscripted Georgia militia? Remember them? The ones who went around to the plantations to disarm the slaves? Our future is uncertain…
I took an oath when I offered my life in defense of my country to do so from all enemies, foreign or domestic. Did you? Nobody in this country can say what can happen 10, 20, 50 years down the road. I took this oath willingly on that day and hold it in my heart as solemnly today as I did that day.

There’s much print and words wasted these days by the media extreme that seem to forget that this is true. They say,”You don’t need to protect yourselves from your own government”. Tell that to the Jews! Tell that to the slaves! Tell that to the numerous groups that exercised civil disobedience! Pretty shortsighted I say.
Hitler said “The best way to conquer a nation is to disarm its citizens.” Probably wouldn’t want that to happen either. This is a very unstable world and it defies logic to think it will get better anytime soon. The real mission of the media is to show the country the ideas that bring about positive societal change not only in answer to today’s problems, but also to the problems that may come to us in our countries future. At this very moment the Second Amendment to our Constitution is being redefined in historic ways that could span many generations to come. I think our children’s children’s children should be able to protect themselves and their families with high quality weapons . I’m like that; my tools are lifetime guaranteed too, and I own many more than I’ll need of them. Will it be a Bushmaster, probably not? But whatever tool available to effectively stand against any that oppose them is where my inheritance would go. It’s not about magazines and AR15’s and such. The REAL issue is how do we keep these weapons of defense from those that would do others harm, especially the children of us all. It’s high time for the media to be creative and find the news to report that will lead our country to effectively protect our children’s rights and safety, AND also protect our future.
We should pave the way to a safer country, yet protect the rights of every citizen. No brainer, right? How about protecting that Vietnam War Veteran applying to get his permit for the first time to legally enjoy his firearm from being excluded because he honestly checked “yes” in the box that said “Were you ever treated for a mental illness?”. (“PTSD”, they whispered in the military hospital as he lie there in bed just days from shedding his blood for your country.) Perhaps if our forefathers were better armed those sons would not have died in their father’s arms. Ben Franklin might have said the media has an innate responsibility to protect this right… It’s not only about today Paul. I am an American through and through. I was tear-gassed by my government at the age of 15 peaceably assembling and exercising my First Amendment rights protesting the Vietnam War at the University of Buffalo, NY, in the Allentown District and in front of City Hall there as well. I can only think that within the last decade, starting with 9/11 actually, our rights as citizens have been ever weakening. Any time a government agency can come into my home without my knowledge, search it, plant surveillance equipment, etc… without ANY judge knowing about it (Not even some secret Homeland Security Judge) makes me very, very afraid for our future. Did you know that is possible? Look it up. Yes it’s all in the name of security they say, yet by whose definition? Are we exempt in some way from rogue government or something like it, or worse an attack by a foreign entity? No…We cannot predict the future, only hope. I will keep my arms to defend my country and my family and community as I took that oath to do long ago. My motto is “Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.”
Please do your part to help us protect everybody’s rights, and keep our country strong from today on…It is part and parcel of being an officer of the court as well. I worked very hard to see that those presumed innocent in my court had their rights protected…

With Respect,
Hon. Garry Hoffman (ret.)
Lifetime DAV member, Combat Veterans Assn. member, liberal NRA member
Saranac Lake, Adirondack Mts., New York
judgegarry@hotmail.com

PS: As per your earlier comment; Under New York Penal Code, Sec 265.20 (6) it is perfectly legal to possess a switchblade or gravity knife for purposes of hunting, fishing or trapping for those with a valid license from the NY Dept. of Environmental Conservation. Quite remarkable from the state who has had the strictest gun laws for many, many years and whose laws just got stricter. This was done by our vote hungry governor, grooming himself for a bid as a presidential candidate, by evoking special privilege along with his buddies in the legislature. It was railed through without ANY public comment and without affording the FULL legislative body enough time, (One day?!), to read and debate the complex 65 page document. Cuomo and his cohorts did this so hastily that they even forgot to exempt police officers from prosecution! Sad to think an off duty officer cannot even go on school grounds legally or cannot possess his 13 round Glock to serve and protect around the clock…

Dear Paul,
I am a former town magistrate, elected as a Conservative Democrat, lifetime Democratic voter and sanctioned rifle target competitor. I hope you will take a brief moment of your time to hear me out. I am not a lawyer, I am a very concerned citizen. I don’t know if you will ever read this and doubt you would respond.
Paul, think back to the birth of our great nation. The days when fathers marched with sons side by side against tyranny. The days when we believed the actions of the English were just absurd. “How dare you tell us what to do? We all decided we wanted to be free”, we said. The English disagreed. So Fathers cried with sons dying in their arms. Our forefathers, in their brilliant effort to lead our budding society, had the vision to see that every man, every home, should be safe from anything that threatened their existence and right to freedom from intrusion in their sphere of domestic privacy and security. Their vision was not so shortsighted to limit this as only an intrusion from tyrannical government but simply to protect our existence as free and sovereign citizen peoples and members of society. Period. The roots lie in English Common-law, you studied it I’m sure. The spirit and intent of our Second Amendment gave every man the right to protect that private existence with firearms sufficient to lawfully defend himself and his family effectively. No question about that. The argument of the well regulated militia, (small case m in the form presented by congress to the states versus capital M in the congressional form.) and the use of the word state (again small case) was not intended to mean a totally government regulated militia if you target your research back to the English origins, when the kings wanted to be able to disarm the citizenry without the approval of the legislative body. Hmm, sound familiar? What about the conscripted Georgia militia? Remember them? The ones who went around to the plantations to disarm the slaves?
I took an oath when I offered my life in defense of my country to do so from all enemies, foreign or domestic. Did you? Nobody in this country can say what can happen 10, 20, 50 years down the road. I took this oath willingly on that day and hold it in my heart as solemnly today as I did that day.

There’s much print and words wasted these days by the media extreme that seem to forget that this is true. They say,”You don’t need to protect yourselves from your own government”. Tell that to the Jews! Tell that to the slaves! Pretty shortsighted I say. Hitler said “The best way to conquer a nation is to disarm its citizens.” Probably wouldn’t want that to happen either. This is a very unstable world and it defies logic to think it will get better anytime soon. The real mission of the media is to show the country the ideas that bring about positive societal change not only in answer to today’s problems, but also to the problems that may come to us in our countries future. At this very moment the Second Amendment to our Constitution is being redefined in historic ways that could span many generations to come. I think our children’s children’s children should be able to protect themselves and their families with high quality weapons . I’m like that; my tools are lifetime guaranteed too, and I own many more than I’ll need of them. Will it be a Bushmaster, probably not? But whatever tool available to effectively stand against any that oppose them is where my inheritance would go. It’s not about magazines and AR15’s and such. The real issue is how do we keep these weapons of defense from those that would do others harm, especially the children of us all. It’s high time for the media to be creative and find the news to report that will lead our country to effectively protect our children’s rights and safety, AND also protect our future.
We should pave the way to a safer country, yet protect the rights of every citizen. No brainer, right? How about protecting that Vietnam War Veteran applying to get his permit for the first time to legally enjoy his firearm from being excluded because he honestly checked “yes” in the box that said “Were you ever treated for a mental illness?”. (“PTSD”, they whispered in the military hospital as he lie there in bed just days from shedding his blood for your country.) Perhaps if our forefathers were better armed those sons would not have died in their father’s arms. Ben Franklin might have said the media has an innate responsibility to protect this right… It’s not only about today Paul. I am an American through and through. I was tear-gassed by my government at the age of 15 peaceably assembling and exercising my First Amendment rights protesting the Vietnam War at the University of Buffalo, NY, in the Allentown District and in front of City Hall there. I can only think that within the last decade, starting with 9/11 actually, our rights as citizens have been ever weakening. Any time a government agency can come into my home without my knowledge, search it, plant surveillance equipment, etc… without ANY judge knowing about it (Not even some secret Homeland Security Judge) makes me very, very afraid for our future. Did you know that is possible? Look it up. Yes it’s all in the name of security they say, yet by whose definition? Are we exempt in some way from rogue government or something like it, or worse attack by a foreign entity? No…We cannot predict the future, only hope. I will keep my arms to defend my country and my family and community as I took that oath to do long ago. Please do your part to help us protect everybody’s rights, and keep our country strong from today on…It is part and parcel of being an officer of the court as well. I worked very hard to see that those presumed innocent in my court had their rights protected.

With Respect,
Hon. Garry Hoffman (ret.)
Lifetime DAV member, Combat Veterans Assn. member
Saranac Lake, Adirondack Mts., New York

PS: As per your earlier comment; under New York State Penal Code, 265.20, (6) it is perfectly legal to possess a switchblade or gravity knife for purposes of hunting, fishing or trapping for those with licenses issued by the NY Dept. of Conservation. I’d say this was remarkable from a state historically having the strictest gun control laws going back many, many years, and one whose laws just got stricter. All happening without public input and preventing the full legislative body due time to read and discuss (1 day?!) the 65 page law before it was railed through by a special power given a headline-seeking governor grooming himself for his presidential bid along with his buddies in the state legislature. In their infinite wisdom they even acted so fast as to forget to exempt law enforcement from the restrictions. Quite a few of our state representative are steaming mad about the sloppiness and haste of this.

Mr. Bangiola, I’m sure you feel quite smug about your victory over your imaginary extremist, but you’d come off with some more credibility if you’d get to know a good sample of American gun owners. You might at least learn some facts about the rifle that you disparage.

On the plus side, you have good spelling–although that may be the work of the editorial staff.

Paul M. Bangiola, writes:

To begin with, there can be no dispute about the right to own guns, and no one can impose gun ban without a Constitutional Amendment . The Second Amendment to the Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights.

For more than two hundred years the Supreme Court of the United States did not issue a ruling which decided the effect of the the prefatory clause, which reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,… ” and then continues” the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.

Lots of trees gave their lives in the argument that ensued over the meaning of the first clause. Liberals contended for decades that all guns could be banned outright because “militia’s” were a historical anachronism, from a time before the United States had a standing army, and stat National Guard units. Gun control opponents, like those who are cutting an pasting quotations for pro-gun websites here, (Phil) argued about government Tyranny.

The comes the District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), which can be read in full text at https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZO. that is the law of the land as finally determined by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2008. A lot of people appear not to have read it, and are still carrying on about “militias” and making absurd and frightening references to “Tyranny” (Phil). Please read the opinion of Justice Scalia.

A few fair points have been made by those who oppose more gun control.

Uncle Frank points out, correctly that the Bushmaster assault rifle which looks like a military M16, is actually a semiautomatic weapon, that is , it requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each bullet. This point is lost on many gun control proponents, to the frustration of the other side. The reason why this is important in discussing the banning of a particular “bad gun” is that this type of gun can be fired very quickly, Uncle Frank points out that the firing speed is comparable to the speed with which a skilled shooter may fire a semi automatic pistol. A fair point.

But, the Bushmaster is designed to look like, be held like, and otherwise operate like a military, fully automatic, M16 assault rifle, and, I think , may therefore be properly described as an “assault weapon” because it is not well suited to other purposes.

It is not used for hunting and , as a “long gun”, it is not the best weapon for home or self defense. As Justice Scalia pointed out in the decision of the United States Supreme Court , District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), which upheld the right to own a handgun for self defense and overturned the District of Columbia’s handgun ban,
“There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency;
it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upper body strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the
police.”Heller, at v 57.

So, why permit the sale of long guns that look like military issue fully automatic assault rifles? Isn’t there there a significant danger that this type of gun, and other military weapon “analogs”, which also appear in many violent shooter videos and movies, is particularly likely to be the important final ingredient in the warped, toxic mind-stew of a mentally deranged shooter?

After Newtown, doesn’t that just make common sense, together with better background checks, and making all gun transactions subject to the same background check, and the other steps the President has proposed, to find the deranged shooters in advance, and to then prevent them from getting their hands on these military-analog assault rifles?

Mr Bangiola,
The video was to reference my statement about magazine capacity. With the proper training even a 6 shot revolver can be devastating. The capacity of the magazine fed firearm becomes irrelevant at that point.
There has been a conspicuous lack of forthright information about the shooting. It does not fit the ban the assault weapons agenda. CNN, yes they definitely have an agenda.
Please view the following video for information from the local authorities. The assault weapons ban has nothing to do with the school shooting.

https://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495

Uncle Frank

I find it interesting that the most important meaning and import of the Second Amendment, that of our founding fathers, who knew a whole hell of a lot more about this than Bangiola OR Scalia and the rest of the SCOTUS, are not being mentioned by any of the most assertive proponents of gun control:

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people” (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” ~ Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836

“The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to military arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country” ~ James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“The supposed quietude of a good mans allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside…Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them…” ~ Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 [1894]

“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” ~ George Washington

“Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defence of the country, the over-throw of tyranny, or in private self-defense.” ~ John Adams

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” ~Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States….Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America” ~ Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789

“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, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244

“The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.” ~ William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6, 2nd ed. 1829

“The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms” ~ Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.” ~ Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights

“The great object is that every man be armed and everyone who is able may have a gun.” ~ Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.

“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.” ~ Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646

“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

“To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.” ~ George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380

And all we saw today was bluster from a power mad raving lunatic who has no authority to do anything.

So buzz off Obama.

I find it interesting that the most important,most recent, and most ruling on the meaning and import of the Second Amendment is not being mentioned by any of the most assertive opponents of gun control.

That case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), which was decided by a 6-3 majority with Justice Antonin Scalia writing the decision of the Court.

Consider the following statement by the United States Supreme Court in Heller:

” Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.” Pp. 54–56.

Justice Scalia is hardly a liberal. He is the most conservative member of the Supreme Court. That decision is the law of the land. That decision clarified what the second Amendment means. There is no remaining doubt that the government may properly regulate guns. The government is just not doing its job.

Oh, yeah, until today.

Thank you Mr. President.

“Make gun shows and private sellers of guns comply with the same background checks and requirements as federal guns sellers.”

How about we start with Eric Holder . . .

Paul, you wrote: “Put Bushmasters and other similar military style weapons on the prohibited list.”

I don’t know what it will take for people of your pursuasion to understand this:

YOU. CAN’T. DO. IT.

It is precluded by Supreme Court precedent; U.S. v. Miller.

“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158…”

“…With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” – UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) 307 U.S. 174

There you have it, Paul. Small arms in common use that “have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia” and are “part of the ordinary military equipment” are precisely those the keeping and bearing of which is protected. The 2nd Amendment “must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.”

Case. Closed.

I know it is totally lost on you that 20,000 anti-gun laws already on the books in this country the day of Sandy Hook did nothing to stop it. I am compelled – rather rhetorically, because I know you will not answer to direct logic presented to you – to ask “why these sensible gun-control measures, that I am quite certain you endorsed, did not work?”

So, since you are highly unlike to face that conundrum, let’s discuss further here why you are full of crap:

“I recommend :

1. Better background checks as a condition of all guns sales to stop the mentally ill and criminal from getting guns.”

First, it is already illegal under federal law for anyone who is adjudicated as mentally ill to possess firearms. It didn’t stop Lanza, or Holmes or Harris or Klebold. I suspect what you are trying to do is circumvent is a person’s 6th amendment right to due process here and allow just about anyone to declare someone “mentally ill.” So much for that one . . .

At Columbine, the guns used by Harris and Klebold were obtained through already illegal straw purchases (a gun-control law that didn’t work). In Aurora, Holmes passed his “check.” In Sandy Hook, Lanza took his mother’s gun. In NONE of these cases would your recommendation have in any way stopped or hindered the shooters. All it would do, of course, is make things more difficult for the honest, law abiding gun-owner to transfer guns he no longer wants to keep. Another “bright idea” dispelled.

“2. Put Bushmasters and other similar military style weapons on the prohibited list.”

The 1994 “Assault weapon Ban” was in full force and effect the day that Harris and Klebold walked into Columbine and made “history.” It did NOTHING to stop them. In Mexico, where the law abiding are banned from owing them, these types of weapons are EVERYWHERE today – in fact, Mexico has millions of FULLY automatic weapons, which are virtually banned in the U.S. So the drug cartels and gang bangers all have them, and the average Mexican citizen is disarmed in their midst, and very much at their mercy. We have tried to ban drugs for years in the U.S., but our country is drowning in them. So it will be if we ban semi-automatic rifles: the criminals will have them through black markets, and the law abiding will have no means to protect themselves from them. This is what gun-control laws do: they disarm the law abiding and turn them into victims. Criminals don’t care about your silly “bans.” And don’t tell me that “America is different than Mexico.” Currently about 95% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. are directly related to drug gang activities – almost all in “gun-free mecca’s” like Chicago and NYC. You know – where no one can get guns.

“3. Make gun shows and private sellers of guns comply with the same background checks and requirements as federal guns sellers.”

See the response to number one: Background checks do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of miscreants like Harris, Klebold and Lanza. And “closing the gun show loophole” would have done nothing to stop Lanza at Sandy Hook. Of course, like all the other 20,000 “reasonable” gun-control laws people like you have foisted on the American public, when you passed this one and it failed, rather than admitting that it didn’t work, you would be crying “we need more gun-control.” Once again, the only people this would affect – negatively – is law abiding people.

“4. Impose civil liability on people (or their estates) who negligently let disturbed people have access to their guns resulting when a rampage occurs. This will make homeowners insurance carriers ask if policy holders have guns , what kind and whether or not anyone with a criminal record or psychiatric history lives in the house. It will cost homeowners a little more for insurance if they own weapons the insurers consider unnecessarily dangerous. Insurers already ask if you have a swimming pool, a motor boat, or certain kinds of dogs. How about having insurers asking homeowners whether they own a Bushmaster and have an adolescent under psychiatric care?”

The hallmark of a true liberal believer: “the criminal is the victim and we need to blame someone else for their actions.” I am certain that you want it to be “the law” that if my insurance agent asks me if I have guns, and I tell him it is none of his business (which it isn’t), then I should lose my insurance. You’re a peach of a guy. Any way you slice this, this is an invasion of the privacy of millions of law abiding people, not to mention the red tape and costs for no good reason – Dylan and Klebold got their weapons through a straw sale and Holmes simply passed his BC – this would have had NO EFFECT on the outcomes of those incidents.

Your “recommendations” have already been proven to not work before we even think about making them law.

So I have a better recommendation: Let’s put armed adults in schools in one form or another, so they can stop the Adam Lanza’s of the world before they kill our children.

“Congratulations Phil -You have been elected today’s Mayor of Crazy Town!”

Like all radical anti-gun liberals, when confronted with the facts about the failures and dangers of gun-control, you resort to hyperbole and ad hominem, because there simply is no validity to your argument. You are lost.

It is “your side” that always says they want a “national conversation” about guns. But that “conversation” in your mind is quite one sided: you tell the rest of us how it is going to be, and anyone who dissagrees with you is from “crazy town.”

Well the lopsided “conversation” is over, and we are keeping our guns. And if you don’t like it . . . get over it.

No, my original comment is accurate.

Lets review why your sociopathic tendencies and beliefs have no impact in the real world.

You do realize that multiple USDOJ studies show that over 92% of killings by illegal use of a firearm are committed by career criminals, gang members, suicidrs, crazies, and approx 50% of the remianing murders occur during domestic violence incidents, but hey, you have govt. data to refute that govt. data right, new, you never do!

BATF refuses to prosecute more than 1% of 1.83 mil felons & crazies rejected since 1994, fails to catch anyone using a fake id, fails to do anything about the 95% of felons that don’t even attempt to buy from a licensed source to begin with, and then the BATF refuses to allow civilian access for anonymous private sales.

Why anonymous, well because it’s the law!

Haynes vs. US 390, 85, 1968 US Supreme court ruling affirming the 5th amendment making 85% of current 22,417 gun control laws not applicable to felons & crazies, you know, registrations, permits, licenses, fee’s, gun bans.

We see how INEFFECTIVE prohibition was, how INEFFECTIVE the war on drugs is. By the way, how was violence by the mob reduced, oh thats right, prohibition was repealed.

But hey since 30-40% of current 2.7 mil prisoners are incarcerated for drug offenses dont you think legalizing illicit drugs would open up those spaces so the BATF and legal system could actually prosecute and imprison that 99% of felons and crazies caught attempting to buy from a licensed source as in Project Exile, violence does reduce when those most prone to extreme violence are removed from society! But such simple logic and history is indeed lost on the antis.

Of course understanding the Law of Supply & Demand, explain what you have done to eliminate the black market for firearms? China, Russia, Belgium UK, South Africa, just google and see all the articles on firearms smuggling and black market activities, amazing how that has happened all throughout history!

Please tell everyone how since 1992 we have seen somewhere between 45-65 mil new firearms in civilian hands and a reduction of violent crime rate of -49.4% and -49.2% of murders? One would believe based on your beliefs that a 25% increase in civilian firearms would reflect a 25% increase in violence, but geez, it hasnt has it!

Why is it that we are 2.5 to 5 times safer from violent crime in the US than in gun ban paradises like Australia, Canada, & England in 2011?

Why is it that noted criminologists like James Allen Fox prove that the # of mass killings hasn’t gone up, but has actually been trending down?

Multiple FBI reports show the 1994-2004 AWB didn’t reduce violent crime, yet a wave of the magic wand and sprinkle some fairy dust will now make it work this time?

Why is it that politicians refuse to fund & resource mental health reporting for NICS with only 1.7 mil records, out of 23.15 mil severely mentally ill in the US? Thought that was a law to do so after VA Tech in 2007, yeah, it is a law, funny how politicians ignore that!

FBI NCIC over 1 mil open felony warrants in the US today, do you think the % of severely mentally ill people in these open felony warrants, is different from what experts identify as 50% of current 2.7 mil prisoners being severely mentally ill? We don’t.

The ACLU sued for mentally ill people rights in the 1970’s and put that population into main-stream America, yet people didn’t want those half-way homes in their neighborhoods, and we know how well politicians fund anything that really matters.

So do you really wonder why the number of psychos going postal since the late 1970’s has increased or why mental health experts identify 50% of the prison pop. is severely mentally ill, we don’t.

Funny thing, antis are into causality, since the gun free victim disarmament zones were enacted, killings in said zones have quadrupled, 60 of the last 61 mass killings were in said zones (Giffords was shot in a parking lot).

Sure sounds like they need to get rid of gun free zones where crazies are taught by the media how and what to do to get their 15 minutes of fame, don’t you agree?

So explain again all these facts that show your desires to be nothing more than chicken little the sky is falling and by law and history and govt. facts, wont reduce violence one little bit, why anyone should believe a person like you who refuses to acknowledge all those facts you can never refute and are indeed intrinsically linked to the issue?

Get a clue!

Dear Uncle Frank:
Why did you send me to a link for video showing the world record pistol shooter.

FYI: From CNN regarding the guns used by the Newtown Shooter. He brought four guns to the scene and left a shotgun in the car.

“The primary weapon used in the attack was a “Bushmaster AR-15 assault-type weapon,” said Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance. The rifle is a Bushmaster version of a widely made AR-15, the civilian version of the M-16 rifle used by the U.S. military. The original M-16 patent ran out years ago, and now the AR-15 is manufactured by several gunmakers. Unlike the military version, the AR-15 is a semiautomatic, firing one bullet per squeeze of the trigger. But like the M-16, ammunition is loaded through a magazine. In the school shooting, police say Lanza’s rifle used numerous 30-round magazines.”

Ah , another day!

Even those who seem to be arguing that we are living under Tyranny, like Wakeup, are paranoid like Phil, or who see cause for threatening revolution in the President’s reelection, seem to agree that the Government has a right to keep some weapons away from the general public. (Eg. no fighter jets, hand grenades, chemical weapons, or nukes).

We are not living in Tyranny. We are a rich powerfula and remarkably free modern nation. Our Republic always has, will, and should defend itself against traitors in armed revolt, and will have an edge. Our founding fathers did not shrink from the duty to defend the United States of America from armed rebellion. So, don’t talk treason.

So everybody, let’s see if we can agree on how to prevent another horror.

First, before you post, take a breath, recite the Pledge of Allegiance quietly to yourself, read Paula Madei’s post above, think about those families in Newtown and Aurora, and Virginia Tech, and Columbine, and (perhaps prayerfully) remember we are all Americans (except Mike the Limey).

Also, remember Godwin’s law referred to above and don’t be an internet Troll. Absolutely no obscenity or violent posts will be tolerated. Don’t be today’s Mayor of Crazy Town!

Here goes:
I recommend :

1. Better background checks as a condition of all guns sales to stop the mentally ill and criminal from getting guns.

2. Put Bushmasters and other similar military style weapons on the prohibited list.

3. Make gun shows and private sellers of guns comply with the same background checks and requirements as federal guns sellers.

4. Impose civil liability on people (or their estates) who negligently let disturbed people have access to their guns resulting when a rampage occurs. This will make homeowners insurance carriers ask if policy holders have guns , what kind and whether or not anyone with a criminal record or psychiatric history lives in the house. It will cost homeowners a little more for insurance if they own weapons the insurers consider unnecessarily dangerous. Insurers already ask if you have a swimming pool, a motor boat, or certain kinds of dogs. How about having insurers asking homeowners whether they own a Bushmaster and have an adolescent under psychiatric care?

I think any of these measure will stand up to Constitutional scrutiny under the most recent Supreme Court cases. If you disagree, say why. I invite any other suggestions.
Regards,
Paul M. Bangiola

Go back and pay attention to the interviews with the police on site. The scary “assault” rifle ( a misnomer by the way, true assault rifles are full auto ) was in the car. He used pistols.
And before you jump on the hi-cap magazine wagon understand that dropping the size of the magazines won’t accomplish what you want.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLk1v5bSFPw

That is a revolver shooter and yes he was hitting what he was shooting at. Quit trying to blame a tool and blame the person who did the deed.

Uncle Frank

My apology to to TsgtB, and attention Phil:
The crazy quote about Marxists and Nazis kicking in doors to take guns is properly attributable to Phil,not TsgtB. I omitted Phil’s name inadvertently and he has pride of authorship and felt slighted. Phil, not TsgtB is the true, first violator of Godwin’s Law on this thread, and has now doubled down by suggesting that because I favor background checks for gun ownership, I must be a Marxist, a Nazi, or a “holocaust denier”. I plead “Not Guilty” on all three counts.
Congratulations Phil -You have been elected today’s Mayor of Crazy Town!

From the Sandy Hook Promise: To have the conversations on ALL the issues
Conversations where listening is as important as speaking.
Conversations where even those with the most opposing views
can debate in good will.
Would it even matter to you that the Sandy Hook parents just yesterday asked us to honor their children by having real conversations – not just shouting at each other?
The anger, hatred, fear, I hear amongst you is horrendous. The replies to this commentary can be summed up by quoted Charles Blow:
“That sound you hear is the sound of a cultural paranoia by people who have lost their grip on the reins of power, and on reality, and who fear the worst is coming. And they are preparing for it, whatever it may be — a war, a revolution, an apocalypse. These extremists make sensible, reasonable gun control hard to discuss, let alone achieve in this country, because they skew the conversations away from common-sense solutions on which both rational gun owners and non-gun owners can agree. These people, a vocal minority, have extreme fears — gun confiscation, widespread civil instability, a tyrannical government — from which they are preparing to defend themselves with arsenals of weapons and stockpiles of ammunition. “
“Gentlemen”, I believe you are part of that minority.
Additionally, when 74% of NRA members support more stringent gun regulation but the association’s leadership still perpetuates the false argument that ANY regulation will lead to the end of Second Amendment rights there is a disconnect with reality.
The average citizen has had enough and the organizations that stand behind common sense gun regulation are being flooded with every form of support.
Lastly, the comments regarding gun nomenclature are silly; the proper name for anything that can kill many humans in a matter of seconds is massacre machine. Everything anyone needs to understand about guns with high capacity magazines that can murder massively in the blink of an eye was learned at Columbine, Tucson, Virginia Tech, Aurora, and Newtown.

I don’t think that someone who can’t even keep straight who said what here should be taken seriously about what laws (any laws) the rest of society must live under.

Your ramblings make it clear that you are a complete scatterbrain, and have (like most anti-gun liberals) completely ignored the proof against your position that many have posted here.

All you come back with is non-sequitur, and some silly diatribe about “Godwin’s Law,” which appears to be nothing but the argument of a holocaust denier. I got news for you junior: you can spout this flotsam all you want: Hitler DID kill 6 million jews and gypsies, and it WAS proceded by gun-control, just like you want.

Also, it is clear that you are quite in the minority.

Paul M. Bangiola says:
…. but I can’t let you just make things up.

You mean like you made up “armour piercing, cop killer bullets”?

You lost all credibility the moment you came out with that diatribe.
You plainly know NOTHING about firearms & even less of the Bill of Rights than I do – and I’m English.
Irrational & emotive outbursts are the preserve of the socialist & the progressive, yet you have the gall to accuse conservatives of just that.
I hope you aren’t a trial lawyer, as your ability to argue a point is so lacking as to be immeasurable.

Paul:
“Nothing like tyranny exists in the United States of America”
Oh? In that case, I would be interested in hearing what YOU would consider as tyranny. Where is the line for you? What exactly is your definition of tyranny, I feel like we should have a baseline from which to start from in this conversation.

“You still don’t explain what you consider poltical and judicial failure,”
I think that will be a decision that each individual will have to determine for themselves. Will Americans start going to jail to keep from paying taxes or buying insurance that violates their religious beliefs on life? Will previously law abiding citizens go to jail if their 30 round magazines AR rifles are considered illegal? Or will they go to jail rather than submit willingly to finger printing and privacy invasions on the level we treat sex offenders?

The question isn’t who gets to decide on the legality/Constitutionality (it always rests with the people), the question is, what are YOU willing to do to enforce those laws to other wise law abiding Americans who feel it is unconstitutional?

I brought up the War on Drugs at the laughable effectiveness of ending certain behaviors by making a specific item-in this case various drugs-illegal.
Why are is the government seeking to infringe on law abiding citizens rights when it will have ZERO effect at combating further massacres or even make an impact on violent gun crime?

Not only that, it will make the law abiding even more prone to be victims at the hands of criminals.

“So, why not abolish private gun sales”
B/c the government does not have that authority. Sales across state lines? sure, within a state? No.
Also, the banning of private gun sales will not stop criminals from buying guns, so what exactly is the point of banning private gun sales? It only hinders the law abiding.

“register guns so sales can be tracked”
Laws like that exist within different cities and other jurisdictions, it does not impact gun crime. I can see it now Officer- “Mr. Smith, your firearm has turned up at a crime” Mr Smith “what? oh gee officer! I need to report a stolen firearm!”

“require a background check and doctor’s note from purchasers so we don’t sell weapons to the mentally ill or convicted felons. ”
Do we get to require doctors notes from those seeking to vote? There are already laws in place to keep the mentally ill from legally purchasing firearms. Those laws weren’t followed in the case of the VT shooter, his forced admittance to an overnight mental facility was not reported to the state police-so somehow MORE laws will solve the problem?

Background checks have already been shown time and again to have no effect on felons and others who are WILLING to break this and many other laws.

“Prior restraints to the 1st Amendment.”
your example of publishing troop ship departure is a very specific threat of a very specific intention. In a time of war the government goes not shut down all newspaper and information, and though they put in place rules/censoring-they do not go throwing someone in jail simply for having knowledge of an event and the ability to share it with the public. Not with out some sort of evidence that a violation is imminent.

If someone said “I’m going to take my gun and go shoot so and so” then yes, that would allow government intervention before the action takes place.

TSgt B: I don’t mind if you disagree, even in a crazy way, but I can’t let you just make things up. Also, (just sayin’), that ugly anti-Obama rant and all those capital letters don’t make you more persuasive.

You say :
“In point of fact, the anti-gun Marxists like you in our midst are proposing this very thing: to send Nazi style jackbooted thugs to innocent American gun-owners doors, kick them in and confiscate their firearms, when they are bothering no one. Clearly, your hue and cry is “we will make you disarm and become non-violent if we have to kill you to do it!”

Now Sarge, you just made that up!

Godwin’s Law says that any internet conversation will eventually result in someone bringing up Nazis. That would be your prize today. (A tip of the hat to Paul Mulshine who quoted Godwin’s law in his column today in the Star Ledger.)

I believe that the Second Amendment, as stated by Justice Scalia, in the 2008 Heller decision of the Supreme Court case, protects the right to bear arms including handguns, rifles and shotguns, for self-protection by citizens. Like other constitutional rights it is not an unqualified right, and reasonable regulations to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill are not unconstitutional.

I think we need to have background checks to detect people with mental illness and criminal records before they can buy guns. Last night I saw the president of the NRA agree with me on CNN.

I also think we should track all sales to make sure private sales and guns show sales abide by the existing federal standard for federally licensed gun dealers.

My parents, may they rest in piece, are both buried at Arlington National Cemetery. You don’t speak for them.

Wakeup:: Some progress, but you again spouted more dangerous, vague, incendiary language:

“The 2nd Amendment was intended for self-defense against a tyrannical government. However, if or when the political process and judicial system has failed, having the teeth guaranteed within the 2nd Amendment will give the American people a final course of redress”.

Nothing like tyranny exists in the United States of America. We do have too many scary sore losers, though.

You still don’t explain what you consider poltical and judicial failure, and it starts to sound like failure is when you can’t win an argument in the Court of public opinion? Is that how upset you are that drugs are illegal (the example of prohibition you selected)?. Who would speak for the “American People” in that situation? Who decides when the “politcal process and judicial system have failed”? You? Gun owners? That sounds more dangerous than gun control.

You concede some weapons are and should be out of bounds ( I guess they are for some reason not necessary to protect against tyranny) because they can be used “indiscriminately”. So, why not abolish private gun sales, register guns so sales can be tracked, and require a background check and doctor’s note from purchasers so we don’t sell weapons to the mentally ill or convicted felons.

P.S. Prior restraints do exist in First Amendment law such as would could be imposed in wartime if someone was planning to publish troop ship departure times, or plans for a nuclear weapon. They are fortunately extremely rare cases, because the Courts have been vigilant and have recognized that gun owners are not the only people who care about liberty.

I get so tired of people like Paul who write articles about subjects they know absolutely nothing about. As has been pointed out, there is no such thing as cop killer ammunition. Paul doesn’t know what a bullet is or what a clip is? How can anyone take him seriously when he can’t even be bothered to learn the basics?

Paul, you really need to be reminded of three things:

It’s called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs.

“[W]henever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it[.]” – Declaration of Independence

“With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such [militia] forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” – UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) 307 U.S. 174

AR-15’s won’t be “needed” unless and until it becomes necessary for the people to exercise the First Principle right enumerated in the DoI. However, since the 2nd Amendment was written specifically to provide for that eventuality, it is all the “need” we need.

Paul M. Bangiola: No one is advocating for armed revolution. Funny how you try and paint anyone who takes a stand for the 2nd Amendment as being for armed revolution, the violent overthrow of our government.
The 2nd Amendment was intended for self-defense against a tyrannical government. However, if or when the political process and judicial system has failed, having the teeth guaranteed within the 2nd Amendment will give the American people a final course of redress.
The point is to use the political and judicial system to keep things from going down that dark path.

As for the 1st Amendment restrictions, there are laws against libel, or shouting “fire” in a crowded theater. However, these laws all punish someone AFTER they have violated the laws-not fined someone or thrown someone in jail simply b/c they have the ABILITY to break those laws.
Should we require a license or duct tape placed over anyone who attends a movie b/c they CAN shout fire?

As I had previously stated, a good rule of thumb is, if the citizens of our police force have the ability to use a type of firearm or other device, so too should the law abiding citizen.

When Brady’s own studies say 80% of criminals get their firearms from street sources or friends and family, what good is a background check again? Or that closing the gun show “loop hole” will only potentially affect 0.7% of criminals that obtain their firearms this way?

And none of the proposals that have been put forward would have any effect at stopping another school massacre. Norway has far stricter gun laws than the U.S. or even Britain or France. Yet a gun man massacred 80+ in Norway. Britain has seen mass shootings despite essentially outlawing all firearms.
How’s that gun control working out in Mexico or Russia?

Better yet, how’s our War on Drugs going? Darn near impossible to get some weed , a bump of coke or a bag of heroine. Thank God we have those laws outlawing such things!

“How many innocent people have to be slaughtered by a crazed lone gunmen with an assault weapon and a huge clip before you will give up your paranoia about a nightmare government of the future?”

As soon as the nightmare governments of the past don’t exist (which is why you want us to forget them and keep telling us that “this could never happen here”). In the 20th century alone, between 160 – 200 million innocent people were murdered by “their” governments, vastly more than have ever been killed by madmen like Lanza. In every case, it was proceeded with your nonsense that “you don’t need military rifles.” If they could speak from their graves, every one of them would disagree with you. These killings continue unabated today in your “gun-control paradises” like China (and they also have massacres just like Lanza carried out – even with strict control of military arms).

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” ~ George Santayana

“Are you asking us to plan for violent revolution?”

No . . . you are.

In point of fact, the anti-gun Marxists like you in our midst are proposing this very thing: to send Nazi style jackbooted thugs to innocent American gun-owners doors, kick them in and confiscate their firearms, when they are bothering no one. Clearly, your hue and cry is “we will make you disarm and become non-violent if we have to kill you to do it!”

“Does anybody else agree with you?”

At last count, at least 1.2 million purchasers of AR-15 rifles in the last year alone (this number is growing rapidly daily), plus the over 200 million of these rifles that were previously purchased by Americans. These and the 160 – 200 million that were murdered by government I mentioned above – except “useful idiots” like you coerced governments into killing them so they can’t speak anymore.

“By the way, Justice Scalia wrote for a 6-3 majority in the Heller case and clearly distinguished self and home defense from other modest regulations designed to stop maniacs from rampaging in kindergarten classrooms.”

“United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.” ~ Held – DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER 478 F. 3d 370

Last I checked, AR-15 rifles were in common use for lawful purposes. Ergo, you are either a liar, or you are trying to deceive people into believing Heller says something it does not.

Wakeup: ” ”Treason is a crime in this constitutional republic of ours…’ That is absolutely correct. However, there is still large proportion of this population who believe in the limited government espoused in the Constitution, and the rights that are enshrined within in. Many view the actions of the politicians and bureaucrats in Washington as a violation of the oath they took to defend and uphold the Constitution.”

PMB Wakeup: Do you say the pledge of allegiance? Do you believe in our Republic? Which of this “large proportion of this population who believes in the ‘limited government’ ” would now say they have a present, legitimate right to participate in a violent revolution, as opposed to say organizing politically ?

What grievance, at present, justifies this crazy talk about the need for armed revolution? Obamacare? The debt ceiling? Abolition of slavery? There are remedies available to address grievances, short of treason, I think, like voting and organizing. If your side loses you try to figure out why and work to organize for next time. These remedies work best, though, when most people agree with you.

Tim: “Your permit to use the 1 amendment looks just like the one I use for the second”.

PMB: Well Tim, the First Amendment is not unlimited and neither is the Second. The First Amendment does not protect obscenity, libel, the right to publish ship departures during wartime, nor does it protect us, since 9-11, from the government opening our mail under the authority of the Patriot Act without a search warrant.
Do you draw a similar line anywhere with the Second Amendment, like: background checks and then no guns for felons or the mentally ill, no antiaircraft missiles or fighter jets?

“How many innocent people have to be slaughtered…………”

Very good question, counselor. Suppose YOU tell us, in your infinite wisdom.

How many INNOCENT people have to be slaughtered because of “GUN CONTROL”, which only disarms the LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN?

How many INNOCENT people, including children, have to be slaughtered be cause of fictional/fantasy “GUN FREE ZONES”, where everyone (the law-abiding) is “gun free” EXCEPT THE HOMICIDAL MANIAC, who apparently NEVER gets the memo?

How many INNOCENT people have to be slaughtered because the “mainstream media” REFUSED TO PROPERLY VET OBAMA, instead choosing to promote him as the Second Coming instead of exposing his far left, radical, Marxist beliefs, and his life-long association with radicals and terrorists?

How many INNOCENT people have to be slaughtered because ignorami such as yourself FAIL TO RECOGNIZE THAT AFTER DECADES OF “GUN CONTROL”, AND ITS’ ABYSMAL FAILURES AS A CRIME REDUCING OPTION, continue to push for more of the same. Einstein called it “insanity”. Feinstein calls is imperative. I call it “BS”.

a.) IT’S NOT AN “ASSAULT RIFLE”

b.) IT’S A “MAGAZINE”, NOT A “CLIP”

c.) They are not “ARMOR PIERCING COP-KILLER BULLETS”, as no such thing exists.

And, as a former cop, ANY BULLET AIMED AT A COP IS A POTENTIALLY LETHAL PROJECTILE, but the KILLER is the one pulling the trigger.

If I were your parents, I’d be demanding a refund from whatever law school you may have attended.

And then I say: “Whoa, partner! It’s okay to be against the Government unless it’s your government.”

Then I ask, “What if your own government wants to kill you?”

150,000,000 people murdered by their own governments in the last century alone. All were disarmed by their governments before the genocide began.

A government cannot commit genocide when the citizenry is armed. Armed citizens go to war when the governme. They are not loaded into cattle cars and herded into gas chambers.

RL Emery- Is that the best you can do?

David T:

Private cannons? Really? Should you be able to purchase SAM antiaircraft missiles? How come firecrackers and switch blades are illegal?

So you think having a standing army is unconstitutional? I think the Constitution grants the power and requires Congress to provide for the common defense and makes the President the Commander in Chief. You may want to check that out. Which of us has problem with the Constitution? By the way, Justice Scalia wrote for a 6-3 majority in the Heller case and clearly distinguished self and home defense from other modest regulations designed to stop maniacs from rampaging in kindergarten classrooms.

How may innocent people have to be slaughtered by a crazed lone gunmen with an assault weapon and a huge clip before you will give up your paranoia about a nightmare government of the future, and recognize that the price we are paying in lives right here and now is too high? Are you asking us to plan for violent revolution? Why? What is your grievance? Does anybody else agree with you? (It is always good to check).
PMB

You may surrender your rights if you wish, I will not. Your permit to use the 1 amendment looks just like the one I use for the second. My permit may be viewed at the National Archives Building in Washington, DC.

“tell me again about why you need a Bushmaster assault rifle with a 30-bullet clip filled with armor- piercing cop-killer bullets?”

1) What does my “need” have to do with it? Why does anyone “need” a sports car that tops 180+mph when the speed limits rarely pass 70? Why does anyone “need” 192 satellite channels?

2) a 30 round magazine is the STANDARD capacity of an AR (AR does not stand for ‘assault rifle’ by the way). A police officer pumped 25 rounds of 30 cal (a larger, more powerful round than .223) into an assailant, yet the assault did not stop till the officer put a 45 caliber round between the assailants ears. Then there are instances with multiple assailants….if more than ONE criminal breaks into your home at a time….or if you happen to be in Korea town, and the LAPD won’t show up to protect you b/c of the King Riots.

3) The way the lefties refer to “armor piercing” bullets means just about every rifle round is an armor piercing cop killer bullet-as they will all defeat standard issue kevlar vests. REAL armor piercing bullets have to penetrate 1/2″ steel, not kevlar.

If the police, with all their years of wisdom and experience out on the street have decided that the standard capacity, 30 round AR rifle is the best means of defending themselves and the community, then that is the best means for defending myself and my loved ones.

Finally, no one is saying the 2nd Amendment should allow things like nuclear weapons or rocket launchers. Those type of weapons are indiscriminate in their targets-the innocent have just as much right to life, liberty and property as anyone else.
But the AR-15 is EXACTLY the type of weapon our Founders had in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment.

” “Whoa, partner! It’s okay to be against the Government unless it’s your government. Treason is a crime in this constitutional republic of ours…” That is absolutely correct. However, there is still large proportion of this population who believe in the limited government espoused in the Constitution, and the rights that are enshrined within in. Many view the actions of the politicians and bureaucrats in Washington as a violation of the oath they took to defend and uphold the Constitution.

If we ended the government enforced victim disarmament zones-er…”gun free zones”-the potential victims (us regular old people) would have a means of protecting ourselves from the guy “who is listening to voices and maybe even the guy who just can’ t quite get his mind around losing, or being powerless, rejected, or the recipient of one of fate’s thousand slings and arrows.”

Instead of having to be slaughtered for 20 minutes till the “government” can finally arrive to end the massacre. Often enough, as the gunman is confronted by someone else with a gun (be it officer or private citizen), they end up surrendering or taking their own life.

The author of this article really should study the history of the Constitution and the writings of the men that wrote it. By doing so he would find that defense against a government gone bad, either ours or a foreign country, is the only reason for the Second amendment. He would also find that the founders intended the citizens to be armed with the same weapons as a military force, since they feared a standing army more than almost any other thing the government could create. In fact they feared a standing military so much that military expenditures in the national budget were restricted to a 2 year limit, to prevent a standing military from being formed. He would also discover that most of the weapons used in the Revolutionary war, including most of the cannons, were privately owned and not supplied by the government. I really wish that people would learn to do some research before they post fallacies like this, then perhaps people would learn something of history (those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it).

Another Marxist wannabe, how pathetic!